# Minitap says Google's Artemis reused its code and removed author names > Source: > Published: 2026-09-12 19:01:00+00:00 # Minitap says Google's Artemis reused its code and removed author names **The mobile QA startup published matching files and a detached commit naming three contributors who disappeared from Google's release.** By [Ryan Merket](/author/ryan-merket) ยท Published Primary source: [Minitap](https://www.minitap.ai/blog/i-expected-better-from-google) ## Why it matters The dispute tests whether a small startup can preserve credit when a platform company absorbs open-source work into a higher-profile project. [Nicolas Dehandschoewercker (@nicodhnr)](https://x.com/nicodhnr), Minitap's co-founder and CEO, accused Google of releasing parts of the startup's open-source mobile agent under the Artemis name without crediting the engineers who wrote the original code. In a [September 11th post](https://www.minitap.ai/blog/i-expected-better-from-google), Dehandschoewercker published comparisons between Google's repository and [mobile-use](https://github.com/minitap-ai/mobile-use), the open-source system Minitap built to let AI agents operate Android and iOS apps. The examples include matching Android device connection code, an identical agent prompt, and a WhatsApp automation example with the same fictional recipients, comments and cleanup steps. The strongest evidence sits in Artemis's repository history. A [detached version of its package file](https://github.com/google/artemis/blob/14e02c4c27bc5b3c0d07e9a7b3b20141d6af9348/pyproject.toml#L20-L24) identifies Pierre-Louis Favreau, Jean-Pierre Lo and Dehandschoewercker as authors. It also carries version number 3.6.3, matching the mobile-use release Minitap says was incorporated into Artemis. A [replacement version](https://github.com/google/artemis/blob/206a9ce921367ca10091c79ad00e116f195850ff/pyproject.toml#L20-L22) keeps the version number while replacing the three names with "somew1nd" and an Outlook email address. Minitap's [public GitHub issue](https://github.com/google/artemis/issues/40) says the other 228 files in that initial release were unchanged. ### The code comparisons Minitap linked to the exact commits it examined, making several of its central claims independently inspectable. The [Hopper prompt in Artemis](https://github.com/google/artemis/blob/086078819209c7139d6f833cfdc6d5cc80d9f19a/artemis/agents/hopper/hopper.md) and the [mobile-use version](https://github.com/minitap-ai/mobile-use/blob/cc20e3d52bf6dac1dff07f7b894520b8aeb051b7/minitap/mobile_use/agents/hopper/hopper.md) contain the same instructions, output fields and rules. The name itself carries unusually specific provenance. Dehandschoewercker said Lo, a founding engineer at Minitap, chose "Hopper" because he liked Minecraft. Artemis used the same name for the agent carrying the matching prompt. Minitap also identified corresponding ADB tunnel implementations and a messaging example that instructs an agent to send Happy New Year messages to Alice, Bob and Charlie. Dehandschoewercker said older versions shared a failure in which a helper wrote a results file and then attempted to read that output during the next run. Artemis subsequently fixed the bug. The comparisons support Minitap's assertion that Artemis incorporated substantial mobile-use material. They do not show that Artemis consists entirely of Minitap's work. Dehandschoewercker explicitly acknowledged that Google added engineering of its own. Google's [Artemis repository](https://github.com/google/artemis) describes the project as an Android automation system created by its Pixel Test Engineering [Fusion](/models/openrouter/fusion) team. It drives phones from natural-language instructions, records diagnostics and connects to AI coding tools through the Model Context Protocol. As checked on September 12th, its README did not mention Minitap or mobile-use. ### What the license requires Minitap released the relevant mobile-use code under the Apache License 2.0, which permits commercial reuse and derivative works. The dispute centers on the conditions attached to that permission. [Section 4 of the Apache license](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) requires distributors to retain applicable copyright and attribution notices, mark modified files and carry forward relevant notices from an upstream NOTICE file. The mobile-use snapshot cited by Minitap includes a [NOTICE file](https://github.com/minitap-ai/mobile-use/blob/cc20e3d52bf6dac1dff07f7b894520b8aeb051b7/NOTICE) identifying Minitap as the developer of the software and its architectural methods. That file also draws an important boundary. Minitap's request for prominent credit in documentation and About pages is explicitly described as a request rather than a legal requirement. The license question therefore turns on which copyright and attribution notices accompanied the reused files and whether Google preserved the notices that applied. Removing names from a package author field is conspicuous evidence of erased provenance, though that metadata change alone does not resolve compliance with the license. Minitap has asked Google to identify mobile-use as an upstream source, restore applicable copyright notices and credit the contributors whose work remains in Artemis. ### A small team's code under a much larger name Dehandschoewercker and co-founder Luc Mahoux-Nakamura started Minitap after building mobile products together since their teens. Their previous app, Fuego, took two years to build and left them focused on the slow testing and release cycles surrounding mobile development. Minitap raised a [$4.1 million seed round](https://www.forbes.com/sites/charliefink/2025/12/01/startup-minitap-tops-deepminds-mobile-ai-benchmark-raises-41-million-seed-round/) in 2025, co-led by Moxxie Ventures and Mercuri. The founders used mobile-use as the technical foundation and public proof point for Minitap, then shifted development toward a closed-source QA agent that tests web and mobile applications. That history explains the stakes behind the attribution fight. Minitap gave other developers, including potential competitors, permission to use mobile-use. Public provenance still determines who receives contributors, customers and investor attention for the work. When the downstream project belongs to Google, a missing acknowledgement can make the larger organization appear to be the originator by default. Open-source licensing gave Google broad permission to build on mobile-use. It did not make Minitap's authorship disappear.