Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Government Software The Courts News

Affinity Engines Says Google Stole Orkut Code 450

Posted by timothy from the your-head-please dept.
GillBates0 writes "Wired's reporting that a social networking software company called Affinity Engines has filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming that much of the source code behind Orkut, the search engine's popular social service, was stolen by former engineer Orkut Buyukkokten. They claim that he illegally took the code the he had written for the company -- which he co-founded -- with him when he joined Google and that Buyukkokten promised Affinity Engines that he wouldn't develop a competing social network service for Google. '"In its initial investigation, AEI uncovered a total of nine unique software bugs ... in AEI's inCircle product that were also present in Orkut.com," according to the lawsuit.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Affinity Engines Says Google Stole Orkut Code More

Affinity Engines Says Google Stole Orkut Code

Comments Filter:

  • Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) * on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:33PM (#9573418) Homepage
    Okay, these cases always sound a little iffy to me, but it's not impossible.

    I worked for a startup where our whole product line was based on a voice core that one of the developers had stolen from his previous employer. Ironically, it ended up killing the company -- the developer wouldn't share the code with anyone and didn't have the skill set to make the sort of changes to it we needed. In the end, we had to try and build a new core from scratch, which just put us even farther behind.

    Of course, Google ain't some startup run by a bunch of shit-for-brains dysfunctional asshole managers (not that I'm bitter or anything). Just given the sort of company Google has been (aka, not stupid), if the claims pan out it seems to me most likely that this is a situation where this developer came in and unpacked some work he'd done elsewhere -- hell, I have a set of scripts I've developed over the years that I take with me from company to company so I don't have to rewrite them (of course, none of them face the outside or even provide output to anyone other than me).

    If that's the case, and assuming this developer actually didn't have any legal rights to this code, it seems to be like Google shouldn't be liable unless this company can prove they used the code knowing it was swiped; otherwise, the lawsuit should be against this developer (not that the developer has hugely deep pockets or an impending IPO to work against).

    Alternatively, isn't it possible that this developer just reimplemented the same sort of paradigm he was used to and that caused the same sort of malfunctions? This doesn't seem to far-fetched to me, especially if the bugs are in the overall logic of the coding rather than just a misspelling here or there. I know I've made the same sorts of mistakes even on a complete reimplementation just because nobody had caught them previously...

    • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jjshoe ( 410772 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:39PM (#9573479) Homepage
      Why is google in question? It should be the employee.

      • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:41PM (#9573508)
        Because the employee isn't worth nearly as much money as the company is.

        • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by bheerssen ( 534014 ) <bheerssen@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:50PM (#9573629)
          That's awfully cynical, even if it is true. However, Google, as a company, is responsible for the conduct of its employees. I would think that both the Orkut and Google could be held liable if the facts are as presented.

          • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:4, Funny)

            by Mysticalfruit ( 533341 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:27PM (#9573957) Homepage Journal
            What I find particulary funny is that this guy took all this code with him and didn't even fix the bugs!

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:44PM (#9573553)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • But wouldnt that mean it was done during company sanctioned time? I know its kinda pedantic, but doing this while in the employ and being paid by Google would spread the liability to Google. If this guy had done it entirely at home during his time off, not using Google company resources, it would be a different case, but Google 'endorsed' it with their personal projects encouragement policy I think.

          That being said, I hope nothing negative happens to Google as a result of this. I don't really care as to
      • It just happens that an hour ago I've finished the homework for my Legal Environment for Business class. Apparently, the employer is liable for the actions of his agents (employees). This goes all the way back to the British Common Law (for example: Joel v Morison, Court of Exchequer, England, 1834). Of course there are plenty of more recent cases on this side of the Atlantic as well

        If the guy was doing it in the course of his employment (and by the way Google endorses Orkut it can be assumed he was), the

      • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by spideyct ( 250045 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @03:15PM (#9574524)
        This is rich. I'm going to start posting "Why is Microsoft in question? It should be the employee" the next time some new IE bug is reported, or some patent issue, etc.

