Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Microsoft Pulls Juku Amid Code Plagiarism Claim

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 10 comments
Tags :

Microsoft has pulled its Chinese microblogging service amid claims that the company stole much of the site's code and its UI from a similar service called Plurk.

Plurk, a start-up microblogging rival of Twitter, yesterday claimed that Microsoft China had stolen its user interface and more than 80-percent of its code and applied the ripped data into the latter company's MSN Juku microblogging service in China. Plurk made the allegations in the company blog, and provided a few screenshots to show the similarities.

"We were first tipped off by high profile bloggers and Taiwanese users of our community that Microsoft had just launched a new Chinese microblogging service that looked eerily similar to Plurk," the company said. "Needless to say, we were absolutely shocked and outraged when we first saw with our own eyes the cosmetic similarities Microsoft’s new offering had with Plurk. From the filter tabs, emoticons, qualifier/verb placement, Karma scoring system, media support, new user walkthroughs to pretty much everything else that gives Plurk its trademark appeal, Microsoft China’s offering ripped off our service."

PCWorld today cites a Microsoft spokesperson as saying MSN China contracted an independent vendor to create Juku and that the service has been pulled while the company investigates.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
  • -8 Hide
    jellico , December 15, 2009 7:00 PM
    Just out of curiosity, was this story originally going to be reported by Marcus Yam? :D 
  • 3 Hide
    opmopadop , December 15, 2009 8:30 PM
    " similar service called Plunk.

    Plurk, a start-up microblogging rival of Twitter"
  • 6 Hide
    smy , December 15, 2009 11:40 PM
    Microsoft admits the code was lifted.

    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/dec09/12-15statement.mspx

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/microsoft-stole-plurk-cod_n_393185.html
  • Display all 10 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    imapc , December 16, 2009 3:56 AM
    Looks as if the investigation went smoothly. Now that contracted company probably gets slapped with a fine and Microsoft brings their business elsewhere so they can concentrate on Windows 7 updates and fixes.
  • 0 Hide
    Manos , December 16, 2009 4:17 AM
    If anything this was great publisity for a so called "fival" to twitter since none of us knew about it till this article. I know if I were them id be way too happy this happened. lol no damage, only gain.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , December 16, 2009 5:49 AM
    global company with local thinking
  • 1 Hide
    cryogenic , December 16, 2009 2:15 PM
    D_KuhnFrom the look of the GUI, someone in M$ is is big trouble. He/She didn't steel "Most" of the code, it looks like they stole ALL the code, changed some formatting, and threw their name on it.


    Microsoft said the code was written by a contracted 3rd party ... so Microsoft is pretty safe on this matter.
  • 0 Hide
    E7130 , December 16, 2009 2:56 PM
    I like how the articles try and label MS as the one who stole the code, it was just a vendor that they hired and that vendor is to blame really. They violated the contract MS signed with them.
  • 0 Hide
    deathblooms2k1 , December 16, 2009 7:35 PM
    I just wonder how this vendor honestly thought they could get away with this, without the people from plurk noticing.
  • 0 Hide
    Ridik876 , December 16, 2009 9:17 PM
    E7130I like how the articles try and label MS as the one who stole the code, it was just a vendor that they hired and that vendor is to blame really. They violated the contract MS signed with them.


    The article says nothing of the sort. The title says "Microsoft pulls..." which is factual because it was MS's service and they pulled it. And the first line states "Plurk...claimed the Microsoft china had stolen..." which is stating Plurk's accusation. Nowhere does the author blame MS.