A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network - <AUTHOR> http://brianhama.com/a-vc-funded-startup-called-whoshere-is-trying <comment><USER3> General advice for legal questions: it's fine to ask these sorts of questions, but please, for the love of god, don't listen to anyone who isn't a lawyer or who hasn't gone through something very similar to what you're going through. And, even in those cases, take their advice with a HUGE grain of salt. (If you disagree, please see below, where OP is variously advised to (1) commit unlicensed practice of law [serious repercussions], (2) commit fraud, (3) waste money, and (4) likely destroy his own case.)

As a lawyer (who doesn't have _anywhere near_ enough facts to give you anything close to competent advice), my advice is to find a lawyer to represent you. If you can't afford one, try the EFF or similar organizations. If they won't take you, find a legal clinic nearby. If you're in the bay area, you have have two of the best lawschools in the country within bicycling distance of you (UC Hastings isn't half bad either...). They have legal clinics, generally led by highly respected and knowledgeable faculty that are happy to have cases like this.

Unless you really don't want to fight this, go get a lawyer who knows what he's doing. If you don't want to spend a lot of energy, possibly a lot of time, and likely some money, just roll over now. But, don't half-ass it and try to do this yourself. By blowing at least two deadlines, you've already shown you're not up for it.

<comment><USER4> I agree that it is smart to say "get a lawyer" in this situation. It does seem very hairy.

But now something off topic...

I noticed that these kind of answers ("get a lawyer") are used also to answer question even when people are just curious or they just want to learn something. It is nearly impossible to learn what needs to be read or investigated in order to evaluate the situation.

For example, I don't need a lawyer for small claims court but where to get some advise?

In other words, even the most common sense questions regarding law, health, taxes, etc are answered with "get a lawyer, see a doctor, get tax advisor, get accountant, etc".

It does seems that market of legal, health, tax, and similar professionals is due to a disruption.

Is there a cheap lawyer service? Something like not visiting doctor but just visiting nurse.

<comment><USER5> The issue with law is that laws are dissimilar from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in meaningful enough ways that giving advice based on the laws for one jurisdiction might be entirely useless in another. Moreover, even I were to live in that jurisdiction, unless I am intimately familiar with the aspect of law questioned about (which is highly unlikely, even extremely experienced attorneys do legal research), I will have to spend time researching. If I spend time researching, I expect to be paid, generally because the tools used to research are not, themselves, free, like Westlaw or LexisNexis. Moreover, I generally get paid to research to begin with so, in not doing paid research for other clients, I am potentially losing money I might otherwise be making.

Not to say that lawyers can never give good legal advice to legal questions without researching--but the paradigm that I just described is a big reason why people, including lawyers, answer legal questions with "hire a lawyer."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Somewhat unrelated, but I ask the legal experts here.

If someone sues you for some bogus claim, is it possible to submit a written plain english rebuttal and have the court throw it out before it gets too serious? I mean if I sue some company for something absurd and demand $10 million dollars, are they forced to actually entertain my lawsuit or can it be dismissed readily without a lawyer?

<comment><USER7> The short answer is this: It's possible, but hard to pull off.

First, you would have to do some basic research on court filing procedures. It's not rocket science, but you can't just pop an envelope in the mail addressed to the judge.

Once you figure out how to file documents for the case, you need to determine what type of documents to file. E.g. a motion to dismiss might be appropriate if you think the claim is utterly bogus.

It can be "plain English," as Smattiso suggested, and indeed, judges always appreciate clarity. Legalese isn't required, but valid legal reasoning is. Contrary to popular belief, "legal reasoning" doesn't have to be arcane. It's pretty much just a matter of using everyday logic to apply legal principles to the facts of the case.

It's a lot like learning to program. There's no magic involved. It's just a matter of reading the relevant documentation, looking at examples, and using your innate reasoning abilities to put something together in accordance with the rules. And yet, as with programming, reasoning and writing about the law take practice to do _well._ You can hack together a simple CRUD app with zero programming experience and a lot of motivation. But you wouldn't want to bet your entire net worth on it. Likewise for legal writing. You can spend a few evenings of hard work learning the anatomy of a motion to dismiss and the basics of trademark law, and then you can write your motion. But I wouldn't do it if my personal finances were on the line.

In a situation such as the OP describes, there is an additional challenge. According to the OP, the plaintiff is using and perhaps abusing quirks of court procedure to his advantage. (I'm referring to the bit about default judgement and the alleged absence of certain documents.) That, too, could in principal be dealt with by a non-lawyer, but it would be quite difficult. You'd have to learn a great deal about the finer points of court procedure. This is especially difficult because it's not uniform across jurisdictions.

EDIT: You would also need to determine whether this would constitute unlicensed practice of law in your jurisdiction. Generally, you're allowed to represent yourself in court ("pro se.") But the rules about representing your _business_ are a little more complicated. Sometimes it's OK, sometimes it's not.

So, yes, you can sometimes write something up and get a case dismissed without hiring a lawyer, provided you're willing to learn a great deal very quickly. But you'd be taking a tremendous risk. Probably not a good idea.

Just to be clear: I'm not at all recommending that the OP do this. I'm just answering the question posed in the parent comment. The OP really does need a lawyer, especially considering the plaintiff has allegedly shown a willingness to play procedural games.

<comment><USER8> This is the kind of information that I would be most interested in. I understand that the legal system is very complex (like a programming language with funky syntax), but there IS a process and there ARE standard ways to go about doing things, even if there are particularities for different locations. I suppose this is the kind of thing you learn in law school or from experience in a courtroom, but there is no reason that it can't be taught outside of those environments.

Is there a repository for learning the basics (and maybe more advanced) legal processes? What forms to send to whom, and when, and what to be sure to do, and what to never do?

It's learn-able if there is a resource that teaches it. An online Khan Academy-like resource. Or even maybe an educational game. The only lawyer sim I've seen is Phoenix Wright.

Sure, I'd still prefer an experienced lawyer to do the driving if something comes up, but I'd feel more confident with some solid legal knowledge of my own.

<comment><USER7> Ok, so here goes. This is by no means a suggestion that anyone become an amateur lawyer, practice law without a license, handle a particular case pro se, or do any other such thing. This is just useful info for anyone who might want to learn some law. (Nothing wrong with learning as much about the world as you can.)

I'm not aware of any single repository of such information other than law school. But if you're willing to consult multiple sources, you can definitely find the information.

For starters, one can always get a copy of the reading lists for various law school classes. You could also look at commercially prepared law school study guides. Pretty much everything you would learn in law school is available in book form, in one place or another. Obviously, law professors and lecturers contribute a great deal of value added in the form of their own experience and idiosyncratic knowledge. But the core material is all written down in various places.

Those types of materials will teach you the basics of American law. The next step is to research the statutes and case law in your jurisdiction. That means federal, state, county, and municipal laws. The statutes can be found by Googling, for example, "Illinois Statutes," or "Chicago Municipal Code." As for case law, assuming you don't have a subscription to a legal database, you can use some Google-fu to find articles that address whatever legal question you're researching. You can also buy a "treatise" on the field of law you're researching; they're packed full of case citations.

As for court procedure--well, first, let me just say that you probably don't want to litigate your own cases unless you're in small claims court. And even then, having a lawyer really, really helps. But if for some reason you want to learn procedure, that'a a bit harder. There are books specific to individual jurisdictions. Also, courts often publish their own procedural rules. All of this can be found through Google.