        I'll rack up the +5 Insightfuls!

        • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @04:32PM (#9575718)
          This is rich. I'm going to start posting "Why is Microsoft in question? It should be the employee" the next time some new IE bug is reported, or some patent issue, etc.

          The Microsoft employee(s) who coded IE presumably did it with the knowledge and approval of Microsoft, following design specifications handed to them by their employer, and implicitly reassigning the copyright to the pieces of IE they coded to Microsoft. Because of this, Microsoft is of course responsible for distributing of its own product, and any problems the flaws in this product might cause.

          Orkut, if guilty, stole source code, presumably without knowledge or approval of Google, lying and telling (or at least implying) his employer that he had the copyright to the code he gave Google and could thus reassign said copyright to Google. Google acted in good faith, and cannot be held responsible for not having magical powers of lie detection at its disposal. Or can people there in USA be held responsible for having bought stolen property, when they cannot possibly have known it was stolen (for example, buying a TV from a store which later turns out to be dumping grounds for local criminal gangs) ?

          • Interesting.
            You Presume Google had no knowledge, and you presume MS has full knowledge.

            Sound bias to me.
            ALL corporations and business must be held accountable for the actions there employees take while 'on the clock'.
            To exempt corporation from the behavious means there will be NO way to hold them accaountable. In a corporation, even the CEO is 'just an employee'.

            Your example in poor becasue the person buying the TV is not PART OF THE COMPANY THAT DID IT.

            Geez, this 3 monkeys attitude about Google is going to bite some people in the ass in the long run.
            • You Presume Google had no knowledge, and you presume MS has full knowledge.

              Sound bias to me.

              MS had full knowledge because they required their employee to write IE. Google did not have full knowledge (AFAIK) because they did not require their employee to steal code.
              ALL corporations and business must be held accountable for the actions there employees take while 'on the clock'.
              The theft did not occur while Orkut was working for Google.
    • > Ironically, it ended up killing the
      > company -- the developer wouldn't share the
      > code with anyone and didn't have the skill
      > set to make the sort of changes to it we
      > needed. In the end, we had to try and build
      > a new core from scratch, which just put
      > us even farther behind.

      Well said. I wonder how often this happens - a developer is hired in the hopes of bringing onboard magical knowledge, but it turns out to be more of an impediment than anything else.

      Perhaps there are some domains that work better for this than others - maybe writing drivers, or algorithm-heavy applications. But it seems like most businesses would be better served by writing the code themselves so they understand what it does and how it got to where it is now.

      • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bozdune ( 68800 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:21PM (#9573903)
        Happens all the time. You must be clean if you hire developers from the competition. Keep programming notebooks, write everything down, code from scratch. Nothing can be re-used.

        • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by LetterJ ( 3524 ) <j@wynia.org> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @03:00PM (#9574313) Homepage
          This is also why I use Subversion (used to use CVS) repositories even when I'm the only developer on a project. Regular commit cycles give you a dated trail for the development of code and you can show the evolution of code rather than the sudden arrival of entire functions and classes the are fully functional.
        • Happens all the time. You must be clean if you hire developers from the competition. Keep programming notebooks, write everything down, code from scratch. Nothing can be re-used.

          Spoken like someone that has never done any programming? All programmers develop libraries that they then reuse. A lot of programming is refactoring old code into more generic libraries so they can be reused more easily. Every programmer takes the knowledge they've gained onto their next job, it's the majority of their value. You

          • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ComputerSlicer23 ( 516509 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @05:35PM (#9576359)
            Yes, but you're probably still breaking the employment agreement you signed if you work in the US as a programmer.

            The company owns the copyright on the code your write for them under the legal concept of "works for hire". Unless they failed to pay you for it, they own it. You leaving the building, and letting someone else use it is a copyright violation. The employer you originally wrote it for should be able to successfully sue for copyright violation.

