Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Acknowledges Theft of Code From Plurk
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.
"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 anymore
Oh the irony. I hope they get treated with the harshness they have shown to those caught "copying" their works. I also like how they say "copying" instead of "stolen" which I thought was their word for this sort of situation when it happens to them. Shoe on the other foot indeed.
Son, there's something I've been meaning to tell you...
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
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.
They aren't exactly taking responsibility. Like the headline says: Microsoft Acknowledges Theft of Code From Plurk.
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? And by responsibility, I don't mean blaming it on their contractor. This is a big "duh" that this is going to happen when you outsource to a country where the labor is cheap and cheating is culturally acceptable such that nobody gives a damn if they get caught. I've had to work with Indian contractors who ripped off code, which we identified thanks to just a little bit of diligence on our part because we actually want to know what we're releasing and charging our customers for.
Companies need to be held responsible for overseeing what their contractors are doing. Blaming the contractor != taking responsibility. That it was their contractors who stole might be the reason, but it is ABSOLUTELY NOT AN EXCUSE!
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.
It's just "extreme outsourcing."
Can't beat the price, eh?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Clearly they have to give it back.
Deleted
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.
So it turns out Chinese steal and pilfer IP from themselves as well. Not just the big US Corporations.
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.
I have to agree on the point that MS definetely needs to step up their level of due diligence. Then I also ask myself why you would do business with a company that has a history of this behaviour. Doesn't anyone track and record what these sub-contractors do?(or is that like tracking a shoddy plumber?) Then MS did seem to get caught with the cookie jar again. 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.
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
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.
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...
"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?
I just don't think that volunteering to take your hand out of the cookie jar when someone catches you qualifies as doing anything to further the position they are in. It's just not the same as taking steps to assure us that this type of thing won't happen again.
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
Sadly, I'm not sure I'm joking.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
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?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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)
This is the first time that I read a post on Slashdot from a link on Google News - kdawson you're doing well!
Could it be that Plurk bribed MS's contractor to pirate itself, hoping to generate massive publicity from this incident, and they did get it? Plans within plans within plans...
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
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 think "theft" is quite the right term for copyright violation personally, rather labeling it's just a way to enforce one idea of how copyright violation should be treated. It's basically an attempt to subvert the entire issue of how copyright infringement should be treated. So its use here isn't something I particularly support.
Bow-ties are cool.
Of course, if the code had come from Windows then Microsoft would call it "stealing".
And all the same people calling this a "theft" of code would be decrying that Microsoft is using the word wrong. The point is that it's hypocritical to use terms in a way that you would claim is wrong for someone else to do.
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.
If you read the first link in the summary and then apply your 'because I read it on Slashdot' analysis, you will see that Microsoft has taken responsibility.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Good luck with that. When you've got a global database of all licensed code everywhere you can search against let me know.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
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...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Goddammit PCMAG. Where the frak is the microsoft post? All links in the article are back to PCMAG articles!!
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
They didn't copy code directly, but got "respondeat superior"-ifized into being on the hook for it.
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.
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.
The monkey man is your father? Well, it explains your nick ... :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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 and causing damages to MS.
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 consent IS stealing.
My understanding is the distinction is only relevant for English Law - where theft involves depriving the owner - other definitions seem to be far more broad. (I'm English - so my understanding of your laws maybe in error)
I'm not saying that it didn't cost them anything, look at all the egg on the face. It did indeed cost them something. But they would have looked a lot better had they caught it on their own, and then pulled the site down. Getting caught, that's never good. Aren't you supposed to audit projects like that to make certain that this type of thing doesn't happen?
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And when it turns out the guy you hired to mow your lawn stole the fuel for the lawnmower, clearly you are at fault~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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).
Stac never claimed that MS used their source code - they claimed that they violated their patent.
So every time you buy a car do you inspect every single part and serial number to make sure no parts were stolen?
By what fucked up logic should MSFT be held responsible when they themselves were ripped off?
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.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
By the logic that it's not up to me to inspect a car purchase, that would be the dealership responsible for the fact of selling me an intact auto that is not made up of parts from a chop shop.
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
Uhh, according to these angry dweebs: Microsoft. Microsoft is the reason someone stole paint from your neighbor. They are also at least largely responsible for global warming and for ugly nerds not getting laid.
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.
just sayin'
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?
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
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 code use).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
This is a great example of why outsourcing work overseas comes with many unexpected consequences. This is not the first such story involving MS lately. Overseas subcontractors seem cost-effective until you find out all the shortcuts they take, the often messy/crappy code and billions of other problems.
China's economy is based on the fact that even the smallest American business can call some company with a plant in Guangzhou and have a freighter full of useless crap only Americans would buy shipped for practically no cost. The weak yuan policy is, in essence, a means of exporting unemployment to other countries by ensuring that China is the preferred manufacturer of cheap stuff. A strong Yuan means higher unemployment -- something the Chinese government is so deathly afraid of that they're willing to turn a blind eye to their giant stake in America's growing fiduciary irresponsibility. The last thing the Chinese government wants is a rise in unemployment, so the last thing they want is a string yuan.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Even though you meant this as a joke, the sad thing is I see that there are lots of people in /. that seriously think that way.
-- Reality checks don't bounce.
Props to MS for admitting fault and yanking the product. This is a good reason why outsourcing is not always cheaper.
Microsoft admitting fault? It's a bit too early for the April Fools jokes guys!
Non, je ne veux pas coucher avec toi ce soir.
Do you use drugs, Denny?