Again, this won't make you a lawyer, and it won't eliminate the need for one. But I'm a firm believer that anyone can benefit concretely from a solid understanding of the law. There's no better combination than a smart lawyer and a smart client.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> WhosHere's response: [https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other- side...](https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other-side-of-the- story)

</comment><comment><USER10> Sounds like he made the biggest mistake by caving the first time around. If he'd stood his ground at first, maybe pointed out if there was any potential for confusion (a key point in trademark law), it was the other way around, as he was the one with an established user base and a 10-year history.

<comment><USER11> He says he made the app 2 years ago, where as WhosHere is from 2008. If it is in fact a trademark issue, sounds to me like they beat him to the name.

<comment><USER12> This is what bothered me about the whole post. He never once said how old the other company is. A critical (purposeful?) omission.

<comment><USER13> He also didn't mention that he tried to sell his app to them 2 years ago. Or that they made him an extremely generous offer this year.

<comment><USER14> I never tried to sell them the application. I offered to build a Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7 application for free. Also, their offer doesn't seem very generous when you consider the extreme likelihood that if they obtained my application, it would never be integrated with their network. Since their offer was a 33% revenue share of that application's revenue, I would never see a dime. Building this was never really only about money anyways. WhosHere has no concept of community within their app. I didn't set out to build an app or a company, I wanted to build a community.

<comment><USER13> Brian, the only damage control you should be doing now is apologizing profusely to everyone for trying to manipulate _this_ community. You spun a very sad story and left out incredibly crucial facts that did not serve you. That is simply unacceptable. This is clearly the act of a very immature person who is not ready for the world of business.

Your post is now clearly shameful; the fact that you went even further and began accepting donation money only escalates that shamefulness. Did you really think that the details you left out wouldn't come to light?

You've handled this very poorly. Apologize to the community, apologize to WhosHere before you get smacked with a defamation suit, and hire a damned lawyer to deal with your _legitimate_ trademark and breach of contract lawsuit in a court of law instead of wasting time dancing around in the court of public opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I agree that this is certainly in bad practice, but before everyone goes all crazy hitting the donation pool, are you or aren't you "wealthy"

From a PDF they have posted regarding emails from you ([https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other- side...](https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other-side-of-the- story)):

"" I was born wealthy; I have an obscene trust fund. I assure you that if required, I will obtain the best legal representation for corporate litigation in the Silicon Valley. After your last proposal, I will resist this legal action well beyond what makes any financial sense, simply out of principal. ""

<comment><USER14> It was a failed attempt at a bluff. I regret sending that email. I posted on my blog in response if you want to hear the full details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> He mentions Lightbank is the vc, is it fair to judge them for this behavior? As an entrepreneur it does really put me off.

<comment><USER17> I stopped reading when I came across Lightbank. I've spent time in Chicago, got to know a few of those guys and companies they've funded, and have since stayed as far away as possible. Anyone in the area should do the same.

Curious? Look into their deal structures.

<comment><USER18> can you elaborate a bit?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The adage "An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client" has some relevance, but in the information society self represeration can have major advantages. The best way to be a Pro Se is to hire outside counsel to advise you, but to do all the dirty litigation work yourself. If this company has hired an outside attorney to litigate, this person could make that a very, very expensive proposition for them. I think this company's board would grow very concerned at legal expenses exceeding $100k with no hope of recovering from the defendant. My advise is hire counsel to advise you, educate yourself of self representation and court procedures, and rake these fuckers over the coals.

<comment><USER20> > My advise is hire counsel to advise you, educate yourself of self > representation and court procedures, and rake these fuckers over the coals.

This is terrible advice. Unless you're a duly licensed attorney in OP's jurisdiction, don't offer legal advice. You're practicing law without a license, which is a crime. Moreover, were OP to rely on that advice to his detriment, you may find yourself named as a defendant in a civil suit.

<comment><USER21> Can you find some documents under which circumstances this is a crime? I find that you should not do that _for money_ or _in court_ on wikipedia, but I somehow fail to find that "giving advice" or even "drafting legal documents" can be a crime.

<comment><USER20> <https://www.google.com/search?q=unauthorized+practice+of+law>

"[A]s the term is generally understood, the practice of the law is the doing and performing services in a court of justice in any matter depending therein through its various stages and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure. _But in a larger sense it includes legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured although such matter may or may not be depending in a court of law._ " (People v. Merchants Protective Corp. (1922) 189 Cal. 31, 535, quoting Eley v. Miller (1893) 7 Ind. App. 529 [emphasis added]).

<comment><USER22> And none of that mentions "posting offhand comments on a random Internet forum."

Here's some unauthorized legal advice for ya: Posting your opinion on random legal matters on HN has about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

probability of every resulting in any legal backlash for the commenter. And in a country which is supposed to cherish free speech as a principle, we should absolutely all feel good about giving our opinions, and if the courts have a problem with that, telling the courts to go fuck themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Ugh, this is crushing.

Here's to hoping that someone like Grellas can find time to comment and tell you how to beat these guys.

If that result isn't possible, than I ask you to keep your head up, move on, and keep building.

Do your part to (soberly and safely) reduce the reputation of the founders and VC's behind this.

<comment><USER23> In spite of only having one side of the story I'm going to decide to choose my ground and ask this:

What if we started a Kickstarter campaign to fund the legal fees to counter- sue this company? The precedence set in a success would be profitable to the builders of the startup community. And I'd sleep better at night.

<comment><USER24> You want to completely buy in to one side's story without any context or response from the other side, then start a Kickstarter to fund a legal assault upon that company? Really?

Not only are you surprisingly easily manipulated, apparently, don't you have better things to hack on?

<comment><USER25> FYI, personal attacks (a.k.a. ad-hominem arguments) are discouraged here. Here are the guidelines, for your convenience. <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

Your objections could be worded in a way that is not a personal attack and could be just as informative, or more so.

<comment><USER24> FYI, what I wrote is not an ad hominem argument, and "ad-hominem argument" is not an a.k.a. for "personal attack" (neither of which my comment is, for what it's worth).

<comment><USER25> Thanks for the clarification on "ad hominem" versus personal attacks. Now I understand that it's only ad hominem if the basis of the argument relies on the personal attack.

All that aside, your comment above, reproduced here, is clearly a personal attack:

> Not only are you surprisingly easily manipulated, apparently, don't you have > better things to hack on?

<comment><USER26> Is it "clearly" a personal attack even though there is a question mark there?

<comment><USER27> Yes. Try the following: "You are a moron who has no idea what they are talking about?", or an actual question "Are you a moron who has no idea what they are talking about?"

Both lower the tone. Both cause unnecessary battles and derail discussions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I am not a lawyer - so don't take this as legal advice. But if I read your post correctly, you said you were never properly served. Since it sounds like you have access to all the court documents, if you search through them some where in the documents you will probably find a place where the plaintiffs swear under penalty of perjury, that you were served with notice. If you were truly never served (make sure to check with a lawyer to see what constitutes service) and they claimed you were - you may have grounds for a counter suit. Check into Small Claims Court as well - you can sue for up to $10,000 and abuse of process is a valid claim there. Forms are available online, your opponent can't bring a lawyer and there is only one appeal allowed.

But if you do nothing and if they choose to press this, they will go to court to ask the judge to put liens on any assets they can and to garnish your wages.

In any event contact a lawyer to see if I am correct about this.