            Now, I have plenty of ideas stuck in my head that I've ended up re-implementing in nearly exactly the same way at two different places. I can re-implement my C++ database independent access library in a little under two weeks. I can write the reference counting classes I like to use in a day. I can implement the interface wrapper classes in about 3-4 hours. I can write the socket stream libraries, and the various SSL varients in a day or two. I can write a simple logging scheme in about a day or two. They are written at different times. I can show them as they are constructed, and demonstrate that they are clean room implementations. So I should be in the clear according to what I've read and been advised about the law.

            I ended up using the same names, and structuring the code the same way. Some one pointed out I might be breaking the NDA I signed at a former employer. So I ended up re-implementing it all again, this time going out and finding the functionality/API I wanted in publically accessable code (and implementing it from scratch to avoid licensing issues). I documented where each API/functionality idea came from, they we're strewn across several programs. This also showed that the ideas represented "current well known techniques", which no NDA can cover.

            You can use exactly the same ideas, and you can implement them at home, and take them into work and let them use them (put in the copyright that you as an individual are the copyright owner, and they are fully licensed to do anything and everything they want with it in royalty free). At least then you'd be legally doing it.

            Kirby

    • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by b0r0din ( 304712 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:48PM (#9573600)
      Did this Orkut guy sign an NDA or is there some sort of specific document that says he promised he wouldn't develop another social service?

      It seems like a pretty weak case, and I agree with the parent, if the company should be going after anyone, it's the person who created the code. Google shouldn't be liable for someone ripping off or developing code based on work done for another company's engine unless Google knowingly did it; and I very highly doubt they would. Only of course they know they can't sue the person himself because there isn't any money in it - if nothing else they could be trying to pocket money from other competitors who want Google to lose, just like MS funded SCO.

      • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by brundlefly ( 189430 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:54PM (#9574253)

        Did this Orkut guy sign an NDA or is there some sort of specific document that says he promised he wouldn't develop another social service?

        It sounds like he signed a non-compete agreement with his old employer before joining Google. Unfortunately for Affinity Engines, non-compete agreements are extremely difficult to enforce in the state of California -- the courts are very generous with respects to the rights of the employee and generally stay clear of cases which don't involve outright theft of IP.

        The real question seems to be was there theft? And the clues do seem to indicate that a further investigation is warranted.

    • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:5, Funny)

      by DamienMcKenna ( 181101 ) <damien&mc-kenna,com> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:52PM (#9573650)
      "dysfunctional asshole manager"...

      I think I know him..

    • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by doodlelogic ( 773522 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:54PM (#9573669)
      it seems to be like Google shouldn't be liable unless this company can prove they used the code knowing it was swiped

      Well... They may not be liable to pay damages for their past use of the code, but the article kind of indicates that the infringing code is still in Google's current product. So, if the code was stolen they could get an injunction against google (I think this might be called cease and desist order in the US, but same difference) to force them to stop using it.

      When people leave old jobs for new, it can be difficult to divide the ideas developed at one location from those at another, and if Google was acting in good faith, they shouldn't be forced to pay damages at least until they were put on notice of the infringement.

      What Google presumably wants, however, is to avoid disruption to its services and reputation, so if there is merit to the accusation, expect some kind of out of court deal that avoids both parties being dragged through the courts.

      What can't be settled out of court so easily would be if there is enough evidence against the developer for a criminal case.

      • Re:Just doesn't sound like Google to me... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rasta Prefect ( 250915 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:45PM (#9574157)
        So, if the code was stolen they could get an injunction against google (I think this might be called cease and desist order in the US, but same difference) to force them to stop using it.

        Nope. A Cease and Desist is a nasty-gram from the lawyers telling you that you should stop what you're doing. Usually involving threats of lawsuits. An injunction is a court order to stop doing it.

    • Wow, that sounds secure, working for a startup whose "whole product line was based on a voice core that one of the developers had stolen from his previous employer". That is so wrong in so many ways. Brings to mind a t-shirt that said "We steal from the other guy and pass the savings on to you.".

