Microsoft Acknowledges Theft of Code From Plurk 215
adeelarshad82 writes with news that Microsoft has acknowledged and taken responsibility for the theft of code belonging to Plurk.com, although the company also said it was the work of a Chinese vendor. Yesterday we discussed Plurk's blog post accusing Microsoft of copying their UI and code for Microsoft's Chinese microblogging site, Juku. Microsoft has now taken the site down and indefinitely suspended Juku's beta.
a world without copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Chinese vendor for our MSN China joint venture has now acknowledged that a portion of the code they provided was indeed copied," said Microsoft
This case gives us a great window into what a world without copyright protection would look like: everyone ripping off everyone else's code. There got to be a compromise that works for both the GPL and the RIAA, so end users (us) win.
Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.
--
you don't need to be in silicon valley to start a startup [fairsoftware.net] anymore
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, if Microsoft is the "King" and Apple has the second largest share of the PC market, I guess that would make Apple the "Queen" of software development?
....
Yes, I know. I'm going to get it from the fanboys with mod points but, I just couldn't resist!
Re:a world without copyright (Score:5, Funny)
I guess that would make Apple the "Queen" of software development?
Because I'm easy come, easy go
Little high, little low,
any way the winblows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:a world without copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
And what's wrong with code sharing and code reusing? Aren't we all but standing on the shoulders of giants (scientists and coders alike)?
Re:a world without copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
And what's wrong with code sharing and code reusing?
Any place that aspires to be First World needs the Rule Of Law. Licenses, and following them, are part of that law. The GPL, LGPL, BSD, Apache, MIT/X, etc, etc are Free licenses which encourage code sharing and reusing. Closed licensing does not, but to stay civilized, we must respect -- even if we do not agree with -- those who choose to keep their source closed.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're looking at this a bit backwards here, since no part of this involves people respecting MS's rights, but more MS not respecting other individual's rights (acknowledgment of prior knowledge is far from it being an accident, whether it was through a subcontractor as they state or not).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This makes no sense. You can argue that since licenses are currently the law we need to follow them (or get them repealed), but you gave no evidence or logic for why the law should allow for copyright or licenses of any type. And no, we don't need to respect closed source- even in a world that has licensing you can work to legally circumvent or to repeal them. Or you can just believe in civil disobedience and ignore them entirely.
The evidence and logic is in the article (Score:2, Insightful)
Here Microsoft had to take an infringing service offline - much to the benefit of the original inventors. If they were not infringing by copying code, they could've just taken what they wanted and crushed the inventors under their boots.
Intellectual property laws are meant to protect the little guy as much or more than the big guys.
Yes, this even covers code covered by the GPL(icense).
Re:a world without copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you can just believe in civil disobedience and ignore them entirely.
Belief is not enough. The essence of civil disobedience is that you accept the risk of civil and criminal penalties.
Arrest. Conviction. Confinement.
The essence of civil disobedience is that you do so without any guarantees whatever. You may rot in jail and be entirely - and perhaps deservedly - forgotten.
You may be bankrupt by a judgment and no one will give a damn.
we don't need to respect closed source
You respect closed source or open source loses its meaning, support and protection.
You've unilaterally declared all exposed code to be public domain. That doesn't code out into the open. It drive s it deeper into hiding.
you gave no evidence or logic for why the law should allow for copyright or licenses of any type
There are three ways of supporting a significant creative talent. He can have an independent source of income.
Which means that in all likelihood he will remain forever an amateur. He almost certainly not be working class.
The first alternative is patronage - by the state, the church, or the merchant prince. Each will have their own agenda which will shape the final product.
The second is through sales. This opens the door fully to participation by the lower and middle classes.
That is where you'll find Huck Finn. Dorothy Gale. Sam Spade. Susie Salmon.
But to make a living through his work and to build an estate for his family, the artist must have control over the use of his work.
Copyright drives innovation. You have to take chances. You have no protection unless you have produced a substantially original work.
