5 ms·

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

by figital 17y ago

archon810 17y ago
You've got to be kidding me. And this justifies Microsoft, right?
- dschobel 17y ago
  He does have a point (one which merits better than his -4 fate). If your biggest asset is your UI, not only do you have to appreciate you have a tenuous competitive advantage but you should have a battle plan, both technical and legal, for when the theft invariably does happen. They got lucky that it was a big operation like MS with a public reputation to maintain (laugh all you like) rather than some no-name. It's easy to put public pressure on the Apples, Google and MS' of the world.
  - mattmanser 17y ago
    Did you actually read the article? They ripped off the code as well as the UI.
    - dschobel 17y ago
      You're playing semantic games. js code is still UI.
      - WesleyJohnson 17y ago
        Why, because it's client-side? Categorizing all JavaScript as UI is simply wrong.
axod 17y ago
Read the article. They did.
- figital 17y ago
  I just re-read the article. If you really squint you might be able to assume that their code was scrambled in some way (if that's what "not compiled" means). Otherwise if you're trying to gain (well deserved) sympathy for something like this then the deobfuscation process is probably the most important part of the story. Did MS then rescramble the code? I'd want to know that as well.
  - pavs 17y ago
    You are more concerned about obfuscation of code than the fact that a major software developer ripped of someone's code, is a little troubling. Whether he obfuscation code or not has absolutely zero importance in this context.
    - figital 17y ago
      Of course it has context if this is being presented as a legal issue. The original article doesn't really mention it (although it's easier to assume now with the hindsight of a complete comment thread). I believe you are "even more guilty" if you de-obfuscate someone's code, then copy and republish/reuse.
      - dandelany 17y ago
        There is no such thing as "more guilty". You are or you aren't.
        scott_s 17y ago
        It indicates intent and state of mind. "More guilty" is just an expression that means "more evidence for guilt."
        dandelany 17y ago
        OK - I can see what you mean. However, I still disagree. De-obfuscation does not provide more evidence that infringement occurred, it simply implies that whoever did it likely knew they should not be doing it, which has (I believe) absolutely no legal implication.
eru 17y ago
I do not see how obfuscation is necessary for copyright.
stanleydrew 17y ago
they did obfuscate. see post from plurk dev here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=994473 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=994473

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

by figital 17y ago

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

archon810 17y ago

You've got to be kidding me. And this justifies Microsoft, right?

dschobel 17y ago
He does have a point (one which merits better than his -4 fate). If your biggest asset is your UI, not only do you have to appreciate you have a tenuous competitive advantage but you should have a battle plan, both technical and legal, for when the theft invariably does happen. They got lucky that it was a big operation like MS with a public reputation to maintain (laugh all you like) rather than some no-name. It's easy to put public pressure on the Apples, Google and MS' of the world.
- mattmanser 17y ago
  Did you actually read the article? They ripped off the code as well as the UI.
  - dschobel 17y ago
    You're playing semantic games. js code is still UI.
    - WesleyJohnson 17y ago
      Why, because it's client-side? Categorizing all JavaScript as UI is simply wrong.

axod 17y ago

Read the article. They did.

figital 17y ago
I just re-read the article. If you really squint you might be able to assume that their code was scrambled in some way (if that's what "not compiled" means). Otherwise if you're trying to gain (well deserved) sympathy for something like this then the deobfuscation process is probably the most important part of the story. Did MS then rescramble the code? I'd want to know that as well.
- pavs 17y ago
  You are more concerned about obfuscation of code than the fact that a major software developer ripped of someone's code, is a little troubling. Whether he obfuscation code or not has absolutely zero importance in this context.
  - figital 17y ago
    Of course it has context if this is being presented as a legal issue. The original article doesn't really mention it (although it's easier to assume now with the hindsight of a complete comment thread). I believe you are "even more guilty" if you de-obfuscate someone's code, then copy and republish/reuse.
    - dandelany 17y ago
      There is no such thing as "more guilty". You are or you aren't.
      - scott_s 17y ago
        It indicates intent and state of mind. "More guilty" is just an expression that means "more evidence for guilt."
        dandelany 17y ago
        OK - I can see what you mean. However, I still disagree. De-obfuscation does not provide more evidence that infringement occurred, it simply implies that whoever did it likely knew they should not be doing it, which has (I believe) absolutely no legal implication.

eru 17y ago

I do not see how obfuscation is necessary for copyright.

stanleydrew 17y ago

they did obfuscate. see post from plurk dev here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=994473 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=994473