    • corporate faith (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
      Ripping off code to get to market faster isn't stupid - when you don't get caught. Keeping an angelic image generates "goodwill", which generates faith in corporate actions, which helps corporate decisionmakers to avoid getting caught.

  • thought that only happened to open source? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kpharmer ( 452893 ) * on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:34PM (#9573425)
    wait...isn't this the only value of closed source? that piracy doesn't happen?

    • Re:thought that only happened to open source? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ViolentGreen ( 704134 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:49PM (#9573612)
      No. That is one value of closed source. Another value is profit.

    • Re:thought that only happened to open source? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Halo- ( 175936 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:28PM (#9573972)
      Close. It's that piracy isn't discovered. I suspect there is a lot more code "borrowed" in the closed-source ranked, than the open-source ones. Closed source tends to be more deadline driven, and is a LOT less throughly vetted. Most open-source is done for ego or altruistic reasons. (take your pick) But the incentive to steal (bonuses, making deadlines, etc) coupled with the much lower chance of detection might tempt people.
      • I've been involved in multiple situations in previous jobs where we contracted for companies who turned out to have extremely dubious codebases, generally provided by external companies, acquired with small acquisitions and so on.

        The most notable one was Sonix (then bought by 3Com). Both Sonix and 3Com had definite policies and good practices but they had ended up with code, stripped of headers that came from Phil Karn's KA9Q.

        I've also had a case where a companiy had reference code/windows drivers and wou

  • why can't a neutral party examine? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:35PM (#9573440)
    For its part, Google is shrugged off Affinity Engines' allegations.

    "Affinity Engines has not provided any evidence to Google that their source code was used in the development of Orkut.com," wrote David Krane, the company's director of corporate communications, in a statement to Wired News. "We have repeatedly offered to allow a neutral expert to compare the codes in the two programs and evaluate Affinity's claims, but Affinity has rejected that offer. We have investigated the claims ... thoroughly and concluded that the allegations are without merit."

    I want to know why Orkut is rejecting the netural expert. It doesn't exactly make their claims look valid when they do that. Are they learning from SCO here? Perhaps if we make shit up and don't let anyone examine the claims thoroughly we can defame Company X and get money from them!

    Ahh, when History repeats itself...

    • Re:why can't a neutral party examine? (Score:5, Informative)

      by stevesliva ( 648202 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:39PM (#9573477) Journal
      It was Affinity that was rejecting the neutral expert, and Google that was offering.

    • Re:why can't a neutral party examine? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are they learning from SCO here? Perhaps if we make shit up and don't let anyone examine the claims thoroughly we can defame Company X and get money from them!

      If there's one thing they should be learning from SCO it's that the victim might actually fight it out.
    • Perhaps someone is hoping that google will pay them off so this will not spook people who want to buy into the google ipo?
    • I want to know why Orkut is rejecting the netural expert.

      Orkut's the guy who moved from Affinity Engines to Google, and seems to be what Google's product is named after.

      Affinity Engines is who's rejecting the offer.

      Either way, isn't the Friendster social network bullshit thing over yet?

      -PM

    • Re:why can't a neutral party examine? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:42PM (#9573532) Journal
      You've got it backwards...
      "We have repeatedly offered to allow a neutral expert to compare the codes in the two programs and evaluate Affinity's claims, but Affinity has rejected that offer. We have investigated the claims ... thoroughly and concluded that the allegations are without merit."
      This is Orkut saying that HE offered a neutral party to look and Affinity (the one's sueing Google) have refused the offer.

      The only one's trying to 'pull a SCO' here is Affinity...
    • When I first saw the article, it sounded like Google was busted. When I saw that Google offered to compare the code, I realized it might be Affinity that's blowing smoke. I gather Affinity's not public, so the backlash on them can't be as great as in the stock market. I wonder if Google will counter-sue?

