5 ms·

Plurk's gonna burn a lot of sympathy if they do, and it may not even be a tactically sound decision. The situation was handled swiftly and correctly by Microso

Plurk's gonna burn a lot of sympathy if they do, and it may not even be a tactically sound decision. The situation was handled swiftly and correctly by Microsoft. It got Plurk some free press. It wasn't even caused by Microsoft directly, but by a contractor they had hired. And, best of all, although ordinarily you might be able to allege that it cost you sales ... this all happened in a market in which Plurk has been denied access anyway. This isn't David and Goliath anymore. Plurk was fortunate to get a swift response from Microsoft in their favor; if their next move is to start a fight with Microsoft, I fully expect that Microsoft's expert, well-paid legal team will chew them up and spit them out. I'd much rather see Plurk issue a press release stating simply the matter has been resolved and they appreciate Microsoft's swift action.

lionhearted 17y ago
> I'd much rather see Plurk issue a press release stating simply the matter has been resolved and they appreciate Microsoft's swift action. Agree with everything except this last sentence. I reckon they could get a bigger win out of this. Maybe a partnership (I heard they're censored from mainland China, no?), some sort of licensing, or even a token settlement of a little bit of cash so that "Microsoft settled for an undisclosed amount." Going to war with someone who doesn't want it and apologized is a bad play, but they should at least see if they can get a little further with this. Since the China market is blocked to them, this could be a massive win if they get some sort of joint venture, partnership, or licensing going.
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  I doubt it. A company the size of Microsoft keeps a lot of attorneys on salary, and others on retainer. If Plurk pursues a lawsuit, then the smart thing for Microsoft would be to simply drive Plurk out of business in the courtroom, and then either buy them for nickels on the dollar, or release the product anyway as Plurk disintegrates. If Plurk is hoping for a Microsoft-funded exit, this is probably not the way to go about it.
etravers 17y ago
I don't know anyone at Plurk, but from here it looks like a bit of posturing to see if they can elicit some sort of swift settlement from MSFT. They got a fast response from MSFT on the original claim. Maybe they want to see if momentum is on their side. Either way, an appology was made and the code was removed. IMO they should focus on moving forward and not waste time and energy chasing rainbows.
lurch_mojoff 17y ago
So Plurk should roll over and forget anything happened just because Microsoft said they are very sorry? You see such benevolence from big corporations in the same situation almost never. Why should Plurk do any differently? As for Microsoft's swift reaction, it was not necessarily a result of Microsoft's kindness of hart and honest remorse. It probably is more of an attempt on Microsoft's part to not get themselves into a deeper hole than they already are in. And no mater how expert or well paid their lawyers are it won't change the fact that they are in the wrong here. There is very little chance Plurk will end up being chewed up and spat out. And lastly, this is big business, not preschool - the excuse "but a contractor did it, it's not my fault" doesn't work. Microsoft are (one of) the legal entity (-ies) behind that service. They are ultimately responsible for things like this copyright violation. They are free to seek compensation for the damages from the contractor, but legally speaking (well, not really, I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but still), as far as Plurk are concerned Microsoft are the offender. And don't feel bad about Microsoft, there is a good chance they'll end up with a net positive, at least financially.
- mbreese 17y ago
  Exactly. By doing the right thing, Microsoft didn't erase their liability in this. What they did do though was limit that liability and stop them from getting deeper in a hole. By acting quickly, they gained some important PR points, but that doesn't erase the offense. This is especially true since they admitted their offense. My guess is that all is left is to negotiate the level of compensation.
- cturner 17y ago
  So Plurk should roll over and forget anything happened just because Microsoft said they are very sorry? That's exactly it. You see such benevolence from big corporations in the same situation almost never. Why should Plurk do any differently? What other people do is irrelevant. I suppose it could be something if you were talking about a patent troll, but you're talking about Microsoft. Microsoft focuses on building software that corners markets. That's a legitimate mode of operation for a company. MS did the right thing in their response to this issue. Plurk has suffered no damage, and indeed has won press. Plurk should now also do the right thing and get on with trying to build software, and avoid the martydom track. And lastly, this is big business, not preschool - the excuse "but a contractor did it, it's not my fault" doesn't work. But that's not what they said. They accepted responsibility for it. It's also not in their Plurk's interest to go legal as it will be a distraction from building software.
raganwald 17y ago
IT may or may not be in Plurk's best interests to litigate. Not my call. But I believe it is in everyone's best interests for Microsoft to have negative consequences. The reason I advance is that we don't want large companies taking the following line of thought: "Instead of buying a smaller competitor or replicating their functionality from scratch in a clean room, let's just use an arms-length contractor to rip them off directly. If we get caught, we'll just apologise and settle quietly..." I believe it is in everyone's best interests that companies be strongly discouraged from this kind of theft, to the point where they will be insanely scrupulous about code developed both in house and at arm's length. The contrition after the fact certainly should limit further negative consequences, but does nothing to erase the initial crime.
anigbrowl 17y ago
I agree. The optimal outcome would be for MS to license Plurk's code. Failing that, some kind of cash settlement...but a lawsuit would be stupid, both strategically and from a publicity standpoint. Plurk can't afford and probably doesn't want to spend years in court.
awa 17y ago
Totally agree with you here. Microsoft acted swiftly and aplogized. If plurk's try to litigate here, it would lose major points with me and hopefully with others also. They should be happy that they got some attention and should let their code/business do the rest of the talking instead of the legal team.