Re: (Score:2)
The essence of civil disobedience is that you accept the risk of civil and criminal penalties.
Not only that, but MLK's civil disobeyors (is that a word, "one who disobeys"?) weren't the ones who burned Newark, Watts and South Central.
Re:a world without copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
The analogy fails in several ways.
First: Your house usually contains private stuff. Going to someone's house is more like breaking into his computer.
Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.
And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy fails in several ways.
Your RESPONSE fails in several ways.
First: Your house usually contains private stuff. Going to someone's house is more like breaking into his computer.
Since we're making an analogy about stealing code, not breaking into someone's house, it doesn't really matter what breaking into someone's house is like.
Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.
Something like having exclusive use of that code?
And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.
Well, technically that's a matter of opinion. But since (I hope) we're all of the opinion that slavery and killing SHOULD be illegal, I'll disqualify slavery and killing from the category of "real, tangible products" due to the fact that they necessarily violate another h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, say he has naked photos of his girl friend in his house. Do you think he (or his girl friend) would be happy if a total stranger sees them? And I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has zero relation to the work he put into those photos.
Great argument ;-) Especially since I haven't talked
Re:a world without copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, say he has naked photos of his girl friend in his house. Do you think he (or his girl friend) would be happy if a total stranger sees them? And I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has zero relation to the work he put into those photos.
Really? All it takes to make something immoral is that it makes someone unhappy? Well, shit, how happy do you think our hypothetical programmer would be if someone used his code without asking permission, paying him or giving him credit?
Great argument ;-) Especially since I haven't talked about words. I talked about effects. Namely the effect of something not being there any more.
You actually didn't address his argument, which was that scarcity isn't necessary for theft. As in, "copying code is still theft, even though nothing is technically *taken away* from someone". You are the one arguing semantics here, sir.
No. Not any more than by simply not using their damned code at all. They don't have a loss, they only do not get a profit. There is no basic right to get a profit from whatever you do.
Actually, if any money went into the code being written, then there IS a monetary loss. Not to mention time and hard work.
No, I didn't. I applied your argument to slavery and homicide, to show that the argument isn't valid. If you don't get the difference, you should take a course in basic logic.
Okay, this part is true. Since you seem to be so well versed in logic, let's apply YOUR argument to another topic to show that it's not valid.
Plagiarism should be legal! Why? Well, you're not "stealing" something, since the person from whom you plagiarized still has it after you plagiarize it. And there's no loss, there's only not a profit!
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're missing the point of pedantic argumentation. Basically: if you're going to make an analogy, make sure it actually fits. Having people point out mismatches between your analogy and the actual thing you're discussing may be annoying, but can also be constructive in helping to refine your own thinking.
Really? All it takes to make something immoral is that it makes someone unhappy?
The point was that it's not monetary loss that was the issue. The harm done is of an entirely different nature, so comparing it to breaking into someone else's house and taking whatever you want is
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're missing the point of pedantic argumentation. Basically: if you're going to make an analogy, make sure it actually fits. Having people point out mismatches between your analogy and the actual thing you're discussing may be annoying, but can also be constructive in helping to refine your own thinking.
No, I realize the advantage of pedantic argumentation (although that's the first time I've heard the term), and I agree that the original analogy comparing stealing someone's physical belongings to stealing code is flawed, but there was no reason to compare the analogy to something else when he pointed out its flaws in the next sentence. I was just nitpicking because maxwell demon came across as really obnoxious :)
The point was that it's not monetary loss that was the issue. The harm done is of an entirely different nature, so comparing it to breaking into someone else's house and taking whatever you want is illogical and irrelevant. Analogies are supposed to help us to understand things more clearly, but using an analogy that doesn't actually fit only muddies things. Is sexconker pissed off only at the potential financial damages that could result from having his code "stolen", or is it something else?
This a fair assessment, since we can all agree (well, except maybe sexconker) that the analog
Re: (Score:2)
Closed source, compiled binaries have no problem with the code being copied in any world.