  • Why? (Score:5, Funny)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:35PM (#9573441) Homepage Journal
    Why would someone lay claim to that unscalably, buggy pile of crap they call orkut code?

    It breaks regularly, and when it is running, its slow as dirt. Honestly, I'd just suck it up and not admit that it was mine!

  • "Popular" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Darlington ( 28762 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:37PM (#9573450)
    Orkut, the search engine's popular social service

    If by "popular" you mean "only used by a handful of dorks performing a sort of digital circle-jerk", then yeah, it's popular...

  • At what point has Google violated its maxim of "do no evil?" Assuming this claim by Orkut is true, has Google exceeded its maxim? It seems inevitable to me that any big company will inevitably get involved in less-than-ethical dealings. Saying "Do not evil" will only get you so far.

    • Re:"Do no evil"? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shoten ( 260439 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:48PM (#9573598)
      I think we need to be clear in the understanding that there's a potential disconnect between the intended actions of Orkut the programmer (as opposed to the service) and Google the company. It may well be that Google believed they were getting something written for them from scratch, when in fact the programmer was re-using a ridiculous (and legally actionable) amount of his old code. I tend to believe that if any infringement did occur, that this is the story behind it, rather than Google willfully and knowingly infringing.

  • Eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ford Prefect ( 8777 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:37PM (#9573455) Homepage
    Given how unstable and unreliable Orkut has been lately, I reckon Google should sue back! :-)

  • Oh dear (Score:5, Funny)

    by TwistedSpring ( 594284 ) * on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:37PM (#9573456) Homepage
    If you have made promises like that to your former company, it's a pretty dumb idea to name the software that publically breaks those promises with your own name.

    "Hay guys, I won't develop any social networking services for rival companies or use the code I wrote for you!"
    "Cool Orkut, thanks, that'd be legally binding then."
    *several months later*
    "Hmm, I think I'll call the service 'Orkut'. They'll never know it was me."

  • Stolen code (Score:5, Funny)

    by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:38PM (#9573467)
    Update: AEI asked to produce stolen code, claims it is in a briefcase in Germany that their lawyer will bring to court, when he gets around to it.

  • Maybe it's true? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:38PM (#9573468)
    Maybe it's true. Neatly dismissing the accuser because the defendant is Google seems foolish to me.

    If we want unbiased courts, the first thing to do is become unbiased ourselves.

    -Erwos

    • Re:Maybe it's true? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jacer ( 574383 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:02PM (#9573739) Homepage
      That means innocent until proven guilty last time I checked.

      • Re:Maybe it's true? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Paul Jakma ( 2677 )
        No it doesn't. In civil proceedings judgement is made on balance of probability based on the arguments made. Ie, whichever side's arguments are the more probable as being correct are the side in whose favour judgement will be made. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt applies to the defendants in criminal proceedings only (at least in jurisdictions which descend or drew from british common law at least, eg what is now the US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, much of Africa, etc.., damn brits have

    • Re:Maybe it's true? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Smitty825 ( 114634 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:05PM (#9573762) Homepage Journal
      I suggest you RTFA before posting this. Google suggested getting a neutral party to evaluate the claim. Affinity refused. It sounds like Affinity is trying to pull an SCO...

  • Software "Porting" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elhaf ( 755704 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:39PM (#9573476) Homepage
    I don't know too many software engineers that don't keep at least a library of souce code from one development job to another, regardless of the "rules". However, it seems really bold to me to say your not going to create a competing service and then create one that is named [orkut.com] after you.

  • Wait. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Grell ( 9450 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:40PM (#9573497) Homepage
    "Buyukkokten promised Affinity Engines that he wouldn't develop a competing social network service for Google. "

    Not to be cynical, but did he sign any non compete clause or something? Because a simple promise won't really hold much water in court.

    I hope this is the engineer rather than Google though, I'd hate to see them stubmel like that.

