In the end, the leads fizzled out and I didn't get written permission to use the data from Dublin Bus. I continued to keep them up to date on it, hoping that they'd even call me up on it so that we could figure something out. My objective was to get at the data cleanly without having to scrape, and also to form a relationship that might allow me to use the upcoming real-time data.
As I mentioned in the post, there was no app available for this before mine. Dublin Bus website is a mess (they've updated it in the last few months, but it's still awful) and it's particularly awkward to use on a small screen.
They're a government owned company and others have pointed out that 'data' can't have a copyright, but I'm not really sure to be honest. I suspect they're aware of it and are choosing not to act since it's benefiting their service.
I would argue that this is a different issue to what this other developer has done: He has taken my schema and my translation of the data which is my own original work.
They have original creator rights and recourse for the way you extracted data without those permissions in place. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/73032--c.htm#15
While you could argue he has ripped you off, without that written permission to use the data you can’t effectively argue your case.
I’d say your sin was less deliberate and more from a position of ignorance, but sadly in law that’s little defence.
(IANAL, usual caveats apply. Seek legal advice, blah, blah.)
This includes non-electronic databases, so even if you scanned all this data from timetables published on paper, they'd still be protected by database rights -- and you don't have the right to use substantial parts of it without a license. (nor does your competitor).
(Assuming a government organization has database rights in the same way a person or corporation can have them).
I'd be happy to have someone with some authority in Dublin Bus even notice it though!
* we're not in the UK ;)
My general argument is this whole situation is not as clear-cut and black-and-white as the developer in question asserts, however ‘moral’ or justified his objection to second developer’s seemingly less defensible actions in copying his work.
There seems little ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ here, just very subtle shades of grey and legal interpretation of who owns which rights to various elements of data, code, design and structure.
I'd start off with talking to him. His website http://www.philipkirwan.ie/site/index.html states that he's doing an undergrad at Dublin City University, which no doubt includes lessons in the social aspect of computing including Copyright, Patents and Data Protection, etc.
My points: He will be well aware of copyright, and the institution really does not want to bring itself into disrepute as a result of the actions of their students. It would not do his study well at all to provable have stolen the work of someone else having been made very well aware of copyright during prior study. The question raised, "Is all of Philip Kirwin's work his own work?". And that for a university, and for Philip himself is a very big deal.
So I'd simply appeal to his own sense of self-preservation in that if he has indeed (as it appears) taken the content from your work and passed it off as his own then he is playing with fire that will burn him far greater than just losing the right to sell one iPhone application.
At this point, he's already potentially damaged his reputation through his actions, now it is up to him to determine whether he wants to salvage this or risk burning himself totally.
Computing Dr Stephen Blott
Work Area: Head of School
What can you do with your app that isn't so easily stolen (and reproduced) and turned into a carbon copy? As you've already seen, public transit apps are a dime a dozen. How about a bigger/better itinerary application that includes trains, planes, and automobile times so that one can put an itinerary together of vacation travel across all of Ireland? Add hotel info, confirmation info, etc, etc, etc...
I don't have the links handy put there have been other articles on HN about lessons from stolen work. Big lesson: it rarely matters because the people stealing ideas and work don't have the skillset to do it themselves. In the long term they can't compete with the new features and directions that you'll go.
What I'm trying to say is, use that energy from your anger to create something fcking awesome that that stupid muppet won't be able to compete with.
* I'm from the US. Yesterday, I learned about the use of the word muppet over on that side of the pond. BRILLIANT!
I'm not sure that it's as clear cut as doing something that can't be easily copied — any iPhone app that stores data locally is vulnerable to this. (In fact, I'd advise other iPhone developers reading this to have a close look at any suspicious competitors). I'm cool with someone 'stealing the idea', just not when they go selling my implementation of it.
All that said, if you really feel that this is something that you want to do something about in the future, apps like 1password encrypt local data. I haven't done it, and other people have said it's a PITA because documentation is lacking... so YMMV. But, think of it this way, put that anger into learning how to encrypt/decrypt things on the iPhone. You'll gain a great skill while at the same time getting to code a project that allows you to mutter, "Let's see that stupid muppet steal THIS data..."
* Did I really mention that I like the word muppet? :D
But I feel for you. I definitely think you should tell/threaten to tell his school if he doesn't take it off the app store.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right
In the EU, while the data itself may not be copyrightable, the act of compiling it into a usable database makes the database defensible.
You're pretty much covered and you won't have to pay a penny.
With the added benefit of bring able to tell when someone else accesses your content by failing to supply a special request header.
