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.

Comments

a world without copyright

[alain94040]

"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

Re:a world without copyright

[NoYob]

Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.

Well, if Microsoft is the "King" and Apple has the second largest share of the PC market, I guess that would make Apple the "Queen" of software development?

....

Yes, I know. I'm going to get it from the fanboys with mod points but, I just couldn't resist!

Re:a world without copyright

[Sponge Bath]

I guess that would make Apple the "Queen" of software development?

Because I'm easy come, easy go
Little high, little low,
any way the winblows.

Re:a world without copyright

[cpghost]

This case gives us a great window into what a world without copyright protection would look like: everyone ripping off everyone else's code.

And what's wrong with code sharing and code reusing? Aren't we all but standing on the shoulders of giants (scientists and coders alike)?

Re:a world without copyright

[Nutria]

And what's wrong with code sharing and code reusing?

Any place that aspires to be First World needs the Rule Of Law. Licenses, and following them, are part of that law. The GPL, LGPL, BSD, Apache, MIT/X, etc, etc are Free licenses which encourage code sharing and reusing. Closed licensing does not, but to stay civilized, we must respect -- even if we do not agree with -- those who choose to keep their source closed.

Re:a world without copyright

[euxneks]

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.

The compromise is to require completely open source code from all software vendors. People will go to the place that has the best results for them, and if everything is open source, we don't have to worry about people "stealing" things - it becomes easy for everyone to see if everyone else is using or taking their code, and particularly inspired developers will add to the code.

It would be like books now - there's copyright on them thar books and if you copy it and sell it under a different book title, it's plainly obvious.

Closed source is a way for a company to hide their dubious practices. It's when shit is closed source like what microsoft normally does that it takes a lot of effort to tell if they're standing on the backs of the hardworking goliath that is open source developers.

Re:a world without copyright

[AuMatar]

This makes no sense. You can argue that since licenses are currently the law we need to follow them (or get them repealed), but you gave no evidence or logic for why the law should allow for copyright or licenses of any type. And no, we don't need to respect closed source- even in a world that has licensing you can work to legally circumvent or to repeal them. Or you can just believe in civil disobedience and ignore them entirely.

Re:a world without copyright

[tlhIngan]

Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.

I think it's a good thing actually. Because it's revealing the problems of subcontracting. What Microsoft is seeing already has happened elsewhere. Just the victim is either too small, or the companies involved are smaller, so that news of stuff like this is lucky to make the news. Only big companies get the attention of the press.

Code gets "reused" all the time, accidentally or maliciously. Just the parties are often too small or settle quickly to be more than a ripple. In fact, I'd guess Microsoft and other companies are looking at the three major code "reuse" issues in recent history - Microsoft and the USB/DVD Downloader Tool, this thing, and the BusyBox thing, to carefully audit their subcontracted code.

Re:a world without copyright

[santiagodraco]

How about everything? If I don't' want to share my code what gives you the right to take it without my consent? I find it hard to believe that there are people out there that would promote the theft of the work of others and try to imply some sort of nobility about the act, as if by not sharing you are somehow a lesser person.

I'd suggest that by not doing your own work, yourself, and expecting others to provide it that YOU are the lesser person not the originator.

Re:a world without copyright

[darkpixel2k]

...

if everything is open source, we don't have to worry about people "stealing" things - it becomes easy for everyone to see if everyone else is using or taking their code, and particularly inspired developers will add to the code.

Spoken like someone who doesn't develop software for a living.
My company (among other things) develops software. The sale of that software pays for our homes, electricity, computers, and the ability to continue developing programs that people need.

Now if someone wants to pay my car payment, house payment, electricity bill, buy a few new computers, etc...then sure--I'll develop and release software for free.

But as long as I need to feed my family, I need to continue earning money. If I can't do that by developing software, I'll go pump gas and you can live without it.

If Microsoft couldn't make money from their software, and Bill had decided to pump gas instead, where would you be today?

Would linux be where it is today?
How about the iPhone?

Re:a world without copyright

[Opportunist]

Yes, but it is one thing to reuse code. It's entirely another one to rip it off.

Science is about standing on giant's shoulders. Not claiming to be the giant.

Re:a world without copyright

[maxwell demon]

How about I go to your house and just take what I want?

The analogy fails in several ways.
First: Your house usually contains private stuff. Going to someone's house is more like breaking into his computer.
Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.

And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.

Re:a world without copyright

[maxwell demon]

Private stuff? It's merely the product of his labors, as is code to a programmer. Why is there a distinction between private and non-private "stuff" anyway?

For example, say he has naked photos of his girl friend in his house. Do you think he (or his girl friend) would be happy if a total stranger sees them? And I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has zero relation to the work he put into those photos.

Oh fuck off with your "it's not theft" bullshit.