    ~G

    • Re:Wait. (Score:3, Informative)

      by PornMaster ( 749461 )
      The promise is irrelevant if Google is essentially running an unlicensed copy of Affinity's proprietary code.

      -PM

    • Re:Wait. (Score:5, Informative)

      by greenplato ( 23083 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:12PM (#9573828)

      a simple promise won't really hold much water in court.

      Bah! Not according to contract law in the US...

      Have a look here [wikipedia.org]:
      A contract is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides a remedy. The promise or promises may be express (either written or oral) or may be implied from circumstances.
      and here [wikipedia.org]:
      Contrary to common wisdom, an informal exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract.

      An oral promise can be just as legally binding as any written agreement.

  • Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by doombob ( 717921 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:41PM (#9573513) Homepage
    My Google Stock!


    ...Wait Google's not public yet... whew

  • Affinity and SCO (Score:5, Funny)

    by Victor Tramp ( 5336 ) <(ten.451ssor) (ta) (ofni)> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:46PM (#9573576) Homepage
    Hmm,

    I wonder if the fine folks over at SCO will bother to watch this.. If it turns out Affinity has a real case, SCO will see stark differences between what they're trying to pass off as a case of misappropriation, and how the Real World(tm) functions..

  • Use open source (Score:5, Interesting)

    by prostoalex ( 308614 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:47PM (#9573587) Homepage Journal

    Open source social network software does exist, it's called PeopleAggregator [slashdot.org], launched by Mark Canter of ex-Macromedia and the link goes to the Slashdot discussion of the product.

    Doesn't have all the features that some networks have, but there are plenty of Web coders out there.

  • Just so I'm clear... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Poseidon88 ( 791279 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:48PM (#9573593)
    "In its initial investigation, AEI uncovered a total of nine unique software bugs ... in AEI's inCircle product that were also present in Orkut.com," So they're suing him because he stole their proprietary bugs?

    • Re:Just so I'm clear... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by johnnyb ( 4816 ) <jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:58PM (#9573704) Homepage
      Just to clear this up for the non-techies who might not see the humor - while features are easy to copy, and therefore aren't really proof of code-copying, similar bugs that wind up in two different products are often a mark of code-copying because noone is intentionally copying the bugs. The likelihood that the error was made in the same way by two independent coders is unlikely (although it has happened before).

      • Re:Just so I'm clear... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jkabbe ( 631234 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:06PM (#9573773)
        The likelihood that the error was made in the same way by two independent coders is unlikely (although it has happened before).

        But we're not talking about independant coders here. We're talking about the same coder. Sometimes people can make the same mistake twice. My fiancee bought the same birthday card for her brother two years in a row (the really funny bit is that it took her half an hour to pick it out each time!!)

  • and the moral of the story is... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dingbatdr ( 702519 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:54PM (#9573666) Homepage
    If you are going to pirate some code from your
    old company and bring it to your new company,
    make sure you debug it before the world sees it.

    dtg

  • Malicious intent... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ca1v1n ( 135902 ) <`moc.cinortonaug' `ta' `koons'> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @01:55PM (#9573676)
    Typically in lawsuits like this, if the act was a willful violation of contract terms and/or copyright, they can get rather substantial penalties beyond actual damages. If Google can show that this programmer introduced this code in spite of their efforts to prevent such things, rather than as a result of encouragement to get it out the door, they may be off the hook for these extra damages (punitive and statutory) though I don't think the programmer has much of a chance at that. Of course, establishing the value of actual damages in a case like this is always difficult as well. Hopefully they'll be able to settle with a licensing agreement that makes everybody mostly happy. Google probably has the resources to rewrite everything, but at this point that's probably not practical.

    I hope this doesn't put too much of a damper on the 20% projects at Google. They keep turning out a lot of really cool stuff because of those, and it would be really unfortunate if liability forced them to micromanage their research.
  • ...and I'm going to take away 2 of the three "sexy hearts" and all the little "trusty" icons I gave him!