</comment><comment><USER29> Put up something to accept donations, I'd be happy to kick back a few bucks to the cause.

<comment><USER30> I know the developer and I just let him know that he is getting attention here ... and to get a donation link up ASAP ... He is a good guy and this has been an awful experience for him ... I've told him to get an account and start posting to this thread, so hopefully he'll be here soon ...

<comment><USER31> Merely a 'Donate' button is not enough. It should show how much has been donated so far (it gives people more motivation to donate, if they see that this 'donate' thing actually works and for example, $1900 has been raised so far).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Wow ... this is shocking! Can someone explain how this is even remotely trademark infringement?

I'd also suggest you dig up research papers in conferences such as UbiComp and Pervasive. The "who is near me" app has been around for years. Also, check out papers on the cooltown project. I'm not totally sure what a defense to a trademark infringement claim would be. Perhaps if a researcher used the same name in a paper, that might help?

<comment><USER33> My sense is that it is _only_ "remotely" infringement.

Frankly, I think they like his name better than theirs and are trying to steal _that_. It's indeed a better name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Work the PR front, in addition to all the legal work you need.

Ideas:

-Start tweeting about it & create a hashtag #WhosHereThieves

-Get in touch with the TechCrunch author who wrote about about your app. This story is a big deal

-Reddit post

-Accept donations page

-The VC probably doesn't know anything about this, but they might respond if included in all the negative PR

<comment><USER31> > _-Start tweeting about it & create a hashtag #WhosHereThieves_

IANAL, but I think it's a very bad idea. I don't have the faintest idea if it's considered defamation in the court, but I suspect it _might_ be, and thus should be avoided.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Contact EFF.org and see if they have any pointers. Also, check with the Cyberlaw Clinics organized by the Berkman Center - they might be able to help: <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/teaching/cyberlawclinic>

<comment><USER36> Yeah I was gonna recommend contacting <https://www.eff.org> too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Who's Near Me's side of the story: [https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other- side...](https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other-side-of-the- story)

It appears this isn't such a clear cut story...

</comment><comment><USER38> Fuck those pricks - what do they want from you? You don't infringe anything - that names are not that similiar.

Find a lawyer who will defend you for a part of the money if you win.

Turn it around. They obviously are acting to drag your service (company?) down.

</comment><comment><USER39> I would like to see someone create an plugin that would give a warning if you went to a site that had used obnoxious legal bullying to harras small sites. I realize policing who gets shown on such a list would be a big job.

I would love to have someone reliable do this and then I could chose to just not deal with such sites (or decided well yeah I don't like using lawyers to bullying but I am willing to sell out my principle because this site is so cool I can't live without it).

The way to counter the strategy of paying lawyers lots of money to bully your small competitors is to setup a method that forces those companies to suffer the consequences for their decision. I would be happy to help that process, but I can't keep track of who is doing the bullying.

This type of providing better information so I (and others) can make informed decisions not to use sites with practices I find obnoxious is something I would really love to see. Both for this type of obnoxious behavior but really a platform could support all sorts of notices on whatever people object to (probably using lists from whatever they care about World Wildlife Fund, NRA, EFF or whoever).

I don't think the legal system is going to be reasonable. We need a solution that allows the market to enforce an acceptable code of conduct with consequences for being obnoxious (even if the legal system thinks it is fine).

</comment><comment><USER40> I'd kick in a couple of dollars for your legal fees if you get a donation page up

<comment><USER41> Me too. Seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> How long has WhosHere been around for? (Okay, I read an update, 5 years and trademark since 2 years - still, irrelevant) Seriously, this news sickens me, your app name is a common phrase, a big f you to WhosHere from me to be honest :)

They can't trademark "Who's", surely.. I hope this makes big news, you deserve to win this, which is really obvious in my eyes. Good luck!!!

</comment><comment><USER43> To what extent did they 'agree' to the change of name a year ago? You say you 'agreed' to do it. But did they agree to the new name? Eg did you inform them about your name or reach any sense of resolution.

Unless they could somehow prove you have wilfully be continuing to violate their trademark I don't see how any damages are valid. I would certainly not give in to their threats.

What about the origins/timeline of the name and the trademarks. Who was using it first? What exactly is their trademark?

Subject to answers above, and given that this is a side project to you - <USER2> would suggest you simply write back stating you don't feel you are violating their trademarks, but would consider a rebrand in your mutual interests to avoid any potential for customer confusion provided they contributed to the cost of paying an advertising agency to create a new logo and other menu costs and estimate their share of those costs as $5,100 (eg they pay you what they are asking from you)

</comment><comment><USER44> Wikipedia says that WhosHere was founded in 2008 and launched their app in 2009: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhosHere>

If that's the case and their app predates Who's Near Me, I have to say that the OP is probably going to lose this. The names and apps certainly do seem confusingly similar.

<comment><USER45> The trademark wasn't filled until February 2010. [http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:5a...](http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:5ar557.2.1)

<comment><USER43> I am not a lawyer but have been involved in various trademark registrations and disputes.

The trademark is for the concatenation 'whoshere'. Given that both are common words obvious to the topic I would have thought the interpretation would be very narrow and 'who's near me' is suitably different. I certainly don't think you should give in to their somewhat extortionate demands.

<comment><USER44> Even given a very narrow interpretation, "here" and "near me" are basically synonyms. And as I understand it the apps are very equivalent too, they're selling the same product under a near-identical name.

"Red" and "Hat" are common words too, but you'd never get away with trying to sell a linux distro named "Red Cap".

<comment><USER46> You'd never get away with trying to sell a linux distro, anyway :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> When I was threatened with libel by Sybase, I jumped on the phone with the general counsels from Oracle and Computer Associates, and based on their "I'm not acting as your lawyer" general comments, handling things myself. The big difference is that "Handling things myself" amounted to sending back a couple of letters, not dealing with legal paperwork.

I'd say that advice across the internet on whether to engage a lawyer, how to engage a lawyer, or what your negotiating strategy might be is fair game, and could be just as good or bad as any other internet advice. Talking about your case in public, for the other side to see, could be disadvantageous, but that's a reasonable risk to take.

For actual legal procedures -- yeah, you absolutely need a lawyer. But the best organized and most affordable one may not give the best strategic advice.

</comment><comment><USER48> Sounds like some dirty business. Hope someone helps.

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm clueles, but what if you hired a lawyer for equity, then raise some money and utterly crushed them? Obviously there's a valuable market and you are good at what you do. So, is it unrealistic to think that's possible?

</comment><comment><USER50> So obviously the guy needs legal advice, and ASAP.

We obviously also only know part of the story, and from his perspective. Still, something here smells really, really bad.

As a media professional, my advice is to take this to the public if you can. That means Tech Crunch, AllThingsD, CNET, the Next Web, etc.

(I'll also include my own employer, Mashable, where I'm the entertainment editor but often end up being the defacto point person for stuff that's developer-centric)

Not knowing the facts around the situation, I'm inclined to say focus on getting public attention as early as possible, especially if you're worried about being able to get a response submitted to the court by the deadline.

On that note, I would ask your lawyer friends what would be involved in requesting an extension, because if you want to fight this, you will need more time.

Finally, even though this is a labor of love and not one of profit, after you get through the eye of the storm, it might be time to shit or get off the pot regarding the service. After all, if you're looking at wanting to invest a lot into the legal defense of this project, it might be time to start looking at how you can transition it from a hobby side-project into more of a real business.

