4 ms·

It seems strange to me that although Microsoft is the company at fault here many of the commentators seem to be basically praising Microsoft and blaming/deridin

by motters 17y ago

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

srj532 17y ago
Microsoft did not steal the code. an Employee or contractor did. They, the individual(s) that stole the code is who is guilty here. As soon as Microsoft was made aware of the situation they pulled the offending code/software immediately.
- mbreese 17y ago
  Wrong Wrong Wrong. Microsoft is guilty of it because they are the ones who published the code/product as their own. They hired someone to do the work. Yes, that person ripped of Plurk, but Microsoft failed to verify their contractor's work. That makes them culpable. Plurk was ripped off by Microsoft. Full Stop. Now, Microsoft has it's own options with respect to that contractor, but their swift response doesn't erase Microsoft's liability.
  - NikkiA 17y ago
    Lets also remember that that is the 2nd time in 6 months MS has been caught out on this kind of thing, and the 2nd time they've used the 'but a contractor...' excuse...
    - dangrossman 17y ago
      When your company hires some 30,000 contractors a year, using that "excuse" twice seems quite legitimate.
  - palish 17y ago
    Are you kidding? If I hire a contractor to do work, and that work is done (meaning I can look at and interact with the product) then I'm not going to waste valuable time "verifying" that product against every other product on the market. Especially against other "beta" products that only a niche few (relatively speaking) have heard about. That would be a dumb use of time. Why? Because even if the contractor did rip off the code, (which should be so unthinkable as to not even be an issue,) all I have to do is say "hey, the contractor did this, not me -- I've pulled the plug and fired the contractor." End of discussion. That's exactly what Microsoft did, and now Plurk is pushing the issue too far. Plurk did get a ton of free PR from this. For thousands or tens of thousands of people, this will be the first time they've heard of Plurk. To claim that Plurk was somehow "damaged" amidst all of this is just stupid. Yeah, they were ripped off. But nobody got rich off of it. There is no money to chase down. Plurk could net themselves way more money (or rather, any money at all) by trying to generate new profits by taking advantage of all the free PR they got. But they're throwing a hissy fit after Microsoft has done their part in fixing the issue (pulling the plug on a product that wasn't even released yet anyway). As others here have said: what a waste.
    - mbreese 17y ago
      This is the risk you take with using contractors. When you hire someone to do the work, you are the legal owner. This includes the good and the bad. The good being you can make money from it. The bad being that you now have a potential legal liability. When something is done work-for-hire, it is legally just like you produced the work in-house. So from the outside world, Microsoft is the entity that is legally responsible. The contractor is responsible to only Microsoft (and I'm sure their contract includes a provision to deal with this). What you're describing is a legal nightmare. In this case, imagine that Microsoft didn't pull the plug. What would happen then? Would Microsoft say "Oops, sorry, it was the contractor's fault. But we paid him, and got our code, so we're going to keep using it." They didn't pull the plug out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it because they are legally liable for it, and the longer it was in the wild, the worse their liability. The rest of this is PR. Plurk maybe pushing this a bit far, but that is a PR decision, not a legal one. From a legal perspective, they might have been injured enough for a lawsuit.
- sfk 17y ago
  Did you create your account specifically to make this factually incorrect comment?
KWD 17y ago
You actually have to look at Microsoft as part victim here. The company at fault is the subcontractor, and Microsoft handled it quickly and appropriately once notified of the issue. Plurk could have handled this differently from the start, but chose the publicity route and it got them noticed. Now the publicity train has left the station and they have not realized it, but soon they will see the goodwill they gained can be quickly lost if they push this too far.
anigbrowl 17y ago
I'm not praising MS. It seems they didn't pick their development partner wisely and they should certainly make it up to Plurk. My objection was based on the fact that MS has already showed a willingness to do this by issuing an unusually candid and fulsome apology. The wise thing now for Plurk is to accept that apology gracefully and work with rather than against MS to move forward. If they don't want to be acquired, perhaps MS can devote their legal resources to helping Plurk gain access to the China market as a development partner, or lend some development resources to help Plurk package their solution into an API that MS and others can license a la Wordpress. At present, MS is (almost certainly) spending good money on having their lawyers work out a defensive strategy against a possible lawsuit that will cost them a lot in bad press but which Plurk probably can't complete, given the implication that they don't even have funds or expertise to hire a PR company. I presume it's Plurk's Taiwanese business identity that keeps them out of the market in mainland China (since China technically views Taiwan as a rebellious province rather than a separate country, for historical reasons). Some Taiwanese companies do conduct business in China, but Plurk is likely too small to tap the necessary diplomatic channels that facilitate such arrangements. MS could surely assist with that...if Plurk will let them. What Taiwanese diplomat will want to advocate for them if there's a chance it could lead to loss of face down the line? By maintaining their aggrieved stance, Plurk risks being given a grudging payoff to go away, whereas if they respond graciously, they might get the keys to the kingdom. The one thing more annoying than a sore loser is a sore winner.