  • unique errors (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aapold ( 753705 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:05PM (#9573771) Homepage Journal
    /* I worked for a company that had source code stolen by a former programmer, who went on to produce a very similar product for another company at about half the price. We saw identical functionality, shortcomings, even a case of a same hideously ugly sprite, and after siezing computers gobs of identical source code. Before a judge, they argued that given the same task, identical source code may result. The judge was not a technical judge who listened to arguments on this for about half a year before excusing himself... after a new judge was reassigned I remember we had Plauger lined up to testify on the ridiculousness of this assertion... while examining his copy of the code he also apparently found that identical tasks were producing identical whitespace, thanks to the original programmer's (the guy didn't even limit himself to stealing what he wrote) habit of hitting the spacebar before hitting enter on the end of every line. When this evidence was introduced the other company cut their guy loose and tried to claim ignorance. Not sure what happened there, as by this time it had dragged on long enough that they had to start letting people go, including me, and our company never recovered... */

  • Not possible. (Score:3, Funny)

    by SmurfButcher Bob ( 313810 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:12PM (#9573825) Journal
    Clearly, Microsoft and SCO have both stated that closed, proprietary code *cannot* be stolen unless the stolen code ends up being GPLed. They've pretty much demanded that theft of closed, proprietary code for the purposes of being included into other closed, proprietary code *cannot*, *does not*, and *will not* happen.

    So, bull@*#. No code could have been stolen. To suggest otherwise... why, it'd be chaos! Proprietary vendors stealing code?! It cannot be! Think of the implications! It cannot be!!

  • My knee-jerk reaction... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mitleid ( 734193 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:17PM (#9573866)
    Personally, I'm pretty impressed with the slashdot crowd in regards to this article. I don't mean this to be a condescending attack on readers of slashdot or anything (which would obviously include myself...a registered user, for fuck's sake...) but moreso that I'm refreshed to see a challenge of intellectual property actually being taken seriously. Before reading any of the comments, I expected to see a whole ton of "...Here we go again, another SCO bidness model rears it's ugly head..." but instead I'm treated to some pretty funny comments regarding the fact that this Orkut fellow not only allegedly copied/stole code, but BUGGY code at that. Too rich...

    In an age where too many companies are in fact taking the SCO litigation route to build an income stream, it's just nice to see that not all open source supporters/nerds initially take every single IP challenge as a platform for another string of nasty lawsuits. The only drawback, of course, is the potential for the courts to start adopting a boy who cries wolf mentality when observing IP cases, as we all know this kind of stuff happens all the time to people who've worked hard and end up getting the shaft. It's just a damn shame that as of late, larger organizations have made IP litigation out to be a fucking joke, and now real cases are more likely to get dismissed or brushed aside...

  • On those bugs... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mia'cova ( 691309 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:33PM (#9574022)
    I'd like to see some 3rd party verification on those bugs. For example, were they actually present when this developer changed sides? When did they crop up in Google's code? Of course, the way some people define a "bug" they could be claiming there are nine similar UI concerns. We really need to see a list of exactly what these bugs are before any of us can decide on the likelihood of possible causes.

    I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a SCO-style lawsuit. They'd better be careful though because if they publicize this much, Google will counter-sue for damages when their claims fall apart.

    On the other hand, if code has been illegally copied than this guy AND Google should lose some real respect. I honestly don't believe no one else at the company knows what this guy is doing. They should all be in very close contact. Large chunks of copied code would probably be noticed... maybe not though. Either way, they'll both take heat.

  • another scam exposed! (Score:3, Funny)

    by scaaven ( 783465 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:44PM (#9574150)
    step 1: write some kick-ass code

    step 2: get a covert programmer to join a successful company. Have him insert your code.

    step 3: accuse successful company of stealing and sue them.

    step 4: get a big settlement, and make your covert programmer "dissapear" to silence him.

    and repeat. watch out Orkut

  • CA law protects Orkut w.r.t. developing for Google (Score:4, Informative)

    by tstoneman ( 589372 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @02:51PM (#9574221)
    In California, you can't prevent someone from moving around to competing companies in their field of work. Even if Buyukkokten signed 100 agreements saying he wouldn't develop another social networking product for another company, the contract is deemed invalid under California law.

