zlacker

>>andyly+(OP)
The takedown request is based on

> MNAO analyzed some of the code and determined that the code provides functionality same as what is currently in Apple App Store and Google Play App Store.

Is this really legal? Because in my mind, providing the same functionality does not violate copyright, since the actual intellectual material is new. And I don't think Mazda has a patent on the ability to control your vehicle over an API.

>>sp1rit+ga
If they just provide the same functionality, no. Mazda should lose this under Google v. Oracle. However, reverse engineering is dangerous. They surely read the copyrighted decompiled code. The test is whether the expressive elements of bdr99's implementation are substantially similar.

>>mminer+Ac
This might be the case, but how could Mazda even prove this? Unless they communicate in some weird proprietary binary protocol I could imagine that the API (especially if it's just some JSON/XML REST stuff) can be reverse engineered by MitM traffic analysis.

>>sp1rit+pe
I would assume Mazda looked at the infringing code and thought it looked suspiciously like their own code.