If you aren't interested in making that transition, you need to evaluate the costs -- not just in terms of money, but in terms of time and effort -- in this particular hobby.

</comment><comment><USER51> Am I the only one that reads an article like this and has the following thought process? "Man I can't believe those guys!" "Wait you agreed to what?" "I hope you documented that right?" "I'm guessing he didn't document that" "He still hasn't fully engaged a lawyer?!" "Man those guys suck but for the love of Mary why didn't he just get in front of this with a good lawyer."

\- Who needs a lawyer when you can marshall the Internet Pitch Forkers!!!!!

<comment><USER14> My thinking was that lawyers cost money, so why not try and resolve it myself. But, as a result of all of this I have learned that not having a lawyer costs more money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'd put some dollars to bomb these crooks back into obscurity they deserve.

<comment><USER13> Jesus, the Internet Hate Machine is brutal. You haven't heard the other side of the story and you already want to BOMB them?

The guy you're willing to BOMB other people for said to them, and I quote, "I was born wealthy; I have an obscene trust fund. I assure you that if required, I will obtain the best legal representation for corporate litigation in the Silicon Valley. After your last proposal, I will resist this legal action well beyond what makes any financial sense, simply out of principal."

Are you really sure you want to BOMB people to support him?

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> It's a dog-eat-dog world out there and I guess the author had to find out the hard way. He'll have to consider that this might be a lost cause, but remember that you have the knowledge that they did this to you and can share it with everyone else, people will be less likely to buy the VC-funded app if this bit of information was out in the open :)

edit: clarity

</comment><comment><USER14> Thank you everyone for all your feedback and suggestions. The response has been really overwhelming, but I will try and respond to all of your comments. Also, in response to some of your requesting it, I have added a donation button to the bottom of the blog post. Thanks again for the really amazing response!

</comment><comment><USER54> The Other Side of the Story: "We are not patent trolls, we are entrepreneurs and developers, and here's what we're struggling with." [https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other- side...](https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other-side-of-the- story)

</comment><comment><USER55> Their VC firm is Lightbank is run by two sleazy people. They are the same people behind Groupon. Their founders are notorious for their sleazy tactics, which are solely aimed at scamming investors out of their money. Never work for a company or get investment from Lightbank.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am a lawyer, and I have, in my own startup, contended with a company attempting to sue me/my startup for allegedly infringing on their trademark.

I'm sympathetic to your cause, but playing with intellectual property issues is serious stuff and the reality of the situation is that better-funded players will not infrequently attempt to bully you into getting what they want, as appears to have occurred here. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but you should have consulted an attorney immediately on receiving a cease-and-desist letter, even if you thought that their claim was entirely frivolous (which, given the facts presented here, is hard to say). Had this occurred, you almost certainly would either not be in this situation, or saved yourself a ton of trouble.

Given that you did not and this situation has evolved to what it is, your only choice is to retain an attorney if you'd like to continue operate the app and not pay whatever damages they alleged. And, frankly, you're in a poor position because, since the court has already entered a default judgment against you, you will have to show cause as to why the court should set aside this judgment, which will require more time and effort than if you have initially opposed the lawsuit, even if what you say regarding a piece of the document missing is true.

If you do retain an attorney and fight this, realize that, if you lose, the opposing side might be able to recoup the entirety of their attorney's fees (which would be very expensive for you, particularly in the unlikely event you went to trial or the like, and it appears that they have already alleged this right now), and, possibly, your profits (depending on a number of factors). That's very serious stuff.

I wish I could give more direct advice, and I strongly agree with commenters here in other posts lamenting how elitist law is and so on, but you have absolutely no alternative but to retain an attorney. I don't know where you live and where this litigation is taking place, but there are tons of lawyer referral services out there (your local county bar will have such a service, you can find out on their website), and you can speak to various attorneys who might understand your financial situation and be able to work with whatever budget you have. Just because an attorney says that they charged $X does not mean that you can't find another, competent attorney, who might charge less. If I were in your position, and wanted to fight this, I would spend my time either finding/raising money, or talking to attorneys about how you can structure a fee schedule that would work with your finances (lawyers are open to negotiating: you can say "I can only pay you this or that" or "I can pay you this or that in the future"—see what they say and how flexible they will be). I am skeptical that someone would take your case pro bono.

As a general piece of advice based on personal experience to others: don't ignore intellectual property issues. Getting a trademark is not particularly expensive (and, unlike this situation, something that you can, actually, do without consulting an attorney, or at least for little $ should you need to consult an attorney) and can save you headaches in the future. If you receive a cease and desist-type letter, take it seriously, regardless of how frivolous you think their claim is. If whoever sent you the letter went to the trouble to have their lawyer draft a letter to you--which means that they probably paid the lawyer a non-insignificant fee to do that--they are certainly taking it seriously, and so should you. Even well-funded companies don't throw money away to, of all people, lawyers, unless they think they can get something they want from you, and/or they think they actually have a meritorious claim. Do not attempt to respond to the cease and desist letter, unless you have experience in how to do this. If you want to avoid paying an enormously onerous legal fee, you can try your hand at drafting a response—but absolutely get a lawyer to look at it prior to sending it. This may be more affordable than you think (~1-2 hour of work, or the like, for a lawyer). If you're worrying that you may be infringing someone else's trademark, or someone will try to sue you in the future (as apparently happened here), you can get a declaratory judgment (for a fee) from a court stating that you're not infringing-again, something to talk to a lawyer about.

<comment><USER56> Good post though I will say even without the power of hindsight consulting a lawyer should've been step one. There's enough big trademark cases to go around in the public eye to know that these things shouldn't be taken lightly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> If you're reading this - you need to ensure you read the response from WhosHere: [https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other- side...](https://whoshere.zendesk.com/entries/21514943-the-other-side-of-the- story)

</comment><comment><USER6> Also it appears that WhosHere launched in July 2008, so 2 years before your product appeared? Or is that incorrect? Regardless you should fight these dudes as I'm sure they would not relent to you in kind.

</comment><comment><USER58> Do a search on twitter for whoshere. What a P.R. nightmare.

If they cared about protecting a brand name they should have chosen something more original than 'Who's Here'.

</comment><comment><USER59> Since you do not have the funds to hire a lawyer, it maybe better to look for a settlement in your favour.

Even if you hire a lawyer, they will attempt to stall the case until you run out of funds.

It maybe hindsight now, but I would of created a corporation and move all your assets under it, (website, apps, etc).

Not sure if you can do that now before the default judgement on the lawsuit. I would still hire a lawyer to do that just in case.

<comment><USER14> All of the assets are under a corporation I started. Considering the type of application it is (location based mobile app for meeting strangers near you), I figured the number of possible liabilities definitely justified creating a layer of protection for myself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Somewhat OT: but is it standard practice for the app developer to review their own app on the App Store (sort of like how a dev would 'seed' their newly built social network/forum I guess..)? OP appears to have done so. Or is it possible to leave reviews under arbitrary names?

See <http://i.imgur.com/BPypw.png>

<comment><USER14> Ya, I wrote that review myself. I would think it is a pretty common thing individual developers of free applications do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> The opposition only has 1.25m in funding, of which only a fraction is probably reserved for legal purposes like this.

If you can get inexpensive representation, just call their bluff. This is not a big corporation you are dealing with. I'll put money on dropped case or some type of amicable settlement that doesn't cost you anything financially, which is your goal.