Great argument ;-) Especially since I haven't talked about words. I talked about effects. Namely the effect of something not being there any more.

You directly damage people by copying their code without paying them for it. It is a real, tangible effect.

No. Not any more than by simply not using their damned code at all. They don't have a loss, they only do not get a profit. There is no basic right to get a profit from whatever you do.

You just compared closed source code and IP law to slavery and homicide

No, I didn't. I applied your argument to slavery and homicide, to show that the argument isn't valid. If you don't get the difference, you should take a course in basic logic.

Re:a world without copyright

[MightyMartian]

Um, you're talking about two different things. It's one thing to copy a concept, like directories on a file system, but it's quite another to rip off code.

Re:a world without copyright

[westlake]

Or you can just believe in civil disobedience and ignore them entirely.

Belief is not enough. The essence of civil disobedience is that you accept the risk of civil and criminal penalties.

Arrest. Conviction. Confinement.

The essence of civil disobedience is that you do so without any guarantees whatever. You may rot in jail and be entirely - and perhaps deservedly - forgotten.

You may be bankrupt by a judgment and no one will give a damn.

we don't need to respect closed source

You respect closed source or open source loses its meaning, support and protection.

You've unilaterally declared all exposed code to be public domain. That doesn't code out into the open. It drive s it deeper into hiding.

you gave no evidence or logic for why the law should allow for copyright or licenses of any type

There are three ways of supporting a significant creative talent. He can have an independent source of income.

Which means that in all likelihood he will remain forever an amateur. He almost certainly not be working class.

The first alternative is patronage - by the state, the church, or the merchant prince. Each will have their own agenda which will shape the final product.

The second is through sales. This opens the door fully to participation by the lower and middle classes.

That is where you'll find Huck Finn. Dorothy Gale. Sam Spade. Susie Salmon.

But to make a living through his work and to build an estate for his family, the artist must have control over the use of his work.

Copyright drives innovation. You have to take chances. You have no protection unless you have produced a substantially original work.

Re:a world without copyright

[mlingojones]

For example, say he has naked photos of his girl friend in his house. Do you think he (or his girl friend) would be happy if a total stranger sees them? And I'm pretty sure the answer to this question has zero relation to the work he put into those photos.

Really? All it takes to make something immoral is that it makes someone unhappy? Well, shit, how happy do you think our hypothetical programmer would be if someone used his code without asking permission, paying him or giving him credit?

Great argument ;-) Especially since I haven't talked about words. I talked about effects. Namely the effect of something not being there any more.

You actually didn't address his argument, which was that scarcity isn't necessary for theft. As in, "copying code is still theft, even though nothing is technically *taken away* from someone". You are the one arguing semantics here, sir.

No. Not any more than by simply not using their damned code at all. They don't have a loss, they only do not get a profit. There is no basic right to get a profit from whatever you do.

Actually, if any money went into the code being written, then there IS a monetary loss. Not to mention time and hard work.

No, I didn't. I applied your argument to slavery and homicide, to show that the argument isn't valid. If you don't get the difference, you should take a course in basic logic.

Okay, this part is true. Since you seem to be so well versed in logic, let's apply YOUR argument to another topic to show that it's not valid.

Plagiarism should be legal! Why? Well, you're not "stealing" something, since the person from whom you plagiarized still has it after you plagiarize it. And there's no loss, there's only not a profit!

Re:a world without copyright

[cerberusss]

What's wrong with ripping off code? If Microsoft rips off code from these people and these people rip off code from microsoft in return, both (and by extension the end users) benefit.

Nothing, but let's do an analogy.

During coffee breaks, you get one cookie from the cookie jar. Microsoft is always talking about how everyone who shares cookies, is not American, and brings his own. Doesn't share them. One day, he's very hungry, forgot to bring his own cookies, and decides to take one from the cookie jar.

Re:a world without copyright

[totally bogus dude]

I think you're missing the point of pedantic argumentation. Basically: if you're going to make an analogy, make sure it actually fits. Having people point out mismatches between your analogy and the actual thing you're discussing may be annoying, but can also be constructive in helping to refine your own thinking.

Really? All it takes to make something immoral is that it makes someone unhappy?

The point was that it's not monetary loss that was the issue. The harm done is of an entirely different nature, so comparing it to breaking into someone else's house and taking whatever you want is illogical and irrelevant. Analogies are supposed to help us to understand things more clearly, but using an analogy that doesn't actually fit only muddies things. Is sexconker pissed off only at the potential financial damages that could result from having his code "stolen", or is it something else?

You actually didn't address his argument, which was that scarcity isn't necessary for theft.

