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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

They stole the code

[Colin Smith]

Clearly they have to give it back.

 

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: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?

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: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".