    What he can't do is reveal trade secrets to the new company, or if it is reasonable to expect that he will divulge such secrets in the normal course of his work.

    So the fact that he signed agreements saying that he wouldn't create a competing product is 100% baseless. He can do this, even if he agreed not to.

    It is up to him to ensure that he didn't steal any code or use trade secrets from AE in his work at Google, and an independent source code review would reveal this. If he did steal code, then he's up shit creek. If he didn't, then the whole thing is just to extract money.

    I'm pretty sure that Google would have already gone through the due diligence to ask this guy if he did steal the code. He would be **really** stupid to deny it if he did because so much is on the line. I think if it has gone this far, Google is fairly confident that the code was new work.

    I bet AE is delaying the neutral code review in hopes that Google will just pay them money to go away before their IPO.

  • AEI Better shut up... (Score:4, Funny)

    by drdreff ( 715277 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @03:02PM (#9574331) Homepage Journal
    If their product runs on UNIX, they're code belongs to SCO. They obviously did a terrible job of prtecting SCO's IP when they allowed Orkut to leave the company with his memory intact. Expect Darl to sue AEI in the next week and Google the next. Just for kicks I'll bet the sue Friendster for "Incitement to commit IP theft"

  • IP theft in proprietary code, is this possible? (Score:4, Funny)

    by wardk ( 3037 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @03:06PM (#9574364) Journal
    my understanding (which for the purpose of this post is derived solely from the spew of Darl McShitbag) is that IP theft is an Open source issue, and the big benefit of proprietary code is that it's all clean.

    So I just refuse to believe otherwise. this has to be a hoax. someone contact snopes immediately.

  • Nuisance suit. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mratitude ( 782540 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @03:23PM (#9574703) Journal
    I'd almost bet my next paycheck that this is a nuisance suit brought on by a sore loser. As has been pointed out, a prior employer can't ask you to commit to "not compete".

    In addition to that, a lot of people learned a lot of hard ball during the tech explosion of the 80's. I don't know a software engineer or a programmer today that doesn't read employment agreements thoroughly and know to not commit to certain language in certain agreements, even if they're unenforceable on their face. You're better off not signing it and not allowing lawyer "interpretation" afterwards.

    I can't imagine a Ph.D being dumb enough to sign anything that would give these folks a reason to sue. Either that or he *did* take IP with him when he left.

  • So that's where the name came from (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Frantactical Fruke ( 226841 ) <`renekita' `at' `dlc.fi'> on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @03:58PM (#9575237) Homepage
    I was so sure it was written by a Finn that I didn't bother checking.

    You see, 'orkut' is colloquial Finnish for 'orgasms', which seemed both appropriate and something a Finnish nerd would come up with to describe social interaction.

    The power of wishful thinking...

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @04:44PM (#9575857)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Here's the list of the 9 bugs! (Score:5, Funny)

    by callipygian-showsyst ( 631222 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2004 @04:50PM (#9575910) Homepage
    I just got the list of the 9 bugs found in Orkut that prove it was a copy:

    • Those 18-year-old cheerleaders are really 45-year-old fat, bald men!
    • There's a member named J*sus Chr*st that's not actually the son of G-d
    • It's PAINFULLY SLOW
    • The forums are lame
    • There's only one person named "Robert" in the community "People Named 'Robert'"
    • You can be friends with *both* John Kerry and George Bush
    • Half of the users speak in unintelligible "foreign" languages instead of English
    • Kevin Rose [kevinrose.com]won't approve any friend requests.
    • The scrapbooks fill up with crap.

    Obviously, this list of bugs proves Orkut copied his code!

Slashdot Top Deals

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Close