There are just laws, and unjust laws. What separates the so-called "First World" from the so-called "Third World" may be the laws, but that which separates the free and the oppressed is the justness of the laws governing those people.
I don't think it's the majority's desire to do away with an unjust law. I think what most people want is to replace the unjust laws with just ones.
Re:a world without copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
How about everything? If I don't' want to share my code what gives you the right to take it without my consent? I find it hard to believe that there are people out there that would promote the theft of the work of others and try to imply some sort of nobility about the act, as if by not sharing you are somehow a lesser person.
I'd suggest that by not doing your own work, yourself, and expecting others to provide it that YOU are the lesser person not the originator.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Information is not aware of what it wants, and as far as I know we cannot ascertain its desires. I'd suggest not prefacing comments with this type of silliness.
It makes more sense to say that it's natural for someone to come up with a better mousetrap and then say "Hey y'all, look what I did." And then everyone uses the better mouse trap. "How silly for someone to ask for royalties on such an obvious idea!" one might exclaim. But if it were obvious, everyone would already be doing it.
The point is, peopl
Re:a world without copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but it is one thing to reuse code. It's entirely another one to rip it off.
Science is about standing on giant's shoulders. Not claiming to be the giant.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
What's wrong with ripping off code? If Microsoft rips off code from these people and these people rip off code from microsoft in return, both (and by extension the end users) benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's wrong with ripping off code? If Microsoft rips off code from these people and these people rip off code from microsoft in return, both (and by extension the end users) benefit.
Nothing, but let's do an analogy.
During coffee breaks, you get one cookie from the cookie jar. Microsoft is always talking about how everyone who shares cookies, is not American, and brings his own. Doesn't share them. One day, he's very hungry, forgot to bring his own cookies, and decides to take one from the cookie jar.
They stole the code (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly they have to give it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.
I don't think that you will find anyone who claims they are the king of software development. They are very willing to simply buy up someone's work to base their products on. They have done that ever since MS-DOS. It's just the proprietry version of the code reuse that happens in the open souce world.
However, it is their Achilles heal because they cannot guarantee the origin of the code. I can't help but wonder whether they might start to shy away from this practice after the troubles that they have had. On
Re: (Score:2)
when developing for a different market like China, it makes sense to use local knowledge of language and mindset of the people.
Considering the number of pirated copies of Windows reportedly in use in China, I think that's exactly what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
If the original coders back in 1960 to 1980 felt the same, you wouldn't be able to do a directory listing and windows would be a mythical dream still locked up in a Xerox research lab.
Code should be reused. ANY code built on something that was given to the public domain should be free and public domain.
Otherwise, they should buy every tool and properly license every library before releasing anything.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, you're talking about two different things. It's one thing to copy a concept, like directories on a file system, but it's quite another to rip off code.
Re:a world without copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
This case gives us a great window into what a world without copyright protection would look like: everyone ripping off everyone else's code. There got to be a compromise that works for both the GPL and the RIAA, so end users (us) win.
The compromise is to require completely open source code from all software vendors. People will go to the place that has the best results for them, and if everything is open source, we don't have to worry about people "stealing" things - it becomes easy for everyone to see if everyone else is using or taking their code, and particularly inspired developers will add to the code.
It would be like books now - there's copyright on them thar books and if you copy it and sell it under a different book title, it's plainly obvious.
Closed source is a way for a company to hide their dubious practices. It's when shit is closed source like what microsoft normally does that it takes a lot of effort to tell if they're standing on the backs of the hardworking goliath that is open source developers.
Re:a world without copyright (Score:4, Informative)
if everything is open source, we don't have to worry about people "stealing" things - it becomes easy for everyone to see if everyone else is using or taking their code, and particularly inspired developers will add to the code.
Spoken like someone who doesn't develop software for a living.
My company (among other things) develops software. The sale of that software pays for our homes, electricity, computers, and the ability to continue developing programs that people need.
