Microsoft rips off Plurk • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#31

Post by jf » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:19 PM UTC

socratees wrote: post #30

amix wrote: post #5

Being the co-founder and lead dev of Plurk I can tell you this sucks :-( But we are looking at our legal options, thought legal war with Microsoft and especially legal war at Microsoft in China would require a lot of resources. I think this will become a major concern for all startups that are doing lots of client-side stuff. If people have determination they can copy your code (even if all your code is obfuscated, w…

This sounds horrible. Microsoft shouldn't be blamed for this entirely though. Why wouldn't the team that created this think through before? From what I know, people inside Microsoft make sure they don't get in to any legal trouble before they make use of any code or idea that's already available. Anyways, this episode is a blatant disrespect for IP. Copying the code is something awful. I believe this case deserves th…

Legal compliance is VERY important at Microsoft, so much so that we aren't supposed to even read Open Source source code.

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#32

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:23 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #13

padmanabhan01 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, how does this work? Will everything be fine if they maintained the same look and feel and intentionally obfuscated/added more junk to their code to make the code look different?

No. The Apple v. MS and Lotus v. Borland "look and feel" results were about the interface, not implementation. If you steal code (or other copyrighted content) from someone, no amount of obfuscation will "make it OK" legally (though I guess it might make it impossible to detect). But simply cloning a user interface is legal, at least in US case law.

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#33

Post by ErrantX » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:24 PM UTC

jf wrote: post #31

socratees wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds horrible. Microsoft shouldn't be blamed for this entirely though. Why wouldn't the team that created this think through before? From what I know, people inside Microsoft make sure they don't get in to any legal trouble before they make use of any code or idea that's already available. Anyways, this episode is a blatant disrespect for IP. Copying the code is something awful. I believe this case deserves th…

Legal compliance is VERY important at Microsoft, so much so that we aren't supposed to even read Open Source source code.

That seems a somewhat knee jerk / extreme approach to the problem :)

Risks stifling innovative code?

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#34

Post by socratees » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:25 PM UTC

jf wrote: post #31

socratees wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds horrible. Microsoft shouldn't be blamed for this entirely though. Why wouldn't the team that created this think through before? From what I know, people inside Microsoft make sure they don't get in to any legal trouble before they make use of any code or idea that's already available. Anyways, this episode is a blatant disrespect for IP. Copying the code is something awful. I believe this case deserves th…

Legal compliance is VERY important at Microsoft, so much so that we aren't supposed to even read Open Source source code.

Yeah I know. And if they decide to make use of any 3rd party application or code internally, they make sure they don't unintentionally mess up with legal requirements of the software. This certainly is an isolated case which needs serious investigation.

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#35

Post by kogir » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:26 PM UTC

I'm speculating, but I'd guess this was the fault of poor management of an external contractor or partner. We don't know for sure who actually developed the code, just who's hosting it. It's not like similar things haven't happened before:

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/11/microsoft-pull...

I'd personally never heard of Plurk until now, and wouldn't have known myself that a contractor had ripped it off had I commissioned the work.

It's still an egregious violation, but I doubt this will even need to go to trial. Microsoft stands to gain little from alienating startups in this manner. If it comes to it, I'm sure aggressively shaming them publicly will be far cheaper than suing and eventually as effective.

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#36

Post by jganetsk » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:32 PM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #33

jf wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal compliance is VERY important at Microsoft, so much so that we aren't supposed to even read Open Source source code.

That seems a somewhat knee jerk / extreme approach to the problem :) Risks stifling innovative code?

I don't think it's an extreme approach. It would otherwise be nearly impossible to prove that Microsoft's code is not derived from GPL'd works. At least without revealing their code.

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#37

Post by moeffju » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:34 PM UTC

The JS code was obviously unpacked/prettified. All internal vars have shortnames like B, C, D, etc. Everything that interacts with the outside has long names, as in the minified plurk code.

Astonishing.

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#38

Post by eru » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:38 PM UTC

figital wrote: post #3

If you're going to worry about that you should have obfuscated your junk.

I do not see how obfuscation is necessary for copyright.

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#39

Post by likpok » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:41 PM UTC

ratsbane wrote: post #29

This reminds me of the Kayak/Bing Travel issue from July and similar incidents before that. It's easy enough to blame some contractors at a distant outpost but the frequency with which these things happen around Microsoft certainly leads to the conclusion that they are bad actors and poor citizens.

Kayak/Bing Travel wasn't Microsoft, IIRC. They acquired another company who copied the look and feel of Kayak.

Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk

#40

Post by eob » Mon, Dec 14, 2009, 6:41 PM UTC

jf wrote: post #25

mikeryan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look I doubt anyone very high up at MS knows of this and when they do you might be able to get some scratch out of this. They're really going to have 3 ways to deal with this. 1. pull down the existing site while they retool. 2. Pay you a licensing fee while the rewrite from scratch. 3. Do nothing and get a ton of bad press See if you can get 1 or 2 and maybe make some money off the deal.

I just started working for Microsoft so that I can be a voice inside the company for startups. I'm forwarding this thread to my legal contact.

Was that really the prime motivator in joining MS? How do you mean "be a voice for startups"? Cool.

People usually cite this reasoning for joining the government -- an organization whose mandate is toward the greater good of its people, but I've never heard it applied toward a corporate entity, whose mandate is solely profit.

Would you mind posting a bit more about your motivations and thinking? I would really like to hear.