lionhearted 17y ago

> I'd much rather see Plurk issue a press release stating simply the matter has been resolved and they appreciate Microsoft's swift action. Agree with everything except this last sentence. I reckon they could get a bigger win out of this. Maybe a partnership (I heard they're censored from mainland China, no?), some sort of licensing, or even a token settlement of a little bit of cash so that "Microsoft settled for an undisclosed amount." Going to war with someone who doesn't want it and apologized is a bad play, but they should at least see if they can get a little further with this. Since the China market is blocked to them, this could be a massive win if they get some sort of joint venture, partnership, or licensing going.

thaumaturgy 17y ago
I doubt it. A company the size of Microsoft keeps a lot of attorneys on salary, and others on retainer. If Plurk pursues a lawsuit, then the smart thing for Microsoft would be to simply drive Plurk out of business in the courtroom, and then either buy them for nickels on the dollar, or release the product anyway as Plurk disintegrates. If Plurk is hoping for a Microsoft-funded exit, this is probably not the way to go about it.

etravers 17y ago

I don't know anyone at Plurk, but from here it looks like a bit of posturing to see if they can elicit some sort of swift settlement from MSFT. They got a fast response from MSFT on the original claim. Maybe they want to see if momentum is on their side. Either way, an appology was made and the code was removed. IMO they should focus on moving forward and not waste time and energy chasing rainbows.

lurch_mojoff 17y ago

So Plurk should roll over and forget anything happened just because Microsoft said they are very sorry? You see such benevolence from big corporations in the same situation almost never. Why should Plurk do any differently? As for Microsoft's swift reaction, it was not necessarily a result of Microsoft's kindness of hart and honest remorse. It probably is more of an attempt on Microsoft's part to not get themselves into a deeper hole than they already are in. And no mater how expert or well paid their lawyers are it won't change the fact that they are in the wrong here. There is very little chance Plurk will end up being chewed up and spat out. And lastly, this is big business, not preschool - the excuse "but a contractor did it, it's not my fault" doesn't work. Microsoft are (one of) the legal entity (-ies) behind that service. They are ultimately responsible for things like this copyright violation. They are free to seek compensation for the damages from the contractor, but legally speaking (well, not really, I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but still), as far as Plurk are concerned Microsoft are the offender. And don't feel bad about Microsoft, there is a good chance they'll end up with a net positive, at least financially.

mbreese 17y ago
Exactly. By doing the right thing, Microsoft didn't erase their liability in this. What they did do though was limit that liability and stop them from getting deeper in a hole. By acting quickly, they gained some important PR points, but that doesn't erase the offense. This is especially true since they admitted their offense. My guess is that all is left is to negotiate the level of compensation.
cturner 17y ago
So Plurk should roll over and forget anything happened just because Microsoft said they are very sorry? That's exactly it. You see such benevolence from big corporations in the same situation almost never. Why should Plurk do any differently? What other people do is irrelevant. I suppose it could be something if you were talking about a patent troll, but you're talking about Microsoft. Microsoft focuses on building software that corners markets. That's a legitimate mode of operation for a company. MS did the right thing in their response to this issue. Plurk has suffered no damage, and indeed has won press. Plurk should now also do the right thing and get on with trying to build software, and avoid the martydom track. And lastly, this is big business, not preschool - the excuse "but a contractor did it, it's not my fault" doesn't work. But that's not what they said. They accepted responsibility for it. It's also not in their Plurk's interest to go legal as it will be a distraction from building software.

raganwald 17y ago

IT may or may not be in Plurk's best interests to litigate. Not my call. But I believe it is in everyone's best interests for Microsoft to have negative consequences. The reason I advance is that we don't want large companies taking the following line of thought: "Instead of buying a smaller competitor or replicating their functionality from scratch in a clean room, let's just use an arms-length contractor to rip them off directly. If we get caught, we'll just apologise and settle quietly..." I believe it is in everyone's best interests that companies be strongly discouraged from this kind of theft, to the point where they will be insanely scrupulous about code developed both in house and at arm's length. The contrition after the fact certainly should limit further negative consequences, but does nothing to erase the initial crime.

anigbrowl 17y ago

I agree. The optimal outcome would be for MS to license Plurk's code. Failing that, some kind of cash settlement...but a lawsuit would be stupid, both strategically and from a publicity standpoint. Plurk can't afford and probably doesn't want to spend years in court.

awa 17y ago

Totally agree with you here. Microsoft acted swiftly and aplogized. If plurk's try to litigate here, it would lose major points with me and hopefully with others also. They should be happy that they got some attention and should let their code/business do the rest of the talking instead of the legal team.