[xgbi]

Come on, this piece is written by someone who obviously doesn't know what he his talking about..

The entirety of his examples are focused on the Oauth API, which is a standard, and all the concepts and var names he shows as a steal of API are present in each and all Oauth authentication servers.

I mean, we have in our own api about 90% of the same verbiage for our own authentication doc, this is bog standard Auth code..

[comex]

The same verbiage, as in large chunks of text are word-for-word identical? Because that’s what’s being alleged here; it doesn’t happen by accident (the chances of two people independently writing identical text are astronomically low for any significant amount of text), and it certainly constitutes copyright infringement unless it turns out that Smartcar put the documentation under an open source license somewhere. If, on the other hand, you just mean that your docs have a similar overall structure, because they’re documenting a similar API, that’s something completely different.

[xgbi]

The API the guy is talking about is a freaking RFC!

The wording of this is found everywhere on the internet. Just search for one of the phrases you find and you'll have plenty of matches: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+number+of+seconds+the...

I understand the frustration of the guy, but this is not like they copied the business API, this is just the standard Oauth.

Anyways.. I'm starting to sound like an Otonomo PR guys.. I'm not, it's just that reading this article, I found myself pondering whether my current employer could be sued for this kind of trickery. I wrote the Oauth2 code in our product, and found myself writing the exact same doc (probably with different words).

[jakobegger]

How did Ottonomo end up with identical random identifiers? Are those from the RFC as well?

[soulofmischief]

Even the design is the exact same, though. Did you accidentally rip off Oath's design as well?