Dont know man. "Copying" and "adapting/innovating" are two distinct terms. Having similar features does not mean "copying". Copying would mean to purposefully create a product similar to another, with the intent to create a strong substitute. I don't know how it would be defined in terms of tech companies bringing out new software, but it sounded like she was asking leading questions, which is pretty dumb
@@Victor-mx6vs Well when Apple can sue Samsung over rounded corners on an LCD screen.... and win...... Also those don't qualify as leading questions when it comes to going over evidence such as internal email correspondence involving him and his managerial teams.
@@nuanil Didnt know about that case, but it seems to be true that those questions wont count as "leading questions" if the phrase was taken as directly quoting. Her approach just sounded like leading questions
Is there anything wrong with that? If there's no patent, and the thing works, obviously Facebook would copy and make a better version. Just look at the cars. Mutliple companies making essentially the same thing.
Abhi M Yes it did fail. In order to keep Vine alive was to have ads. But because the videos were 7 seconds long, it would be annoying to have ads. That’s the reason it shut down. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that Tiktok came from the idea of Vine.
@@aryannahar dafuq? Have you ever used facebook? It is filled to the brim with hate speech. Especially in a country like India from both sides. You can get reported only when you insinuate violence or genocide
@@gangie You need to understand this. The problem is not people using "hate speech". As people we have FREEDOM of speech. You can say whatever the f*** you want. The term "hate speech" is used as a way to silence and censur opinions and facts, that the powers that be don't want out. We live in a deeply corrupt world with hidden agendas and people speaking out get censured. Their videos, memes and whatever get taken down under the false pretense of being "hate speech".
that's how the internet is shutter effect, what do you want zuckerberg to do, start censoring everyone? Hmmmmm.... are you... a leftist by any chance??? One of the people who loves to censor everything and everyone under the pretense ''muh toxicity, everyone who disagrees with me spreads misinformation, everyone with different ideas is throwing hate speech''...? You hate freedom of speech or something?
To all those people who think the Congressmen and Congresswomen just didn't let the CEOs even talk fully, let me tell you, these CEOs never give a straightforward answer. As simple as that. "We are determined to build quality products for our consumers" "Consumer privacy care is a top priority" "Customer satisfaction is always what we care about" Bulls***
Congress also never gave a straightforward question. Every question was twisted to fit a narrative. None of these questions can be directly answered without taking on guilt.
@@Skolzerx when you are guilty of anything at all, there's no excuse left. It's the right for anyone and everyone to ask you about your crime no matter which way.
@@billycasper3351 They have not been proven guilty yet. That is the whole reason this hearing is going on. Just like individuals they still need a fair trial. And this... This is not a fair trial. Not even letting the man speak his defense.
Zuckerberg : Congresswomen we build alll apps and threaten the competitors , you ask this every year . And you can do nothing about it 🤔🤔 can you ? 🤣🤣😂😂😂😂
That because they didn't want congressmen Dominate the debate. Flowing around the question and don't answer the questions directly like yes or no. You'll find it at every salesman, that's what I learned so far, judge me if I'm wrong
@@RegalState Copying the idea for a feature is not intellectual property. If there is a gas station across the street selling water, you are free to try and sell water too. Snapchat's ideas that were copied were by no means IP.
@@Skolzerx I understand your point, and I get that in an idealistic market, balanced competition is required for consumer benefit. However, if I were to alter your analogy, the situation is that Ford for example have parked up opposite a family run gas station and started selling gas (not water, gas is where the margins are made). The point being that Ford in this analogy do not sell gas at all (they sell cars) - have identified that the main revenue driver for the gas station was based on product (gas) and location. With Ford's reach far exceeding the family business, they're able to capitalise on the equivalent intellectual property (the feature of selling gas at this location, not primary revenue for Ford but primary for this gas station). Now physical property and intellectual property are of course different, but my point is is that Facebook etc. are beginning to scale in business areas that exceed their own domain, by sourcing profitable ideas from early stage business that are unable to scale based on their age. This is not balanced competition because these firms have the resources and cash to be able to vastly outcompete any smaller firm entering the market.