by motters 17y ago

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

srj532 17y ago

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

mbreese 17y ago
Wrong Wrong Wrong. Microsoft is guilty of it because they are the ones who published the code/product as their own. They hired someone to do the work. Yes, that person ripped of Plurk, but Microsoft failed to verify their contractor's work. That makes them culpable. Plurk was ripped off by Microsoft. Full Stop. Now, Microsoft has it's own options with respect to that contractor, but their swift response doesn't erase Microsoft's liability.
- NikkiA 17y ago
  Lets also remember that that is the 2nd time in 6 months MS has been caught out on this kind of thing, and the 2nd time they've used the 'but a contractor...' excuse...
  - dangrossman 17y ago
    When your company hires some 30,000 contractors a year, using that "excuse" twice seems quite legitimate.
- palish 17y ago
  Are you kidding? If I hire a contractor to do work, and that work is done (meaning I can look at and interact with the product) then I'm not going to waste valuable time "verifying" that product against every other product on the market. Especially against other "beta" products that only a niche few (relatively speaking) have heard about. That would be a dumb use of time. Why? Because even if the contractor did rip off the code, (which should be so unthinkable as to not even be an issue,) all I have to do is say "hey, the contractor did this, not me -- I've pulled the plug and fired the contractor." End of discussion. That's exactly what Microsoft did, and now Plurk is pushing the issue too far. Plurk did get a ton of free PR from this. For thousands or tens of thousands of people, this will be the first time they've heard of Plurk. To claim that Plurk was somehow "damaged" amidst all of this is just stupid. Yeah, they were ripped off. But nobody got rich off of it. There is no money to chase down. Plurk could net themselves way more money (or rather, any money at all) by trying to generate new profits by taking advantage of all the free PR they got. But they're throwing a hissy fit after Microsoft has done their part in fixing the issue (pulling the plug on a product that wasn't even released yet anyway). As others here have said: what a waste.
  - mbreese 17y ago
    This is the risk you take with using contractors. When you hire someone to do the work, you are the legal owner. This includes the good and the bad. The good being you can make money from it. The bad being that you now have a potential legal liability. When something is done work-for-hire, it is legally just like you produced the work in-house. So from the outside world, Microsoft is the entity that is legally responsible. The contractor is responsible to only Microsoft (and I'm sure their contract includes a provision to deal with this). What you're describing is a legal nightmare. In this case, imagine that Microsoft didn't pull the plug. What would happen then? Would Microsoft say "Oops, sorry, it was the contractor's fault. But we paid him, and got our code, so we're going to keep using it." They didn't pull the plug out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it because they are legally liable for it, and the longer it was in the wild, the worse their liability. The rest of this is PR. Plurk maybe pushing this a bit far, but that is a PR decision, not a legal one. From a legal perspective, they might have been injured enough for a lawsuit.
sfk 17y ago
Did you create your account specifically to make this factually incorrect comment?

KWD 17y ago

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

anigbrowl 17y ago

I'm not praising MS. It seems they didn't pick their development partner wisely and they should certainly make it up to Plurk. My objection was based on the fact that MS has already showed a willingness to do this by issuing an unusually candid and fulsome apology. The wise thing now for Plurk is to accept that apology gracefully and work with rather than against MS to move forward. If they don't want to be acquired, perhaps MS can devote their legal resources to helping Plurk gain access to the China market as a development partner, or lend some development resources to help Plurk package their solution into an API that MS and others can license a la Wordpress. At present, MS is (almost certainly) spending good money on having their lawyers work out a defensive strategy against a possible lawsuit that will cost them a lot in bad press but which Plurk probably can't complete, given the implication that they don't even have funds or expertise to hire a PR company. I presume it's Plurk's Taiwanese business identity that keeps them out of the market in mainland China (since China technically views Taiwan as a rebellious province rather than a separate country, for historical reasons). Some Taiwanese companies do conduct business in China, but Plurk is likely too small to tap the necessary diplomatic channels that facilitate such arrangements. MS could surely assist with that...if Plurk will let them. What Taiwanese diplomat will want to advocate for them if there's a chance it could lead to loss of face down the line? By maintaining their aggrieved stance, Plurk risks being given a grudging payoff to go away, whereas if they respond graciously, they might get the keys to the kingdom. The one thing more annoying than a sore loser is a sore winner.