I would start by trying to talk to him. If that didn't work, I would call his school and make them aware of their student's shady doings. Then I would go to Apple and point out Apple is helping this guy to infringe on your copyright (the database is comprised of public data, but your work compiling it is non-trivial).
If the data were kept on-line and cached in the client, you could, as a final step of escalation, render his app useless. Or worse: make it supply wrong routes.
But he can do the same thing to you.
In the end, the users win. That's the beauty of a platform that has critical mass in numbers of developers competing to make good apps. Sucks for you (us) unless you look at it as a fun challenge.
It is perfectly legal to go through a phone book and copy it.
If I recall correctly, in fact, phone book producers usually include fake numbers in the phone book, so they can tell if you copied their version of the phone book, and sue you for it.
In the United States, compilations of data are protected by the Copyright statute. Specifically, any "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship".
The underlying data is not protectable, but the structure and method of assembly, once the data are incorporated is. In Feist vs. Rural Telephone (499 U.S. 340 (1991)), the Supreme Court looked at what level of originality is required for a compilation to be protectable. The Court held that a white pages phone directory that is just a listing of numbers in a geographical area is not sufficiently original to be protected. Basically, that kind of listing is just a recitation of existing facts in a logical order.
An important quote from that case sets out the factors for courts to consider in deciding what degree of originality is sufficient:
"The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws. "
As is often the case in the law, it doesn't give you a black and white answer, but instead gives a series of guidelines to follow.
(but I'm too lazy to look for it myself)
In my case, I run a Web services platform that approximately 10 or so iPhone app developers have licensed and coded applications to. In the beginning, there was only one app that used our services and it became a top-10 paid app. Within weeks I found there were 6 or so apps that sprouted up in the App Store with similar names, exact functionality, yet they were not licensed to use our API and content.
The common thread? They stole the original app's SQLite database, repackaged the interface, and off they went. We blocked these apps from using our platform until they were licensed, but to this day I weekly see apps sprout up that are following the same nefarious business practice. They steal content from a popular innovative app, repackage as their own, and throw it to the masses for the quick buck.
It is disgusting ecosystem. I'd be willing to bet that 80% of the app store content and market is teams stealing and repackaging the 20% of actual true innovation that is occurring.
Ever tried to make money with off-the-shelf software in the early 80's? ;-)
Well... At least, at that time, they had to swap floppies.
I haven't looked at both apps, but I would venture to guess that someone who is cutting corners by stealing from other people is probably also not spending a whole lot of time on design, polish, and user experience. Those are things that are hard to copy effectively and a place where you can set yourself apart.
On the other hand, lawyers are costly and in the end might not be able to help. They are prone to suggesting the most expensive course of action, because they get a share of the worth of the case. At least in Germany.
There is a large opportunity cost here, since fighting could involve lawyers fees and lost time. I don't think assuaging "that gnawing feeling" is worth thousands of dollars. Learning to let go could be the more lucrative path.
Spend your time/money making an application that isn't so easily duplicated. You said it yourself that you weren't planning to make a mint on this. No point in dealing with the hassle of lawyers, paying the lawyers etc.
If you only had one competitor, it would be possible, but being that you have five competitors, and some of them are free, I'd have to say that the market is saturated and its time to get out anyway.
Can't give you any legal advice though. I reckon you should go after what others recommend here.
also: look at the time of day on this screenshot: http://www.dublinbusapp.com/dbmaps/Dublin_Bus_Maps.html
You should only blame yourself though, you could have had a simple crypt on the db, with a key stored inside the binary. At least it would take a bit more work to rip you off.
I would suggest you go ahead and release your database to the public. The one thing you have that they do not is that you still have your scraper script(s). If it was me, I would create a (restful) web service that allows anyone to utilize your data, moreover, allow people (maybe with a nominal fee) to download the entire database, or if you really wanna get into it, implement keys (kinda like google maps) to access you bus timetable api.
So far I have contacted apple and the designer of the graphics to clarify the rights (designers provided the graphics but I don't know where they are from). Not thrilled, but I can't imagine just letting that person get away with it.
Although what the other comment said certainly applies: the quality of the ripped off app seems rather low. He uses some of my icons, but the rest of it looks ugly.
Anyway, would be curious to hear how your story unfolds.
Anyone with some legal background agree, disagree??
Since you know that you will not have a profit , why didnt you add the app free and add commercials to it.
That way yours will be free and there will be no need for anyone to copy it and at the same time have some profit from ads.