<comment><USER14> That is actually what I did. They weren't bluffing though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Since we aren't lawyers, is there a possibility that this guy is actually at fault of infringing upon this startups trademark?

<comment><USER62> He says his application is two years old, but Who's Here has been around since 2008. While I think they are being a bit harsh, it would seem that they have a case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Open a PayPal account for donations. We, the community, will help you out. Do not let this LightBank scare you.

</comment><comment><USER64> Not sure where you're situated but I met a founder of upcounsel.com last night which specialize in affordable outsourcing of startup legals. It seems timely that I just came across these guys, so may be worth a try?

</comment><comment><USER65> The other side of the story: [http://m.techcrunch.com/2012/06/02/the-other- side-of-the-sto...](http://m.techcrunch.com/2012/06/02/the-other-side-of-the- story-whoshere-vs-whos-near-me-live/)

</comment><comment><USER66> Looks like in USA you have to have at least LLC setup even if you doing something for fun only. In worst scenario give away or "give away" it to offshore company and "sue me" to these pricks.

</comment><comment><USER45> <http://www.wholivesnearyou.com/>

Ok so I am stretching this one but it seems to have been around since 2004.

</comment><comment><USER67> I hate to be negative about this, but it sounds like you've had a successful product for 2 years. Why are you still working on it if you're sacrificing time, sleep, and a social life to 'break even'? At some point (and I would think well before 400,000 users), why didn't you go out, seek $1.25m for yourself, and win your market over with a better quality product? I do think what is happening is wrong, but why are you so intent on fighting this if you've spent 2 years just to be breaking even, even with a half million users?

<comment><USER68> Not all projects are blockbuster profit projects, some people do things as a labor of love for the joy of doing them. Sometimes great things are made that way.

Seeking out $1.25M is not the sort of thing that has any draw for a lot of people, and that's OK.

<comment><USER14> Exactly. I entertained the idea of fundraising briefly, but realized that it didn't really give me any sort of satisfaction and wasn't something I was very good at. I like to write code, I like to build things, I like interacting with my users and turning their suggestions into reality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Have you, or anyone representing you company/app, ever approached WhosHere to 'merge' businesses as they claim in their rebuttal blog posting?

<comment><USER14> I initially contacted WhosHere and offered to build them a Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7 app for free. They ultimately declined, so I built my own entire network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> IANAL, advice: get one. Also: To reiterate everyone else -- we'll happily contribute to help pay your ass-kicking fees. :)

</comment><comment><USER71> Everyone should tweet about this and make sure to include their twitter handles: @WhosHere and @lightbank

</comment><comment><USER72> For what it's worth I've started a boycott of WhosHere: [http://www.boycottspot.com/view_boycott/23-WhosHere.com- and-...](http://www.boycottspot.com/view_boycott/23-WhosHere.com-and-all- their-apps)

And I shall tweet them letting em know.

</comment><comment><USER73> Monetize your social network enough to defend against threats like this. Otherwise, someone is going to steal your lunch.

</comment><comment><USER65> The other s

</comment><comment><USER74> WhosHere exist by about 5 years!

<comment><USER33> The word "who" and the implication of location is not enough to hang an infringement.

<comment><USER75> It also means the same thing, and almost rhymes. "Who's Here" and "Who's Near" probably _shouldn't_ both exist doing about the same thing - it _would_ cause confusion. With "Who's Near Me", I think it's no longer a worry (in terms of what the law _should_ be doing - I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to what it _is_ doing until we see what happens in court, if it gets there).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I never went to law school so there's no way I could be a lawyer, I'm just giving my thoughts on things I would do in this situation. This isn't legal advice.

I sympathize with your situation and I'm sure there are a couple lessons learned here- namely that they used negotiation with email to apparently cause you to forget that there was court case pending. But saying that doesn't help you.

I've been in the situation where lawyers told me I didn't have a case, and it sounds like this is what you're hearing too-- but I think you might be missing something- you may have a case, you just haven't found it yet. The lawyers are looking to hear something that gets them excited-- something that they can really use for their profit. Since you don't have a lot of cash, the bar is higher to get them interested.

At this point, you just haven't figured out what the case is. I suspect you probably have a good one, however, if you've been running your service since 2008 or before 2010, or based on the contract they entered into with you.

If you find a case, you'll likely find a lawyer eager to take your case on contingency because both of you can make out profitably. (though of course they will settle when they realize that you have a case, but that still can be profitable.) Until you find it, though, there's no obvious case on the face of it.

This means you need to do the legwork. Start going thru every communication you have with them and organize your documents as best you can. I would strongly suggest you get a timeline going. Dig up that old agreement where you changed the name-- did they agree that doing so would settle the matter? Even in writing in an email? If that's the case, then you may have them violating a legally binding contract by bringing this case.

Build this timeline going back to the beginning and gather evidence proving each step (Eg: your receipt for registering the domain name, etc.)

Find where they have done you wrong- failing to serve you correctly is one example. You need more.

Find the relevant laws-- the cybersquatting laws give you rights against "reverse cybersquatting" where someone tries to steal a legitimate domain name.

Go to the USPTO.gov website and research their trademark application. Do they actually have one? Does it actually cover the area of what you're doing? For instance, I found a registration number 3885293 for "WHOSHERE" which shows a first use in commerce claim of 2008. Does your service predate them? Can you find evidence of you using the name "Whose near me" or whatever, including registering that domain prior to that date in 2008? How about prior to the date they filed for the trademark in 2010? When looking at their trademark, find the "TARR STATUS" button, click that, then find the "Trademark Document Retrieval" link near the top of the page, go and select all the documents for their trademark and download them as a PDF. You may find that the trademark examiner has done footwork for you, limiting their possible use of the TM, and they may be in violation of that... this will give you even more cause.

Basically, if you have been using your name prior to 2008, and can prove it, then you are in good shape. If you stared your site between 2008-2010, and they cannot prove that they started in 2008 as they claimed then you're probably in good shape. If you started your site after 2010 then you're reduced to claiming that the marks are not confusing. But you also have the fact that you already have agreement with them (and their failure to attempt to enforce their trademark rights after you changed the name of your service per the agreement) to show they've abandoned it.

The stress they are causing you, and any actions they have engaged in that are dishonest or violating the law or agreements give you cause to sue them for damages, I believe.

The odds are pretty good that they know you are young and don't have a lot of resources and they are attempting to abuse the system as a result.... simply doing this research and showing how they don't have a case may be sufficient. Like brining a gun to a gun fight-- they may think you just have a knife, but showing the gun may cause them to back off. Its no risk if they claim to have a gun and you just give up-- which is what they're trying to get you to do.

Plus, if you have a bunch of this kind of stuff, you may get a lawyer that wants to extract money from them on contingency basis-- but even if not, simply a very sternly worded letter might cost you only a couple hundred bucks, or even less.

If you find a case. I am almost certain there is one there... but you need to do your research quickly.

The first thing I would do is find what you need to do to file to request a stay or delay of the judgement and get yourself time to engage in this research.

You can call the clerk of the court where the lawsuit was filed and find out what the procedures are to file a pleading or request a stay or delay. Tell them you were not properly served, or notified about the court dates (if this is the case-- never lie-- but use what ammunition you have here) and ask what the correct filing is. They WILL NOT give out legal advice, but they can tell you the procedures, and you need to get up to speed on those so that you can get yourself some breathing room.

Good luck!

