alt Hacker News> You can upload unlimited flight logs for free.
> BUT you can only view the last 100 flights.
> If you want to see your older data, you have to pay a monthly subscription and a $15 "retrieval fee."
> Even then, you can't bulk download your own logs. You have to click them one by one. They effectively hold your own data hostage to lock you into their ecosystem. I am not sure if they are even GDPR complaint even in the EU
1. There is zero reason for this to be an online, cloud-hosted application. This is... a database. 20 years ago, this would have been a 400KB EXE you ran on your computer and that was that.
2. I hope people are not deleting their own logs after uploading them to this service. Surely, users aren't relying on this site as some kind of backup for their data. Especially when their business model appears to be clearly HostageWare.
EDIT-ALSO:
The legal basis for this threat doesn't make much sense. The company is saying that mere mentioning of their company (or product) name "uses the [product] name and brand as a commercial hook to drive traffic and adoption of your unfairly competing tools."
If this was enforceable, how would any project that provides open source compatibility with some company's proprietary format be legal? If I write a program that downloaded fitness data from my Garmin smartwatch and mentioned "compatible with Garmin smartwatches" on the project's GitHub, am I suddenly infringing their trademark? (Not looking for legal advice, just confirmation that this company's position is legally bizarre.)
Replies
> If I write a program that downloaded fitness data from my Garmin smartwatch and mentioned "compatible with Garmin smartwatches" on the project's GitHub, am I suddenly infringing their trademark?
Not necessarily, but you'd have to be careful. Depending on exactly where and how you say it, a lawyer might be able to ethically argue that a reasonable consumer could think you're claiming to have a partnership with Garmin. In particular, it would be very risky to use their logo, which it sounds like the OP may have.
(This isn't an actual legal test, but something to drive the intuition why it could be a legitimate trademark issue: if a consumer buys your product and it doesn't actually work with their Garmin, will they blame you or blame Garmin?)
I totally doubt it’s illegal, but the argument hinges on the trademarked name, not the export tool tech. “Provides functionality with top smartwatches” has no chance of a cease and desist, but “provides functionality with Garmin” might get you one.