Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology • Hacker News Board

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#31

Post by qeorge » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 3:32 PM UTC

whalesalad wrote: post #11

First of all, like most of the people on HN I too agree these guys are getting a little sappy. Give it a rest and stop crying. This all sounds like the new American dream to me, wait for someone to create an accident and take advantage of it by suing the pants off of them. Your company is worthless, so you're going to sue Microsoft to make your millions? Second... Plurk won't let me sign up with a MobileMe email addr…

Stop being a jerk. The Plurk guys got hosed. I agree that this press release is a mistake, but I can see where they're coming from.

"wait for someone to create an accident and take advantage of it by suing the pants off of them"

That is in no way what Plurk did.

"Your company is worthless, so you're going to sue Microsoft to make your millions?"

Obviously the company is not worthless, or presumably MS wouldn't have bothered ripping it off.

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#32

Post by KWD » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 3:35 PM UTC

motters wrote: post #25

It seems strange to me that although Microsoft is the company at fault here many of the commentators seem to be basically praising Microsoft and blaming/deriding the guys whose code was plagiarized.

You actually have to look at Microsoft as part victim here. The company at fault is the subcontractor, and Microsoft handled it quickly and appropriately once notified of the issue. Plurk could have handled this differently from the start, but chose the publicity route and it got them noticed. Now the publicity train has left the station and they have not realized it, but soon they will see the goodwill they gained can be quickly lost if they push this too far.

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#33

Post by icey » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 4:08 PM UTC

With all eyes on you, the right move would have been to accept Microsoft's apology, and thank them for seeing how great Plurk is - after all, imitation is the best form of flattery. Then it would have been a good chance to mention how to sign up for Plurk.

What a wasted marketing opportunity.

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#34

Post by TallGuyShort » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 4:16 PM UTC

webwright wrote: post #21

anigbrowl wrote: post #3

Even I, as a co-founder of Plurk, have to write this press release myself. You poor dear. Look guys, quit while you're ahead. Everyone knows you are not going to sue Microsoft because the legal fees would be bigger than your market cap. The smart thing would be to take this down and say only that you're 'discussing it with them. Let MS takes you out on a date and give them some room to make it up to you. Sometimes th…

Agreed. This is weak on Plurk's part. How were they harmed? Microsoft screwed up and hired a shady vendor who did a shady thing. As soon as they realized what happened, they owned it, fired the vendor, and shut down the site. Just because Microsoft has money doesn't mean that Plurk deserves it.

I think you've hit the nail on the head - and that's exactly why Plurk is going about it the way they have: They're not expecting a proper legal repercussion to take place - they want publicity for themselves, and bad press for MS. In his previous blog post he begged for this to become viral.

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#35

Post by jimmybot » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 4:17 PM UTC

stse wrote: post #20

ryanelkins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just glad to see that most of HN isn't riding the conspiracy train with them. It's like they imagine Bill Gates personally copying their code while cackling maniacally. I think it was fairly obvious that the whole thing was an accident (meaning it was not Microsoft's intention to have developer's steal Plurk's code). Microsoft gave a surprisingly refreshing apology and took the site down. This is quickly becoming…

I think most people here agree that your business should be based on making innovative products, not imitation nor litigation.

I'm not a legal expert, but like others, I don't think they have much of a legal argument. But isn't "your business should be based on making innovative products" exactly what Plurk is complaining about?

Although Microsoft was caught lifting code, what if they didn't copy so exactly? Their intention was clearly reimplementing Plurk for China, probably without all the Taiwan users that would make it a sure thing that Plurk is banned. How is that really any better from an ethos perspective?

Plurk is very clearly satisfying some kind of niche in parts of the world that Twitter does not (maybe its the emoticons or easy way for viewing replies in the web interface? or the idea of karma?).

I suppose not innovating is one way of running a business, but it's one I say "boo" to.