\-----

PS-- another avenue to investigate: look for use of the term "Who's near me" or "who's here" in commerce on the web prior to 2008. One reason a trademark might be invalid is that someone else (even if it is not you) was using it in commerce in a similar way-- were there any location based services prior to 2008? did dodgeball have a "who's near me" feature?

PPSS--- Also assuming there were no location based services prior to 2008, find an extensive evidence of the common use of the phrase "whose near me" and "whose here" on the web. If this is a common phrase it may not be trademarkable, just as "thank you" can't be a trademark because it is a common english expression.

Further, if this phrase describes the feature of the service literally (which it sounds like) it is also possibly not trademakrable because it is purely descriptive. Frankly, I think they may not have a legitimate trademark, since the phrase describes the feature literally, not a service or brandable name.

I'm just going to keep adding points because I keep thinking of them.

"Whose near me" is not obviously "Whoshere" and so infringement does not seem to be a slam dunk. Further, since they contacted you previously, and you changed the name at their behest, you may have an affirmative defense because you attempted to remedy the situation. Thus this suit could be a nuisance suit. They need to show you willfully violated their trademark.

Right now, I would change your service and remove the phrase "whose near me" everywhere you can. Document this change with screenshots so you can prove you are attempting to comply with their demands-- even if they are unreasonable.

But it would seem to be hard for them to make a case when they contacted you, you responded by making changes, and then they wait a year and decide suddenly you're infringing again.

IF the company suing you is not "myRETE INC" of Delaware, then how can "WHOSHERE" have the right to the mark? Did they provide you with a license agreement? IT doesn't matter-- myRETE is the owner of the mark according to the USPTO so you can only be sued by them, I believe. (and if none of these names make sense, did they even file a TM with the UPSTO?)

A reading of their specific claims implies that there is not an infringement because finding people near you does not appear to be any of the features they claim to be using the mark for. Their list of uses, by the way was flagged by the examiner and they had to update it to get the mark registered.

Finally, it appears their mark is for "WHOSHERE", e.g. "WHO" + "SHERE" They included no space in their filing, so "whoshere" which is a "name" in the sense that it could be "bobby whoshere" pronounced "wooSHeer" doesn't sound much at all like "who's near me".

These are just ideas for which there might be a case. More digging would be required.

Finally, if you know any law students this might be just the kind of thing that is fun for them to help you research. They may help you build a case for not too much money or no money at all, and the price of beer and pizza.

<comment><USER24> I appreciate what you're doing, but you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go -- something you really shouldn't predict. By putting the words "this isn't legal advice" before your comment, you aren't magically making it okay to give your opinion in the guise of advice. Just be aware of that.

<comment><USER25> How messed up is it that someone can't share what they know (or think they know) because they don't have a credential?

Edit: I'm convinced. Don't give or accept legal advice over the Internet. Establish a relationship with an attorney and only discuss it with them. If you don't like the answers they give you, you can find another attorney.

<comment><USER24> In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad advice.

You know how in criminal proceedings, they say "anything you say can and will be used against you?" It's the exact same for civil actions like this, which is why Public Relations 101 (which should be of interest to most in this audience who want to do their own startup) says "being sued or otherwise challenged legally? STFU. No comment."

This isn't about credentials, it's about being smart when it comes to threats that can genuinely hose your business, and not listening to a bunch of armchair lawyers on HN who think they have the best course of action without any sort of context.

<comment><USER77> Let me start by saying: OP should get a lawyer -- like yesterday -- if he cares about the future of his company. Now, moving on...

> In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to > doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a > lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already > giving frighteningly bad advice.

There are legal repercussions and serious consequences to many choices we make in life; while this is a particularly tricky terrain to navigate, that doesn't mean he should go in completely blind. If you think that the advice is "frighteningly bad", point out specifics.

> This isn't about credentials, it's about being smart when it comes to > threats that can genuinely hose your business, and not listening to a bunch > of armchair lawyers on HN who think they have the best course of action > without any sort of context.

This isn't a conversation you're engaging in; you're simply shouting down the parent(s). That's not what HN is all about. Please rethink your approach and come back to this from a constructive angle; it sounds like you have valuable knowledge that could come in handy for OP and others, but you can't see past "holy crap, legal advice on the internet!"

<comment><USER24> My valuable knowledge is that this discussion shouldn't be happening, because I've seen firsthand what an Internet comment can do legally, both to plaintiff and defendant. So yes, I would prefer it be shot down. I am not legally permitted to discuss the cases in question nor provide specifics of my knowledge, nor will I create liability for myself by refuting specific legal advice being given in this thread.

<comment><USER77> In that case, might I suggest you end this thread now? Comments on HN should be submitted when they add value; if you're not willing to actually participate in a conversation and attempt to add value, I'd say that the comments have little to no place on the site. Especially in the other parts of the thread where you and another commenter got into it and it ended with "Fuck you."

<comment><USER78> As mentioned above, jsprinkles _is_ adding value to the discussion by explaining that this discussion should not happen here. Clearly he has experience in the matter. You act as if he is being malicious towards the OP by trying to shout down the advice of non-lawyers. He is, in fact, trying to _help_ OP by doing the same.

<comment><USER79> I would say if he really wanted just to help, he could of stopped after the first comment he left. That was him helping, the rest I'm not so sure about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> It's spreading like wildfire: [http://startupjunkies.org/blog/2012/06/01/lightbank- whoshere...](http://startupjunkies.org/blog/2012/06/01/lightbank-whoshere- threaten-whosnearme-startup/#more-170)

</comment><comment><USER81> I know it shouldn't, and I know the "hacker" or VC communities are huge with tons of diversity, but it annoys and saddens me to see some people just being bullies and jerks like this.

</comment><comment><USER82> I honestly wonder if leaving the country helps in situations like this.

Seriously.

</comment><comment><USER83> Something tells me you don't have 400,000 users: <http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wnmlive.com>

<comment><USER84> It's a mobile app.</comment></comment>


Tutr Instruct – the easiest way for teachers to host live classes - <AUTHOR> https://gettutr.com/instruct <comment><AUTHOR> Hey everyone, excited to launch Tutr Instruct – it's the easiest way for teachers to host live classes. Just set your schedule & price, and share a link with your students to start hosting live classes!

Over the past few months, been observing how it's been super difficult for teachers making the shift to teaching online, cobbling together an array of products to schedule & book classes, handle payments, and teach live classes virtually – so decided to open up the platform I built to handle all these concerns.

We're starting with giving early access to a few teachers who're are already teaching online – share this with any teachers you know!

Would love to hear any feedback & answer any questions!</comment>


The hairy ball theorem - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem <comment><USER3> Thus the popularity of unit quaternions in 3D simulation and graphics. They cover the sphere twice, so each rotation can be represented by two possible values.

My hack minds eye view of this is that you take two combed layers with nulls at the poles. The rotation then jumps between layers as it crosses the poles.

<comment><USER4> Could you explain in more detail? Why do people in 3d simulations and graphics care about the existence of a point where the function value is 0?

<comment><USER3> They want a rotation representation that:

1) can be accumulated (quaternion multiplication) and interpolated (slerp) 'smoothly',

2) and in a way that does not depend on the absolute orientation.

\- Smooth:

If you dive in and start using 3 angles (yaw,pitch,roll) to represent 3d rotation, then the rotations are like the hairy ball - however you order them, there will be values where you can't easily step to another physically very close rotation without a huge change in values - the discontinuities in the hairy ball.