This one I'm interested in, because I'm not able to think of a scenario where someone still has their "stuff" that I would be willing to call "theft". This is probably just semantics though; "theft" is often used as a shortcut for "copyright violation" or whatever would be more technically correct. Still, some people do get hung up on it, so if you're going to have these kinds of discussions it's probably good to have a response that doesn't rely on people agreeing with your casual usage of the term. Using terms like "theft" and "stealing" in cases like this is essentially slang: it's fine if the people you're talking to happen to share your understanding of what a "jive ho" is, for example; but if you don't know they do, you might be better off using less ambiguous terms.

Actually, if any money went into the code being written, then there IS a monetary loss.

No, there's not, not if the code is being copied. If they delete your copy and you no longer have it, then yes, you've lost the money that was invested in it; in the same way if you buy a new stereo and someone steals it, the money you spent on the stereo is gone, along with the stereo.

Arguably, what you've lost is your code's uniqueness. Suppose the stereo is a one-of-a-kind custom model, the only one in the world. A large part of its value to you, as its owner, is the fact that it is unique. This could be converted into a monetary gain in the future by selling it: presumably its uniqueness is attractive to other people as well. But even if someone comes from the future with a matter duplicator and makes an identical copy of your "unique" stereo, you haven't suffered an actual monetary loss, any more than you suffer a monetary loss if you buy a stereo at full price a week before the store has it on special for 50% off.

Plagiarism should be legal! Why? Well, you're not "stealing" something, since the person from whom you plagiarized still has it after you plagiarize it. And there's no loss, there's only not a profit!

This approaches the crux of the matter. What you say is true, and yet we still "feel" it's unacceptable behaviour. But why? sexconker was previously arguing that closed-source programs should be protected because people like him making a living from it. But obviously just the fact you can make money from something doesn't mean that it's something society should protect. After all, people make money from robbery, selling dangerous drugs, acts of violence, and all sorts of other things we'd prefer not to have people doing. This isn't to say that writing closed-source code is "the same as" beating people up for money; it's merely pointing out that "this is how I make a living" isn't a suitable litmus test for determining whether something should be legally protected.

Re:a world without copyright

[mlingojones]

I think you're missing the point of pedantic argumentation. Basically: if you're going to make an analogy, make sure it actually fits. Having people point out mismatches between your analogy and the actual thing you're discussing may be annoying, but can also be constructive in helping to refine your own thinking.

No, I realize the advantage of pedantic argumentation (although that's the first time I've heard the term), and I agree that the original analogy comparing stealing someone's physical belongings to stealing code is flawed, but there was no reason to compare the analogy to something else when he pointed out its flaws in the next sentence. I was just nitpicking because maxwell demon came across as really obnoxious :)

The point was that it's not monetary loss that was the issue. The harm done is of an entirely different nature, so comparing it to breaking into someone else's house and taking whatever you want is illogical and irrelevant. Analogies are supposed to help us to understand things more clearly, but using an analogy that doesn't actually fit only muddies things. Is sexconker pissed off only at the potential financial damages that could result from having his code "stolen", or is it something else?

This a fair assessment, since we can all agree (well, except maybe sexconker) that the analogy wasn't apt in the first place.

This one I'm interested in, because I'm not able to think of a scenario where someone still has their "stuff" that I would be willing to call "theft". This is probably just semantics though; "theft" is often used as a shortcut for "copyright violation" or whatever would be more technically correct. Still, some people do get hung up on it, so if you're going to have these kinds of discussions it's probably good to have a response that doesn't rely on people agreeing with your casual usage of the term. Using terms like "theft" and "stealing" in cases like this is essentially slang: it's fine if the people you're talking to happen to share your understanding of what a "jive ho" is, for example; but if you don't know they do, you might be better off using less ambiguous terms.

This issue *is* just semantics, as far as I'm concerned, which was what I was trying to point out, although that may not have come across clearly. A classical definition of "theft" may only cover something which was removed from its owner's possession, whereas more recent definitions may cover the copying of intellectual property and other such things. Dictionary.com lists both. Clearly there are more specific words or phrases for what occurred here, but for all intents and purposes I think "theft" or "stealing" conveys the meaning pretty effectively.

No, there's not, not if the code is being copied. If they delete your copy and you no longer have it, then yes, you've lost the money that was invested in it; in the same way if you buy a new stereo and someone steals it, the money you spent on the stereo is gone, along with the stereo. Arguably, what you've lost is your code's uniqueness. Suppose the stereo is a one-of-a-kind custom model, the only one in the world. A large part of its value to you, as its owner, is the fact that it is unique. This could be converted into a monetary gain in the future by selling it: presumably its uniqueness is attractive to other people as well. But even if someone comes from the future with a matter duplicator and makes an identical copy of your "unique" stereo, you haven't suffered an actual monetary loss, any more than you suffer a monetary loss if you buy a stereo at full price a week before the store has it on special for 50% off.

