3 ms·
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 fr
by 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.
- blahedo 17y agoI'm always frustrated when some bigshot "accepts responsibility" for some bad action and then faces no consequences, in some cases because of their words: "I 'accepted responsibility', what more do you want?" News flash: 'responsibility' is a word that has a meaning. If you were responsible for something bad, that means you get to pay the consequences for it.
- lurch_mojoff 17y agoYou seem to imply that if the situation was reversed, if someone had ripped off Microsoft's code and when caught they stopped the service and apologized, Microsoft wouldn't sue them up the wazoo. How realistic do you think is such statement? And yes, it probably is in Plurk's best interest to either seek settlement or sue Microsoft over this - for one it will show that they wont tolerate being ripped off (otherwise what's stopping someone else doing it again tomorrow and when caught "sincerely" apologizing) and for two, for a small and relatively unknown company it makes perfect financial sense to do so, they will probably make more money this way than they'll be able to make in 10 years "building software".
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- akeefer 17y ago> It's also not in their Plurk's interest to go legal as it will be a distraction from building software. I think it's your last point that's the most important one here. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, lawsuits are a massive, massive distraction. The startup landscape is littered with the carcasses of startups that got distracted by things other than building and selling their core product, and who thus ran out of cash before achieving any kind of revenue stability. Distractions like this can easily be the death of a startup, and they should be avoided wherever possible. Even if you win the lawsuit, by the time it's all over you'll be far behind where you should be in terms of product development, which will probably more than offset any net win in terms of a legal settlement.