The line of questioning is just silly though. 'Do you copy competitors?' Anyone who never ever copies competitors is probably not in business anymore. Besides, they don't give Zuckerberg (or anyone else) the opportunity to properly respond so what is the point of calling him in the first place?
How do you figure?? There are patents on basically all electronic IP's, including FaceBook. Patents are good for 25 years so the innovators can prosper off their hard work and ingenuity so monopolies like FACEBOOK or competitors cannot destroy them by simply copying their work and going forward with it, stomping out the little guy or creator of the innovation(s) which can be other large corporations too. How these companies get away with copying things in today's day in age is simple, they copy it only to a specific subjective percentage, say 75% and add new/different features, and they make sure their code is very different, even though the end result is basically the same. With all intents and purposes it is out right copying, but they get it is polished out just right between their engineers and lawyers so they can argue all day in court that it is not but if feels very familiar to the user, if not the same as the original content.
i'm not a dem nor a zuck fan but I hate when anyone wont allow someone to answer the question. I know that its cuz they are on a time limit so I wish they would give a time limit to ask questions but the time stops so the person can answer fully.
Facebook: "We wanna make sure people can communicate with their friends privately." Also Facebook: "Let's take a look at this person's private messages."
I’m glad someone who seems to have a good grasp of the situation is finally the one grilling him. Facebook clearly has shady business practices, but most of the hearings I’ve seen until now have just been congresspeople fumbling around trying to figure out what the internet is.
It's funny how Politicians never get called out on their wrong-doings and evil political practices pre or post-elections. Politicians want to grow their party, become so big, and just like these companies, they also are always out for the blood of the opposition.
I mean we need to know what the purpose of the question is. Anyone in app development/web dev knows copying code is everywhere. It's even encouraged to save time. Just find a template and adjust etc. It all depends what clients want etc. Could by just random snippets from stackoverflow or github or entirely free to use templates. I think most people who created Facebook would do the exact same thing: copying competitors. I don't get why people are trying to seem as if they wouldn't and have a higher ethical standard. Microsoft shortly started Microsoft online 365 after google docs exploded. I mean I don't get the problem here. That's what tech companies do. It's just who can make it better and more user friendly. That's the variety and spice of it.
i have finished the video and she made her purpose clear. I get what she's saying as threatening smaller companies is wrong and unethical and shouldn't be a common business practice. However, everything I said in my original comment still stands. People tend to think they have a higher moral ground but actually don't.
The problem is that in early Snapchat/Instagram these platforms were using Facebook's Api to let users login. Also Facebook could collect data from these services it's like button that were everywhere. With this Facebook had a clear insight on how these competitors business were growing, how fast, how many users. How many time they spent on those platforms. No company have access to Facebook's internal numbers but Facebook had privileged access to competitors business intelligence data. This by itself brings unfairness to the negotiation table. Facebook let these companies inovate, take the risk, experiment and create new markets while collecting data about consumer behavior... It's so obvious
@@SeTConVar Aye, I've finished the video but it is an entirely different argument than mine. I am focusing on people saying they would do something else about the "copying" when in reality they wouldn't. All that you said I can agree with.
Mr Zuterberg of Facebook I believe knew about Snapchat and Snapshots .This is very serious, they need to do more research as going through this with a fine comb! These high tech companies need to tell the truth....
Our job here at Facebook is to ensure that our users have the best platform to contact their loved ones as long as they don't disagree with our political opinions because if that happens we're going to have to give them a 30-day ban and prohibit their messenger use
Not necessarily, it would be a monopoly if you had no other choice of options. Snap and Tiktok even Twitter are still out there for alternative. Then there's Reddit, Twitch, even RU-vid. You don't have to use Facebook or any of its properties.