This is classically called 'gimbal lock', where a gimbal mount is a physical manifestation of angle representation. In simulations, it might show itself as strange behaviour when pitched up/down close to 90deg, or an interpolation between apparently close rotations going wild.

By using unit quaternions (4 values), and avoiding the discontinuties (but now having two representations for each physical rotation) it becomes easy to acuumulate the rotations that come from a flight model, animation, user etc. without out ever getting stuck in a corner.

\- Independant of absolute rotation:

A related point is that an incremental rotation by multiplying quaternions will always produce the same relative rotation irrespective of absolute attitude. You can see angle based represetnations going wrong when, for example, a camera control system offers buttons that are suposed to be left/right/up/down relative to the camera, but produce varying results as the camera rotates.

It's possible to do the same things with 3x3 matrices - but it is a bit more tricky to keep them normalised over time, and obviously takes more storage. A typical solution to all the above angle problems in a simulation would be to convert (yaw, pitch, roll) to a matrix, accumulate, then convert back. My brief experience of aerodynamics texts is that all the equations are obfuscated with unpicking and rebuilding angles. It's a bit like doing arithmentic with Roman numerals - possible, but painful.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for taking the time to explain this!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just added this to the comment about the weather:

"This is not strictly true as the air above the earth has multiple layers, but for each layer their must be a point with zero horizontal windspeed."

Feel free to edit it.

<comment><USER6> I think it would be better to delete the eintire paragraph above your addition, as the notion that this theorem guarantees at least one cyclone somewhere on earth is ridiculous.

<comment><USER7> Is it wrong because the earth is not a perfect sphere, or for some other reason?

<comment><USER8> It's wrong because this theorem only applies to continuous vectors. However wind can simply fade (i.e. become slower), and is thus non-continuous.

Edit: I'm getting beaten up in the downmods, but no one has shown me that wind is continuous.

<comment><USER9> It doesn't apply to continuous vectors, it applies to continuous vector fields. There is a difference, and it does matter.

And I would be interested to see how you can construct a non-continuous vector field from an incompressible (which air at these speeds effectively is) fluid. Your graphic and description do not make sense - they do not allow that, macroscopically, air is a fluid. If it travels, it has to go somewhere. It can't simply stop at a boundary, it has to change direction, and such changes of direction cannot be instantaneous. This is why in electronics we need to deal with signal reflection, over-voltages, and similar phenomena.

Additionally, continuous technically does not mean "no large jumps", although that's how the technical definition was inspired, and how most people visualise it. In particular, it's possible to create a function that's continuous at every irrational, and discontinuous at every rational.

It's certainly true that the theorem is dealing with a theoretical approximation to a messy, physical situation, but broadly speaking it's applicable. It says that at the Earth's surface there is always at least one place where the horizontal component of the air movement (wind velocity) is zero. Errors are often made when trying to make folksey explanations, and it's the interpretations that often have errors. The theorem is true, applicable and in some cases, useful.

<comment><USER8> I thank you for an explanation and not just more downmods.

To explain the wind graph - imagine very low air pressure at the points where it stops. You wrote incompressible, but that's not actually the case for wind (although yes the wind doesn't cause compression, but rather the reverse).

"one place where the horizontal component of the air movement (wind velocity) is zero"

If that's what it says, then yes, I agree that is true for wind. It didn't seem to be what it was saying though, but I guess I misunderstood it.

It said cyclone, i.e. wind moving in a circle, and that is just not correct. Wind can simply move out radially in all directions in straight lines from that point, without making a circle.

That point of course is where the velocity is 0.

To quote "(Like the swirled hairs on the tennis ball, the wind will spiral around this zero-wind point - under our assumptions it cannot flow into or out of the point.)". This is not true. Air can flow out of a zero point - <USER2> heat it up, and air will flow out of it.

<comment><USER9> > This is not true. Air can flow out of a zero point - just heat it up, and > air will flow out of it.

I'm having a _lot_ of trouble visualising this. There is no air at a point. A point, by definition, has no volume. Are you manufacturing air?

I think you are using some definitions that are completely at odds with what everyone else, including me, are using. No doubt if we stood in front of a whiteboard you could make yourself clear quickly, but almost everything you have said is, according to my model of how the world works, wrong.

I'd like to understand you, but I suspect that's never going to happen.

I know the theorem - I proved a generalised version of it as a base case for a much bigger result. I haven't bothered to read most of the comments because usually the whole thing is mis-quoted or mis-interpreted, but I just had to say something to try to understand you.

It's true that the theorem does not require a cyclone. The theorem can imply a zero point with the vector field radiating from it, but in a conservative 2D fluid flow that can't happen. In a 3D flow you can get that effect on the surface as the fluid descends to that point and then spreads, but that's different.

Perhaps you're responding to incorrect "interpretations", perhaps you're right and I just don't understand you, but you're really not making yourself clear. Either that, or you're wrong.

<comment><USER8> "There is no air at a point. A point, by definition, has no volume. Are you manufacturing air?"

Sorry. Assume an area, heat it up and wind flows out of it. However the air in the area itself is moving, so conceptually all the air is moving out of the point in the center of it. (It's not really, it's moving out of the area, but all the vectors point away from the point, so that's what it looks like.)

"It's true that the theorem does not require a cyclone."

Thanks. That's really all I was arguing about.

The thing with continuous and cyclone: I was assuming, that people were saying, that the wind _always_ has to move - even if in a circle. And I was saying, no, it doesn't have to move, you can have a still area, and wind radiating out of it (or into it).

If I am correct about that, then please edit the wikipedia article to remove mention of cyclones.

Why do you say that can't happen in a 2d fluid flow? Why does it have to be a cyclone? My understanding of weather is you have a large area, you heat it up, and wind flows out of it - but there is no cyclone. (I guess with fluid flow you are assuming there is no way to manufacture fluid, but with wind you can since heat will "create" more of it.)

Tell me if I'm wrong here:

The hairy ball theorem assumes there is hair everywhere, so you have to have a cyclone at the poles. But with wind there are spots without hair, so the theorem just doesn't apply to wind.

<comment><USER10> An idealized 2d fluid flow is non-compressible, so heating it up at a point does nothing.

<comment><USER8> But air is compressible. And I am talking about air.

(Unless this post was answering my question, in which case thanks.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Any other interesting applications of topology to physical phenomenon? I can only seem to find applications to other areas of math.

</comment><comment><USER12> The theorem lacks a certain aesthetic beauty. Apply Occam's Razor to create a smoother, more palatable package.

</comment><comment><USER13> neat, this is very important in classical mechanics. Orbits of your system trace out tori in the phase space, the cool thing is how the tori break up as you perturb your system from integrable to non-integrable. Chaos, without dissipation.

<comment><USER14> more/links?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hahahah...