I did point out the uniqueness issue in my response to maxwell demon's other post, and it's not hard to see how the loss of that uniquene

Re:a world without copyright

[b4dc0d3r]

Information is not aware of what it wants, and as far as I know we cannot ascertain its desires. I'd suggest not prefacing comments with this type of silliness.

It makes more sense to say that it's natural for someone to come up with a better mousetrap and then say "Hey y'all, look what I did." And then everyone uses the better mouse trap. "How silly for someone to ask for royalties on such an obvious idea!" one might exclaim. But if it were obvious, everyone would already be doing it.

The point is, people share ideas all the time, it's natural. Information itself doesn't sit on a hard drive yelling "download me!" It's just pure silliness, a catchphrase. But it doesn't sound so awesome when you say "humans naturally share ideas" does it?

I assume heads will roll.

[WiiVault]

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.

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[shutdown -p now]

If you RTFA, the decision to copy the code was not made by MS itself, but by an independent Chinese contractor that was hired to do the job. I assume that said contractor will now be heavily fined for breaking the contract terms (TFA: "This was in clear violation of the vendor's contract with the MSN China joint venture").

Furthermore, "Microsoft and our MSN China joint venture will be taking a look at our practices around applications code provided by third-party vendors".

Re:I assume heads will roll.

[cbhacking]

While I don't know how this extends to contractors, internally Microsoft has extremely strict regulations about use of open-source (even if not GPL or other copyleft) code. If it were somebody internal to the company, they'd probably be looking for a new job right now.

For a contractor, breach of contract conditions at the very least, and its unlikely they'll get any more MS contracts in the future. This sucks for them - there are a lot of small companies that make much if not all of their income doing contract jobs specifically for MS - but from Microsoft's perspective, those guys are now an object lesson to all the other small software shops out there, of which there's really no lack.

Dealing with the Chinese

[abigor]

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.

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Yeah you do. It's not.

I realized how the Chinese think when I heard about the theme park they built in Beijing a couple years ago. They had several options. The most obvious is an all-Chinese theme, Chinese culture has so much history that there are so many things they could integrate into their own theme park to make a truly unique thing. The other option that comes to mind would be to license something from Disney or someone else, then you could sell all of the official merchandise, get cuts from other things, etc.

But they didn't choose either of those options, they chose a counterfeit Disney park. Everything looks (sort of) like Disney, but it's not, and they can't sell any Disney merchandise. They could have made something truly their own, or licensed an existing brand, but they thought the best choice was to make a counterfeit product. That gave me some insight into the way things work in China.

Re:Dealing with the Chinese

[zullnero]

I also have direct experience with this. For a short period of time, I worked in a team for a startup almost entirely comprised of Chinese developers hired mainly as interns under some shady L1 type of deal. (I don't even put this company on my resume.) The overwhelming theme is that the only way they can be successful is if their stuff works exactly like someone else's, and can be done super cheap and super fast. Cheap and imitative is pounded into their heads by management, and respect for licenses and other people's intellectual property is thrown out the door because the manager is always right. I guess it's the side effect of a culture that has been warped into a hyper-competitive assembly line mode of production in almost all aspects of industry.

Re:Wait....What?

[HarrySquatter]

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.

They stole the code

[Colin Smith]

Clearly they have to give it back.

 

Re:Wait....What?

[ClosedSource]

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.

This isn't "Microsoft's" fault

[Mr_Plattz]

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.

Re:Wait....What?

[ClosedSource]

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.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[ClosedSource]

"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?

kdawson on Google News

[twosat]

This is the first time that I read a post on Slashdot from a link on Google News - kdawson you're doing well!

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Jarjarthejedi]

Good luck with that. When you've got a global database of all licensed code everywhere you can search against let me know.

Re:Blaming somebody else is not taking responsibil

[Nutria]

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...

Re:Wait....What?

[dissy]

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.

Re:Chinese government will execute the vendor

[shutdown -p now]

PRC, for the most part, has rule of law, and crimes for which you can be executed are explicitly enumerated. While they do use capital punishment for some things that no-one else does (e.g. large-scale fraud which incurs a lot of aggregated damage on the victims), I'm fairly certain that copyright infringement isn't on that list.

Re:Chinese government will execute the vendor

[thetoadwarrior]

Considering how much copyright infringement goes on in China, it's pretty safe to assume they don't execute people for it.

The GPL relies on copyright.

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

The evidence and logic is in the article

[Motard]

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).

Re:Oh no, hypocrisy about word choice!

[Tetsujin]

Well, the thing is Slashdot isn't a Hive Mind... It's made up of different people with different opinions...

And yet, long-time readers like myself have learnt to recognise the same basic comments being made *and modded to +5* on articles time and time again.

Another popular one (at least in recent years) has been pointing out logical flaws in arguments: over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, for instance...