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#36

Post by micks56 » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 4:25 PM UTC

edmccaffrey wrote: post #5

What an idiotic statement. A judge would look at the actual damages; launching the site for an extremely short time in a country that they are not allowed to operate in just couldn't have caused them much actual financial damage. How much are the actual damages? Zero (what seems likely without more information) times whatever punitive multiplier you can think of isn't much at all. I'd say they fully deserve to lose a…

This is an inaccurate statement of the law. Chapter 17 of the United States Code goes into voluminous detail of that actual law. Actual damages includes costs saved by the infringer. Courts can also impose punitive damages, which is not necessarily a multiplier, as well as costs and attorney's fees.

All of this assumes that US jurisdiction applies.

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#37

Post by grellas » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 4:34 PM UTC

The logic behind this might mean that Plurk is aiming to force Microsoft into some form of settlement by which MS stipulates to certain restrictions on its future activities as a condition to obtaining a release, the spirit of which would be along the following lines: "you, as a willful infringer caught red-handed already, agree that, in the event you should ever again use any code or interface remotely resembling ours, we can apply to a court for immediate injunctive relief."

Obviously, I am speculating but the last paragraph of the press release tends in my view to support this theme, implying that these founders have a perception this was not at all innocent on Microsoft's part but instead something quite calculated.

This also may constitute gamesmanship by which Plurk is trying to create enough of a nuisance to force Microsoft to consider acquiring it as a way of clearing the way for it to enter this market in the future.

This may indeed be nothing more than bad judgment by these founders, as the comments here suggest, but it must have some logic behind it (wise or not) and that logic may well run along the above lines.

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#38

Post by xsmasher » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 4:34 PM UTC

edmccaffrey wrote: post #5

What an idiotic statement. A judge would look at the actual damages; launching the site for an extremely short time in a country that they are not allowed to operate in just couldn't have caused them much actual financial damage. How much are the actual damages? Zero (what seems likely without more information) times whatever punitive multiplier you can think of isn't much at all. I'd say they fully deserve to lose a…

There are damages - Plurk has a right to any money derived from copying their code, including any payments made to the evil outsourcing company and any advertising revenue (gross) that the site brought in during its short life.

That being said, suing MS can only lead to ruin. If they could keep a BS case like SCO on life support for so long, they can certainly keep this running long enough to bankrupt Plurk. I don't know about the legal system in Taiwan though - maybe they could get a judgment against Microsoft before the universe cools.

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#39

Post by mbreese » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 4:45 PM UTC

srj532 wrote: post #30

motters wrote: post #25

It seems strange to me that although Microsoft is the company at fault here many of the commentators seem to be basically praising Microsoft and blaming/deriding the guys whose code was plagiarized.

Microsoft did not steal the code. an Employee or contractor did. They, the individual(s) that stole the code is who is guilty here. As soon as Microsoft was made aware of the situation they pulled the offending code/software immediately.

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Microsoft is guilty of it because they are the ones who published the code/product as their own. They hired someone to do the work. Yes, that person ripped of Plurk, but Microsoft failed to verify their contractor's work. That makes them culpable.

Plurk was ripped off by Microsoft. Full Stop.

Now, Microsoft has it's own options with respect to that contractor, but their swift response doesn't erase Microsoft's liability.

Re: Plurk’s official response to Microsoft’s apology

#40

Post by houseabsolute » Thu, Dec 17, 2009, 4:48 PM UTC

micks56 wrote: post #36

edmccaffrey wrote: post #5

What an idiotic statement. A judge would look at the actual damages; launching the site for an extremely short time in a country that they are not allowed to operate in just couldn't have caused them much actual financial damage. How much are the actual damages? Zero (what seems likely without more information) times whatever punitive multiplier you can think of isn't much at all. I'd say they fully deserve to lose a…

This is an inaccurate statement of the law. Chapter 17 of the United States Code goes into voluminous detail of that actual law. Actual damages includes costs saved by the infringer. Courts can also impose punitive damages, which is not necessarily a multiplier, as well as costs and attorney's fees. All of this assumes that US jurisdiction applies.

The infringer hasn't exactly saved any costs, now, has he?