Now if someone wants to pay my car payment, house payment, electricity bill, buy a few new computers, etc...then sure--I'll develop and release software for free.
But as long as I need to feed my family, I need to continue earning money. If I can't do that by developing software, I'll go pump gas and you can live without it.
If Microsoft couldn't make money from their software, and Bill had decided to pump gas instead, where would you be today?
Would linux be where it is today?
How about the iPhone?
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who doesn't develop software for a living. My company (among other things) develops software. The sale of that software pays for our homes, electricity, computers, and the ability to continue developing programs that people need.
A programmer who claims he can only earn money by keeping the source closed is like a plumber who only wants to fix your sink when nobody's home and the door is locked.
Although I sympathize with your desire to keep your business running, I think that there should be more to it than just the black box you're selling your customers right now. I'm not saying that everything should be open source (I don't know how that would work out), just that your arguments sound a bit RIAA-like: locking everything down is
Re: (Score:2)
A programmer who claims he can only earn money by keeping the source closed is like a plumber who only wants to fix your sink when nobody's home and the door is locked.
I think your analogy is a bit off.
It's more like a plumber that will only fix your sink if he isn't required to sit down and give you all the education, tools, and skills so you can go out and immediately start being a plumber yourself.
Although I sympathize with your desire to keep your business running, I think that there should be more to it than just the black box you're selling your customers right now. I'm not saying that everything should be open source (I don't know how that would work out), just that your arguments sound a bit RIAA-like: locking everything down is better, because it forces people to keep buying from us.
I think RIAA-like would be locking up the data entered by the customer, then charging them every time they want to make a copy...
Anyways--I am selling customers a finished product that was made through the long hours, years of education, and great ideas of developers. I
Re: (Score:2)
A programmer who claims he can only earn money by keeping the source closed is like a plumber who only wants to fix your sink when nobody's home and the door is locked.
'Only' is the key word here, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. As you point out, there are lots of good, valid reasons for developing closed source software, but hiding your source can't be the only basis for your income.
By the way, if I built a Gulfstream replica and sold it, I probably would get sued.
Re: (Score:2)
'Only' is the key word here, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. As you point out, there are lots of good, valid reasons for developing closed source software, but hiding your source can't be the only basis for your income.
By the way, if I built a Gulfstream replica and sold it, I probably would get sued.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the source to my application is *not* hidden, anyone can do what I do with zero effort. If the plans to a Gulfstream are available, someone still has to purchase materials, pay for assembly workers, healthcare for the workers, etc... 'Compiling' a jet costs lost of money. Compiling software costs almost zero.
Care to tell me how I can make money by spending months developing a program and then giving it away for free? I'm all ears. I love programming and I would do
Re: (Score:2)
Care to tell me how I can make money by spending months developing a program and then giving it away for free?
I didn't say you could. Still, I'll bite.
The same argument has been made over and over by writers and musicians, and yet there are some of those out there that make money while giving away their work. If you'd seriously consider going open source, the 'while' is important. It's different from 'by'. Nobody makes money by giving away their work.
Some options to make money are to sell support, advice, custumization, books, t-shirts, talks or (most probably) get hired for something new as you've proven to be a c
Re: (Score:2)
The same argument has been made over and over by writers and musicians, and yet there are some of those out there that make money while giving away their work.
When was the last time you went to a the software equivalent of a rock concert? Every shell out $150 to get front-row seats to watch Linus write a patch for the kernel?
How do writers who give away their material make money? If they aren't making money on selling books, do they have day jobs pumping gas?
Some options to make money are to sell support, advice, custumization, books, t-shirts, talks or (most probably) get hired for something new as you've proven to be a competent programmer.
I'm skeptical of selling support. Has Red Hat turned a profit yet? I haven't checked in years. Is that money only coming from support contracts? Or is it from selling software as a service too? I h
Re: (Score:2)
That's where most people end up in this discussion. So far there's been no concrete way to support a business presented here. Just a few ideas and it gets left up to "What's best depends on you".
