Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

Even I, as a co-founder of Plurk, have to write this press release myself.

You poor dear. Look guys, quit while you're ahead. Everyone knows you are not going to sue Microsoft because the legal fees would be bigger than your market cap.

The smart thing would be to take this down and say only that you're 'discussing it with them. Let MS takes you out on a date and give them some room to make it up to you. Sometimes the best negotiation strategy is to keep your mouth shut and let the other side do all the talking. This missive sounds petulant.

View on HN

I'm just glad to see that most of HN isn't riding the conspiracy train with them. It's like they imagine Bill Gates personally copying their code while cackling maniacally. I think it was fairly obvious that the whole thing was an accident (meaning it was not Microsoft's intention to have developer's steal Plurk's code). Microsoft gave a surprisingly refreshing apology and took the site down.

This is quickly becoming an object lesson in how crowds can turn against you.

I think most people here agree that your business should be based on making innovative products, not imitation nor litigation.

I'm not a legal expert, but like others, I don't think they have much of a legal argument. But isn't "your business should be based on making innovative products" exactly what Plurk is complaining about?

Although Microsoft was caught lifting code, what if they didn't copy so exactly? Their intention was clearly reimplementing Plurk for China, probably without all the Taiwan users that would make it a sure thing that Plurk is banned. How is that really any better from an ethos perspective?

Plurk is very clearly satisfying some kind of niche in parts of the world that Twitter does not (maybe its the emoticons or easy way for viewing replies in the web interface? or the idea of karma?).

I suppose not innovating is one way of running a business, but it's one I say "boo" to.

I hope no one from SCO is here.

Agreed. This is weak on Plurk's part. How were they harmed?

Microsoft screwed up and hired a shady vendor who did a shady thing. As soon as they realized what happened, they owned it, fired the vendor, and shut down the site.

Just because Microsoft has money doesn't mean that Plurk deserves it.

I think you've hit the nail on the head - and that's exactly why Plurk is going about it the way they have: They're not expecting a proper legal repercussion to take place - they want publicity for themselves, and bad press for MS. In his previous blog post he begged for this to become viral.

" they want publicity for themselves, and bad press for MS. In his previous blog post he begged for this to become viral."

But the upshot is that it's creating bad press for Plurk, because they're now coming off, in the words of another poster here, as petulant.

I read Microsoft's statement, then saw the Plurk comment, and I thought they came off as a bit childish.

Microsoft seems to have done the proper, stand-up thing here. Shake hands and be done.

Seems like they misjudged. They wanted to balance out between getting sympathy and wining too much. Looks like they crossed that line.

Agreed again - if Microsoft was in beta too - it can be argued that the service was never fully offered to the public either, making the case even weaker...

beta badge != unavailable. A badge is actually a bit of a joke - a marketing tool itself so you can later say "our service that has been launched for years is out of beta!"

I agree with you.

For the sake of completeness, what would Microsoft do if the tables were turned?

In the case of Tomato Garden they reported Hong Lei to the authorities who arrested and imprisoned him for three and a half years along with lesser sentences for his associates. But it seems to hinge on whether the theft has made any money.

http://www.chinaipmagazine.com/en/journal-show.asp?id=429 http://www.gomyhosting.com/windows/html/managedhosting/505.h...

What would be interesting would be the brief that Microsoft China gave to the sub-contractor. Did they encourage the copyright infringement?

But, just as you point out they can't sue them accepting their apology doesn't guarantee they won't see Juku 2.0 again in a month or two. They got basically a stay of execution on this, but they don't have MS saying we won't be in the market.

I would be pursuing options of a lawsuit and talks with MS at the same time. If talks break down with MS I'd want have researched that option. Even if it's just a negotiation trick should it get really dirty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com