How is that a free market when any smart person creates something a very powerful billionaire comes to them and tell them to choose between "copying" their content or selling their company to him? And you know those small creators can't afford suing him Serious question
This is a dumb line of questioning. Jayapal seems to think that app features can be copyrighted or patented in some way. They cannot. Conversely, she seems to imply that once a company develops a feature, they have exclusive access to it, which I hope doesn't mean that she'll grill a company that imitates twitter or facebook in the future. Will she call in Lyft about "copying" Uber? As for "threatening" others, it's only a threat if you think your service/product is weak. Plenty of VCs want to fund the next unicorn, and confident owners will stay independent like twitter (essentially, copying facebook's wall) and others like grand central will cash their chips in. I'm sure Zuck sees himself in these situations: MySpace could've crushed him but they didn't and he would've never sold to them anyway. Each founder must make that choice, and it's not like there isn't stupid levels of VC cash to be thrown at a company that's already getting 9 figure or 10 figure offers. Tech services is usually a winner-take-all arena for each vertical... no one's going to use the 4th best map service. It shouldn't surprise anybody that there's one or two, MAYBE three dominant players in each vertical. But hey, I guess we're all guilty of whining "hey, don't copy me" in elementary school.
The wrong thing is how Facebook keeps it's monopoly by essentially forcing others to sell or otherwise Facebook will copy theirs main features and just straight up push them to the edges like they did with Snapchat so you don't have a option you either sell or wait for Facebook to make a copy, implement yours main features in their billion of users apps and slowly make you lose your valuation, i think it's bad to let Facebook copy everyone because it's not like OS features like widgets they are features that make the competitors special
@@matheushenrique5963 If it's bad to let a tech company copy another company, do you think Lyft shouldn't exist? By what legal mechanism do you propose this is stopped? Patents and Copyrights cover inventions and expressions/trademarks, why should we further restrict business models, UIs, techniques, etc...? The market is the way it is, and Jaypal and others don't seem to appreciate just of thorny this issue can get.
His body language said it all... Continuous blinking, stiff shoulders, saying "Congresswoman" before every answer (nervousness), pinched lips, avoiding question & stiff facial muscles! LIES!!!!
This poor guy created the most used social media that most people enjoy, he had to being others into his company because of finances at the start who seem to pull all the strings whilst at the same time holding his face there for the world to judge and be blamed for everything. I feel sorry for him being the Facebook scapegoat. All the owners should be stood there on the stand for questioning.
0:33 Zuckerberg was really nice in answering her questions. Basically she was asking Zuckerberg not to compete with other tech companies, not to learn from each other. She did not even mention any patent. In her mind, if one company has a feature then it can legally monopolize - no others are allowed to have that feature. She is holding a position opposite to what she was trying to defend. Of course FB has the freedom to develop an app that fit their business need, especially when the other company is not selling it to them. Further more, she doesn't understand many small companies are founded to make a product so that they can be acquired by larger businesses. Ignorant people in power questioning about the tech leaders - looks so backward. The government needs to hire domain experts to do the job, not just someone who got a lot of votes.
It’s called “intellectual property theft” and it’s called anti-trust laws....I know that programming is fluid, but he literally copied every app into his to strong arm the competition until he buys them.... Also I bet if you look at code it’s probably 80% similarly implemented
Ben F Keyword Anti-competitive practices this....look up the Bell Company and how it squeezed out the competition. This isn’t a tech issue if you don’t want to count how Facebook APIs are like spyware
@@noirekuroraigami2270 My comment was regarding IP protection. Not anti competitive practices. I never said they never were engaged in anti competitive practices. But calling them IP thieves for implementing a similar non patented feature is not IP theft as you claimed.
it is like me vs mom mom: did you took the chocolate me: no mom certainly i would like to eat chocolate mom: just straight to the point did you took the chocolate me: mom like bro took the chocolate from the fridge me as same as he did excuse me for my english
Joseph Banks Her questions are straight forward and let no room for maybe/I don’t remember/can you repeat that question. That’s the reason why this snake Zuckerberg doesn’t know how to react.
You know your going to get you butt handed to you when you hear the words "I just want to remind you that you are under oath" I've been following all of this feels like an television series!!
After this, he started to copy TikTok and he launched it very soon! Respect to his team and at the same time, this congresswoman wasted her time. Her questions didn’t solve any problem. Zach is still doing the copy dirty tricks
2:39 There is a good reason for this question. Facebook actively tried to stop instagram. Even tried to reduce it's utilities in-house once they purchased it. Kevin Systrom wasn't happy with how they were treated in facebook. Rep Jayapal certainly did her homework
