[NikxDa]

From what I can tell, his argument seems to be that

1. no code was manually copied by a developer, and

2. all software in the same space copies off of each other

But the big giveaway here is the exact same layout/copywriting on both products. Telling an LLM "write this product and build a 1:1 clone" is still copying by all sensible definitions. The fact that he argues nothing was copied is ridiculous.

[bushido]

They're both boilerplate ShadCN from the looks of it: https://ui.shadcn.com/blocks

ShadCN is the most popular design system that AI automatically reaches for 90%+ times on its own. It's also the default most platforms like lovable, etc.

[fouc]

I looked at that link and was unable to find any blocks that matched the 4 images? "Replicate Room Folders" and all

[simgoh]

He's talking about the layout & styles, not literally verbatim copy for copy of the 4 images. Shadcn is an open-source collection of reusable UI components for building modern web applications.

[ValentineC]

I know most people refer to the design system as shadcn, but I was floored when I learnt that shadcn is the handle of a (now-)Vercel employee, and the design system is properly called shadcn/ui.

[i000]

I guess that is at the core of Google vs Oracle, they copied the API kept the implementation clean-room. It was definitvely ruled that this was fair use. If fair use applies to something as strict as re-implementing an API, I would argue it applies to something much more elusive, like cloning UI/layout.

[nerdsniper]

> I would argue [fair use] applies to something much more elusive, like cloning UI/layout.

You would be very wrong in this argument. It's extremely well-established that corporate verbiage and UI are subject to copyright.

[LoganDark]

He argues no code was copied.