Offtopic: Is really Plurk #1 microblogging service in Asia?
Didn't remember it was greatfirewalled in China: http://blog.plurk.com/2009/04/27/china-bans-plurk/
Microsoft rips off Plurk
71–80 of 141 posts
Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk
#72Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are more concerned about obfuscation of code than the fact that a major software developer ripped of someone's code, is a little troubling. Whether he obfuscation code or not has absolutely zero importance in this context.
Of course it has context if this is being presented as a legal issue. The original article doesn't really mention it (although it's easier to assume now with the hindsight of a complete comment thread). I believe you are "even more guilty" if you de-obfuscate someone's code, then copy and republish/reuse.
There is no such thing as "more guilty". You are or you aren't.
Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk
#74Being 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…
By any means: use the visibility you gain from this for your PR/advertising game! Now is the time for a smart play, get the public behind you (in terms of: target audience goes Plurk 'cause it's cool). Granted, this is not 'the solution but an opportunity you can manage to get a win out of this. (Remember, PG wrote the $$ he spent on PR was worth it.)
Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But simply cloning a user interface is legal, at least in US case law. Can you give us citation that it is legal, or are making your claim based on the above lawsuits? Having a look and feel that is "similar" but "not the same" is open to debate, but having 90% of the interface ripped off, pixel by pixel can't be just "ok". We don't know that because something so dumb didn't happen before in the highest level.
The Lotus v. Borland decision was, in fact, about an interface that was keystroke-for-keystroke identical between the two applications. Again, there's a very clear case here for copyright infringement of the code . Mixing that with a much less clear case based on the status of the "interface" is just not a good idea.
Lotus v. Borland was not the same. As a matter of fact it was a very stupid lawsuit and rightfully dismissed.
>None of the source code or machine code that generated the menus was copied, but the names of the commands and the organization of those commands into a hierarchy were virtually identical.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dev._Corp._v._Borland_Int...
In this case MS not only copied the interface of plurk, but from the look of it they also stole the code. Such a blatant copyright infringement has never happened before at this level to the best of my knowledge.
Your claim that it is "legal to copy UI in US law", based on the above example, is false.
Copying a menu, its command name and hierarchy is not the same as copying an interface. A menu is only small sub-set of user interface.
Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it has context if this is being presented as a legal issue. The original article doesn't really mention it (although it's easier to assume now with the hindsight of a complete comment thread). I believe you are "even more guilty" if you de-obfuscate someone's code, then copy and republish/reuse.
There is no such thing as "more guilty". You are or you aren't.
It indicates intent and state of mind. "More guilty" is just an expression that means "more evidence for guilt."
Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk
#77Being 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…
wow. By the way, what do you mean by obfuscation? Because this is really weird, they even copied the variables. So was the code obfuscated or just trimmed of white space. You should consider using the google closure compiler with advanced optimizations, although you will have το do some extra work το get your javascript compile in advanced mode.
What's up with a few of your "to's" at the end of your last sentence? :-)
Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk
#78Chinese software piracy: if you can't beat it, join it.
Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree; "you shouldn't read Open Source code" doesn't fix anything much because it's impossible to find out if developers are sticking to it or not (so it doesn't decrease the burden of proof). It's just as impossible to prove that MS work doesn't include GPL code with or without the rule :) A better (more effective) one is, surely, dont reuse restricted code.... :)
Microsoft actually tries to enforce the policy of "you shouldn't read Open Source code". For example, they block access to Sourceforge from the Microsoft campus.
That is totally false. There are no restrictions of any kind on the Microsoft network in general (apart from your standard virus/malware/firewall type stuff).
I've synced code for my projects from sourceforge/google code/github often.
Re: Microsoft rips off Plurk
#80Earlier 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.
Microsoft also contract out a LOT of work, where this practice is not upheld, or even mentioned. I used to work for a place that did work for Microsoft. Big, important stuff as well.