That's what you get when you remain vague about what your actual product is. If you'd tell me exactly what you sell, I might be able to be more specific. I might even tell you to forget about open sourcing altogether.
If you would be truly interested, there are ideas to be explored here.
Re: (Score:2)
That's your problem. Some businesses go bust. Its called creative destruction and is essential to free market capitalism. Find another job or become unemployed.
How exactly would I be any worse off if "Bill had decided to pump gas instead"?
Can we know exactly what this software is so we can decide how terrible this threat is. I tried Googlong for your name and all I could find are open source and Ubuntu related stuff: i.e. your biggest impact on the world is thro
Re: (Score:2)
That's your problem. Some businesses go bust. Its called creative destruction and is essential to free market capitalism. Find another job or become unemployed.
How exactly would I be any worse off if "Bill had decided to pump gas instead"?
Can we know exactly what this software is so we can decide how terrible this threat is. I tried Googlong for your name and all I could find are open source and Ubuntu related stuff: i.e. your biggest impact on the world is through free software.
My name isn't on the products. ;)
It's under the name of the company I work for.
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft couldn't make money from their software, and Bill had decided to pump gas instead, where would you be today?
This sounds a bit like saying that if Ford had to give away his plans to build a Ford, we'd still all be driving a horse and carriage. I'm not saying it'd be the same or necessarily great, but people might still end up paying for features because otherwise they wouldn't exist, companies would need software that support their business and support services around it, there's value in data mining, software as a service and so on. It might not drive the current commercial off-the-self or shareware market but it
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds a bit like saying that if Ford had to give away his plans to build a Ford, we'd still all be driving a horse and carriage.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying what if Ford couldn't profit from selling their car because they couldn't patent or protect their ideas/designs...and they decided simply not to even build a car?
I'm talking about not having the incentive to even build a product, because someone requires you to give your hard work away.
I'll concede that Ford is a bad example though. If Ford makes a car and makes the plans available to everyone, big deal. You still have to buy the metal, equipment, assembl
Re: (Score:2)
Not fighting with vendors about their crappy support for their half-assed software running on a poorly designed OS?
If mathematicians patented and held secret every theorem and proof where would you be today?
Re: (Score:2)
Not fighting with vendors about their crappy support for their half-assed software running on a poorly designed OS?
If mathematicians patented and held secret every theorem and proof where would you be today?
Don't expect me to pour time, money, and skills into creating something only to give it away. And if you think what I've done is half-assed with and I provide crappy support--build something better and provide awesome support. I'll go bankrupt.
Re:a world without copyright (Score:5, Informative)
I think it's a good thing actually. Because it's revealing the problems of subcontracting. What Microsoft is seeing already has happened elsewhere. Just the victim is either too small, or the companies involved are smaller, so that news of stuff like this is lucky to make the news. Only big companies get the attention of the press.
Code gets "reused" all the time, accidentally or maliciously. Just the parties are often too small or settle quickly to be more than a ripple. In fact, I'd guess Microsoft and other companies are looking at the three major code "reuse" issues in recent history - Microsoft and the USB/DVD Downloader Tool, this thing, and the BusyBox thing, to carefully audit their subcontracted code.
That's a horrifying thought. (Score:2)
That the RIAA world is somehow the polar opposite of some GPL world.
And that it's all about "us" users. The "end user."
The consumer
ugh.
UGH.
I am not merely a consumer, and I'm sure you're not either.
Re: (Score:2)
This case gives us a great window into what a world without copyright protection would look like: everyone ripping off everyone else's code.
That's not a case for copyright protection, thats a case for not releasing source code. If the source code is not available, then it can't be stolen, can it?
If you can recreate source code just by looking at the executable, then that falls under the category of 'obvious' and is not patentable. If you cannot recreate the functionality, then that is better protection than any patent can provide.
Software patents are basically pointless.
