Believe me, we would love to go into very, very specific detail on exactly what is covered in the complaint, unfortunately talking publicly about details in the suit is taboo/off-limits. Further, our response isn't yet filed, which would provide some of that detail.
But it's telling they chose to pursue litigation instead of any other form of out-reach.
If you've infringed their content, for instance by knowingly paying contractors to create 1:1 versions of copyrighted textbooks down to specific analogies and figures (like the Smokey the Thermodynamics Bear), why would it be on them to pursue any other form out outreach? You'd have committed a tort against them. They're entitled to relief. It's on you not to violate their copyright.
It's a little annoying that you're trying to leverage people's sentiment about textbook publishers so actively. Right is right and wrong is wrong, even when we don't like the people who've been wronged. It's actually even more wrong, since it casts a pall over everyone else trying to modernize the economics of textbooks.
Infringement is not necessarily a simple matter. Oracle pointed to what appeared to be direct copying of Java files by Google. But the truth turned out to be considerably more complex. The result is still uncertain, but there are good reasons to question whether even something like that will be enough to support a claim of infringement.
Now, I don't know how things will play out in this case. But that's my point, because none of us know. We don't have to pick sides today, though.
I'm glad that I was correct to assume the best, though.
Yeah, but what it's telling of is similarly open to debate. You'd probably say that that is proves they can't innovate or something in that direction. They might say that it's such an obvious and easy win that they don't even need to bother discussing it with you.
Also, it's worth noting that a violent reaction to a business model being threatened is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, let's suppose someone is looting your shop. Do you allow them to do so, or do you take out the baseball bat behind the counter? If the looter said, "Hey, you're only getting out that bat because your business model is being threatened," that would probably not be compelling to you or to any bystanders that happened to be about.
Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what you are doing is equivalent to looting. I'm only trying to point out that other readers ought not take your side simply because you think you're threatening someone's business model.
As to their lawsuit, good luck. I never understood why my books were so expensive (early 2000s). Of course if you're using the chapter titles of their texts as someone mentioned, I'm not an expert on copyright law, but it just feels wrong.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/The-Lord-o...
Summarizing may legally be different than re-writing however, so it'll be interesting to see where the case goes.
Look, most of us on HN have read many college textbooks. I think we all recognize that way more goes into a textbook than just the prose.
I'm not judging you, just message-board-nerding your comment here. This is pretty common in threads about legal actions. "We didn't do XXYM", where /\AXX..\Z/ is what's been alleged.
Allowing Smokey the Thermodynamics Bear was a super bad idea, by the way.
1. In order to profit from references to the source text's section+page numbers, they took care to edit, reorder, and adjust layout so that the identity mapping suffices. This makes me wonder: what compromises did they have to make to achieve this? Why didn't they just provide an easy to use lookup index?
2. They copied the texts, thinking that paraphrasing would protect them. (or laxly supervised contractors/employees who resorted to copying)
Both seem plausible to me.
"a tool to help you understand literature."
Cliffs Notes is "fair use".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
The same way you can review a movie in the local paper or even a TV station can do a movie review and use short clips.
So while it would be possible to discuss and give examples of how a textbook presented information (as a critique of that textbook) you can't copy it (apparently as being claimed) in the way boundless is doing.
As the OP pointed out we will know more when they file their response.