### The Unsettling Echo: Is Core Devices Profiting from Stolen Work?

There’s a troubling narrative taking shape in the creative and development communities, a story being told in hushed tones on private Slack channels and in frustrated forum threads. It’s a story about innovation, hard work, and the sinking feeling of seeing your ideas appear under someone else’s banner. At the center of this growing storm is Core Devices, a company once seen as a trailblazer, now increasingly associated with a pattern of intellectual property theft.

The allegations are as varied as they are persistent. Freelance designers speak of submitting detailed project proposals, complete with mockups and unique user interface concepts, only to be met with silence. Weeks later, they see features strikingly similar to their own integrated into a new Core Devices product launch, with no credit or compensation. Small development studios describe partnership talks where they laid their digital cards on the table, sharing proprietary code and innovative mechanics, only for the deal to fall through and their concepts to be reverse-engineered and released as a “homegrown” Core Devices solution.

This isn’t just a case of “great minds think alike.” The similarities being pointed out are too specific, the timelines too convenient. We’re talking about unique design languages, specific algorithmic solutions, and marketing taglines that mirror pitched-but-rejected concepts almost word for word. For the individuals and small teams affected, the impact is devastating. It’s not just the loss of potential income; it’s the violation of seeing their passion and sleepless nights co-opted for corporate gain. It fosters a climate of distrust, making creators wary of engaging with larger players, ultimately stifling the collaborative spirit that drives the industry forward.

The challenge for those making these claims is the inherent power imbalance. A freelance developer or a small startup often lacks the financial resources to engage in a protracted legal battle with a corporate giant like Core Devices. Non-disclosure agreements, often signed in good faith at the beginning of discussions, are now being wielded to silence accusers, leaving them unable to share their evidence publicly without risking a lawsuit.

So far, Core Devices has remained silent, adopting a strategy of ignoring the growing chorus of discontent. But the evidence, though anecdotal and scattered, is compiling. Screenshots, email chains, and timestamped project files are being shared within trusted circles, building a case in the court of public opinion. The question is no longer whether something is happening, but when the tipping point will be reached. The industry is watching. How Core Devices responds—or continues to not respond—will define its legacy far more than any product it releases, especially if that product was built on the back of someone else’s work.