The GPL relies on copyright. (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be implying that this is what the GPL is working towards. It's not.
BSD licenses are far closer, but no one forces you to release stuff BSD-licensed, either. In fact, I'd imagine many people who contribute to BSD projects are as appalled by Microsoft's behavior here as you are.
And I've never heard Microsoft described as the "king" of software development before.
I assume heads will roll. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior Art
Doublespace vs Drivespace, where the only difference in the codebase was the 8 characters used for the MS-DOS filenames. IIRC drvspace.sys vs dblspace.sys
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Individuals in the company refer to their work being stolen, but official Microsoft statements and press releases are always more carefully worded and will talk about copying or infringment of copyright. Also, do you have any examples of Microsoft behaving harsher to others. If you copy their code in a similar way and then voluntarily cease and desist then they will not persue it further. Things go to court only if negotiation fails.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the BSA parachutes in and does an "audit"
Re:I assume heads will roll. (Score:5, Informative)
If you RTFA, the decision to copy the code was not made by MS itself, but by an independent Chinese contractor that was hired to do the job. I assume that said contractor will now be heavily fined for breaking the contract terms (TFA: "This was in clear violation of the vendor's contract with the MSN China joint venture").
Furthermore, "Microsoft and our MSN China joint venture will be taking a look at our practices around applications code provided by third-party vendors".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While I don't know how this extends to contractors, internally Microsoft has extremely strict regulations about use of open-source (even if not GPL or other copyleft) code. If it were somebody internal to the company, they'd probably be looking for a new job right now.
For a contractor, breach of contract conditions at the very least, and its unlikely they'll get any more MS contracts in the future. This sucks for them - there are a lot of small companies that make much if not all of their income doing contr
Re: (Score:2)
You were listening to your iPod. Microsoft is pretty sticky about copyrights.
And while they've been boorish in other ways, owning up to the theft of code and withdrawing the site shows they respect the license and the breech.
I would venture to say that they're back to the drawing board.... again.
Dealing with the Chinese (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said it several times before, and I'll say it again: dealing with Chinese vendors sucks. You never know if the code is original or not.
At this point, when I run into Chinese code when working with whatever client, I assume it's been copied from somewhere. Often I recognise it as such (Busybox, various http servers, etc.) When confronted, they either deny it, or simply wonder what the problem is - it's "freeware", after all, particularly after stripping off that pesky GPL at the top of each file.
Re:Dealing with the Chinese (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said it several times before, and I'll say it again: dealing with Chinese vendors sucks. You never know if the code is original or not.
Yeah you do. It's not.
I realized how the Chinese think when I heard about the theme park they built in Beijing a couple years ago. They had several options. The most obvious is an all-Chinese theme, Chinese culture has so much history that there are so many things they could integrate into their own theme park to make a truly unique thing. The other option that comes to mind would be to license something from Disney or someone else, then you could sell all of the official merchandise, get cuts from other things, etc.
But they didn't choose either of those options, they chose a counterfeit Disney park. Everything looks (sort of) like Disney, but it's not, and they can't sell any Disney merchandise. They could have made something truly their own, or licensed an existing brand, but they thought the best choice was to make a counterfeit product. That gave me some insight into the way things work in China.
Re:Dealing with the Chinese (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not theft... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's just "extreme outsourcing."
Can't beat the price, eh?
This isn't "Microsoft's" fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who doesn't truely understand how this isnt MSFT's fault hasn't worked in Corporate IT for long enough.
I hope the Project Managers and Developers are dealt with swiftly, but "Microsoft steals code"... I don't think so. I think you will find the real Developers in MSFT are offended that they are brought down by an under-evaluated project (why else would it be pawned off to China) run by a hand full of incompetent and unethical people.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese government will execute the vendor (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
PRC, for the most part, has rule of law, and crimes for which you can be executed are explicitly enumerated. While they do use capital punishment for some things that no-one else does (e.g. large-scale fraud which incurs a lot of aggregated damage on the victims), I'm fairly certain that copyright infringement isn't on that list.