Hairy balls.</comment>


Https Google Search Redirecting to http in Iran - <AUTHOR>

How can a monkey in the middle stop you from going to encrypted Google search? How can they redirect you instead to plain old http://www.google.com?
So I'm doing a normal Google search like I do a hundred times everyday, and suddenly I get this message from Google:
"SSL search is off
This network has turned off SSL search, so you cannot see personalized results.
The security features of SSL search are not available. Content filtering may be in place."
I look up at my URL bar, and yes, it says http not https. I get curious. I search Google's support pages for some way the government can mess with my Google search (I live in Iran) and I find this: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/186669?hl=en
To quote the relevant part: "To utilize the no SSL option for your network, configure the DNS entry for www.google.com to be a CNAME for nosslsearch.google.com."
I dug around a little and learned that all DNS queries are replied by a nearby spoofing server (nearby, because it responds so fast compared with what I have to endure in here!). I could do something like "nslookup www.google.com 184.108.40.206" (anything works instead of 188.8.131.52, whether a real DNS server or not) and get "188.8.131.52" which is the IP address for nosslsearch.google.com.
I tested this with four different servers around the country I have ssh access to. Everywhere it's the same.
DNS spoofing is a known government technique used for content blocking in Iran, but I haven't seen it be used for this purpose before. The government has long been lamenting Google's decision to go SSL. They have been looking for some way to get to see what people are searching again, and they seem to have found it.
The obvious way to get around this for me would be to add an entry in my /etc/hosts file or visit encrypted.google.com for searching. I suggest the same thing to other people living in Iran. <comment> mike-cardwell If you use the HTTPS-Everywhere Firefox addon it will protect you from this.</comment>


Logo Design from Start to Finish - <AUTHOR> http://www.layersmagazine.com/artistic-expression-logo-design-from-start-to-finish.html <comment><USER2> For those of you who enjoyed this submission, David Pache (Dache) has a section of his portfolio dedicated to such articles. For example, here's the design process for the Directed Edge (YC '09) logo: <http://www.dache.ch/thedacheboard/article/directededge_logo/>.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great link. It is really important for startups to establish solid visual identities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Logo design in today's world is totally underrated.

I totally disagree take for example the case of the Pepsi versus the Coke logo changes: [http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/consumerist/2009/07/pe...](http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/consumerist/2009/07/pepsivscoke.jpg) and who is still on top? Coke, because they still have the better product ([http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/20070527_COKE_GRAPHIC.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/20070527_COKE_GRAPHIC.html)).

So, in my opinion a good logo is totally overrated. Sure, Pepsi and Coke are well established brands and maybe this won't apply to a _startup_ but I wouldn't say either of the logos are particularly outstanding, especially the most recent Pepsi one but if I prefer Pepsi over Coke, the logo ain't stopping me.

Edit: Just to add, really liked the article just thought the above was an interesting thought.

<comment><USER4> How does Coke have the better product? Maybe Coke's dominance is due to choosing the right logo and sticking with it instead of constantly changing their visual identity.

<comment><USER5> Coke's product is less sweet than Pepsi. What that means is that if you're drinking a lot of soda, Coke takes much longer to start tasting repulsive than Pepsi does, even though at first sip Pepsi might taste more delicious for some.

That was what led to the New Coke disaster. In taste tests, five out of seven people tested preferred the New Coke taste, because it was sweeter. But when rolled out, people found it got old fast. And while now New Coke is seen as a branding disaster, the truth is if it had been a more appealing product, the brand would have caught on and it might have led to a rout of Pepsi. While most of a brand is perception, the product does matter somewhat.

<comment><USER6> I actually find Coke a lot more sweet than Pepsi, which is why I've always preferred drinking Pepsi. To me, Pepsi is a lot more clean and crisp, while Coke is sweet and foamy.

Of course, I'm sure you'll find people fiercely arguing either of the products that have been competing for ages now, so trying to come up with a rubric based on your taste preference is pretty useless.

<comment><USER7> "Of course, I'm sure you'll find people fiercely arguing either of the products that have been competing for ages now, so trying to come up with a rubric based on your taste preference is pretty useless."

The only people still arguing are those who have not experienced the cola- nirvana that is RC cola. Interestingly enough even RC had it's own can label redesign recently, getting rid of its classy old-school look for a more modern one. The armchair designer in me preferred the old one, it seemed to fit the brand name better.

I remember back when it first hit me how perfect the logo design for the Nike swoosh was, it blew my mind. Ever since then I've tried to pay more attention to what companies are trying to portray through the images, fonts, and colors they use in their advertising and logo's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd be curious to know the dollar range(not exact price, obviously) these folks charge for the logo design.

</comment><comment><USER9> Vero. Now there's a name not suitable for the Finnish market. Vero = tax. Then again, selling water to Finland would be like selling freezers to Inuits.

Nice logo. Applied here to the company website: <http://verowater.com/>

Like heyitsnick, I also read the bottle as logo + "ERO".

</comment><comment><USER10> Interesting article.

But does anyone else find the finished design (the vertical shown on the bottle with the leafy 'V' then the letters 'ero') just looks like the product is called 'Ero'? It's certainly the first thing I saw.

</comment><comment><USER11> That really looks like two blue leaves to me, and not much at all like water.

<comment><USER12> Isn't it supposed to be two blue leaves?

<comment><USER13> Article " _As you can see, I had the idea of creating a "V" from two "leaves" of water._ "

I don't like the concept, it doesn't say high fashion to me (though the bottle possible does but not in a water-y way) and in no way suggests water - it's more like a lotion bottle to me.

I liked the Vero as a logo but the vertical doesn't work as the v is too separated and undefined. "ero" suggests it might be a sex aid, perhaps "cooling lotion". The bottle shape reminds me of "salad cream" - [http://greenpasturesint.com/cannedbottledboxed/HeinzSaladCre...](http://greenpasturesint.com/cannedbottledboxed/HeinzSaladCream.jpg)

Nothing particularly unusual about the methodology though I might change my mind once I've seen the questionnaire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I imagine the author of the article actually knows the difference but doesn't clearly distinguish this in the article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo> "A logo is a graphical element (ideogram, symbol, emblem, icon, sign) that, together with its logotype (a uniquely set and arranged typeface) form a trademark or commercial brand."

So the logo would be the leafy V and the rest of the word combined with it would be the "logotype". That distinction doesn't seem to be made in the article and I think that's a little confusing. I'm sure it's best to design the two things together as they go hand-in-hand, but, strictly speaking, "logotype" is not the logo. I mention it because if you are a start-up trying to do your own logo, that detail might be helpful information.

RE: Remarks that the word looks like "ero" on the vertical design. I think it would be more obvious that the leafy V was also a letter if the "V" part of it (in white) was in the same color as the rest of the text. I would also think it would be possible to find a typeface that more closely resembles the style of the "V" in the leaves and this would likely make it more apparent that it's part of the word.

Also: I'm reminded of a passage in some book (by Heinlein?) that mocks advertising with "subliminal" sexual suggestions. In the book, a woman proclaims "There's a purple cock in my kitchen!" (The imaginary brand involved a purple rooster as the symbol of a cleaning product, if I recall correctly.) It makes me kind of wonder if the appearance that it says "ero" is some subconscious effort to "sex up" the product. Sex sells and all that.

</comment><comment><USER15> You could get a better logo in 5 minutes with $10 by cruising iStockPhoto.

Leaf logos are so, so, SO incredibly passé.

This isn't design, it's trendwhoring.

<comment><USER16> Try to substantiate your point, when you dismiss something as "easy to do". If it takes only 5 minutes, link to a better logo from iStockPhoto</comment></comment>


Reddit's Erik Martin: I knew I could never have a 'real job' - <AUTHOR> http://fullstart.com/inspiration/interview-erik-martin-reddit-real-job/

<comment><USER2> >You have a chance to make an impact every day, but it's on the people in your office, and not always the ether of the world out there that everyone talks about.

This is a great tip, really inspirational.</comment>