Re:Chinese government will execute the vendor (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the copyright infringement - it's the embarrassment of a major foreign business. I don't expect the contractor(s) to be shot for it, but that doesn't mean they'll walk away easy. The US is highly dependent on Chinese trade, but that doesn't mean the Chinese aren't dependent on us too. Anything that sends a signal to foreign companies against investing in China is going to be severely frowned upon.
kdawson on Google News (Score:2, Interesting)
Frakkin link it!! (Score:2)
Microsoft STEALS code... nothing to happen... (Score:2)
Microsoft has been "stealing" code for a long time. Does anyone expect any "real" punitive measure for this?
I mean after all. Microsoft has been "borrowing" code, well, for EVER. Does ANYONE really expect anything different?
Re: (Score:2)
Son, there's something I've been meaning to tell you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't copy code directly, but got "respondeat superior"-ifized into being on the hook for it.
Re: (Score:2)
So "it wasn't me, the trojan did it" becomes a working defense for Joe Everyday Pirate (sorry, dear MS-PR department, copyright infringer... or is it still pirating if someone else does it? Maybe hand out a roadmap to that topic) now too?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft takes responsibility for theft of code by blaming someone else?
How was their a theft of code? Did the original developers have all accesses to their code taken away? Secondly, there is nothing mutually exclusive about taking responsibility for not properly auditing code you take in from secondary sources and also pointing out who was the originator of the infringing code.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The idea that "copying isn't theft" only applies when you copy music or movies. It doesn't apply to MS because .. ugh.. because it's MS.
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda remember Microsoft themselves talk about people "stealing" Windows. Technically "stealing" isn't the correct word, it's like riding a train without a ticket, or sneaking into a ballgame. However you slice it then it's wrong. This is far simpler it's plagiarism. Of course, if the code had come from Windows then Microsoft would call it "stealing".
I wonder what they called it when the did it to Stac? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics)
The Stac case had nothing to do with source code (Score:2)
Stac never claimed that MS used their source code - they claimed that they violated their patent.
Re: (Score:2)
If we're being pedantic (and I guess I started it) then it's accepted usage to talk of "stealing someone else's work" when what's actually meant it passing it off as your own (rather than depriving the originator of the work itself).
I'd agree "stealing" in this sense it's the same as taking a physical object, but you are still obtaining something you don't have rightful claim over. You could argue that has this code has a cost (someone's time) then it must have a monetary value, so appropriating it without
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you'd prefer "Microsoft lies about being responsible for code theft".
They are taking responsibility for hiring a contractor who stole code. Blaming the person or entity that actually committed the offense isn't exactly a novel concept.
Re:Wait....What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft takes responsibility for theft of code by blaming someone else?
Being at fault and being responsible for are two different things.
For example, if one of my employees did something illegal at the company, it would be their fault for doing something illegal, yet I would be and would have to take responsibility for my employees actions.
I'm not saying that example is the case here (I don't know either way), but it is very possible to be responsible for something that is not your fault.
Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies need to be held responsible for overseeing what their contractors are doing. Blaming the contractor != taking responsibility.
They (MSN China) acted in good faith by immediately pulling down the site.
What part of "We apologize to Plurk and we will be reaching out to them directly to explain what happened and the steps we have taken to resolve the situation. In the wake of this incident, Microsoft and our MSN China joint venture will be taking a look at our practices around applications code provided by third-party vendors" don't you understand?
As much as I dislike MSFT, I can't blame them for their reaction to this minor scandal. Though I would blame them for, in the future, again using that contractor...
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how many small software companies there are who largely survive by contracting for giants (MS prominently among them) I don't really envision MS having any good reason to use this contractor again. There's an awful lot more options out there that haven't publicly embarrassed MS (and cost them a lot of money, no doubt). If anything, I'd expect MS to use this vendor as an object lesson in what happens if you don't follow the terms of the contract (MS has very strict policies regarding open-source
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm sure this is a valid reason - that their contractors ripped of the code - is that an excuse to absolve them of blame? Hell no! MS needs to held responsible. What incentive do they have to prevent this kind of thing in the future if they aren't forced to take responsibility?
As in any other case dealing with copyright, it's up to the rights holder to try to reach an agreement with MS on how they want to be compensated for damage caused to them, or to sue for the same thing. I suspect they would ask for a monetary compensation, and likely receive it, without this case ever going to court (as with this public admission, it would be pretty hard to defend against any copyright infringement claim).
Similarly, it's up to MS to sue the contractor for breaking the terms of the contract
Re: (Score:2)
And when it turns out the guy you hired to mow your lawn stole the fuel for the lawnmower, clearly you are at fault~
Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil (Score:5, Informative)
"When I was a child there were penalties for breaking rules. Come to think of it, there still are, unless you're a giant corporation it seems."
They've admitted that the code was copied and took down the site. What rule didn't they follow?
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, how about:
Checking before selling it to the public as their own?
Having systems in place to ensure their products aren't stolen property?
Having a corporate culture/pride/ethics that would make code theft unlikely?
It's not like this is an isolated instance of unethical behaviour from them, is it?
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that. When you've got a global database of all licensed code everywhere you can search against let me know.
Re: (Score:2)
I would fully expect there to be some sort of compensation to Plurk - but maybe along with an NDA so they don't set expectations elsewhere. I also wouldn't be surprised if they just licensed the code from Plurk and got back to beta with their own site.
As much as I like MS-bashing, Kudos to MS for admitting it so quickly and taking a decisive move like taking the site down.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think this cost them anything? They suspended thier beta, losing any time and money spent on that so far. It's cost them bad press, and riled up the anti-microsoft crowd even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says this is the end of the story? Plurk can settle or sue for damages. All MS has done with this action is limit those damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, hypocrisy about word choice! (Score:2)
So when /. is debating moves against piracy it'll yell "OH NO IT'S NOT THEFT IT'S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT" but if it's an MS article...
Well, the thing is Slashdot isn't a Hive Mind... It's made up of different people with different opinions... I couldn't tell you whether adeelarshad82 (the submitter of the story) or kdawson (the one who published it here) are guilty of the hypocrisy you describe... Mainly because I don't pay enough attention to either of them to know. :)
But really the same thing occurred to me. The use of the term "theft" seemed a bit misplaced here: I'm mostly in the "copyright violation is not theft" camp. I don't t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the thing is Slashdot isn't a Hive Mind... It's made up of different people with different opinions...
And yet, long-time readers like myself have learnt to recognise the same basic comments being made *and modded to +5* on articles time and time again.
Another popular one (at least in recent years) has been pointing out logical flaws in arguments: over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, for instance...
Re: (Score:2)
How about the fucking headline, assjack?
Re: (Score:2)
Wheel your goalposts out of here, doofus.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, some people really do get all worked up about the stupidest things. Trolling slashdot really is like taking candy from a quadriplegic.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Plurk was asked to hand over their code, I don't see how Plurk would have advanced Knowledge of MS Hiring a chinese contractor for that purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
I understood it was JS code ripped straight from their website. So in fact, they *did* hand it over, in a manner of speaking.
Especially with client-side stuff, everyone copies everyone else, be is CSS, JS routines, HTML themes etc. And with Web 2.0 pushing the functionality away from the server side where it's relatively better protected (i.e. you only see the response, not the processing internals), it'll only become more rampant.
It would be interesting to see how much of Plurk's original matched other exi
Re: (Score:2)
Is this insider job to benefit Microsoft or to benefit Plurk? Because they don't benefit each other by lawsuit, only one does.
He says that it's possible Plurk bribed the contractor. Why would there be a bribe If the contractor was part of Plurk? So if the contractor isn't part of Plurk, how can Plurk know of the contractor and bribe him?