Comments on: Microsoft FAIL: MSN China steals code from Plurk http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/microsoft-fail-msn-china-steals-code-from-plurk/127485 Inquiring for your daily news needs Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:03:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Richard Neil Ilagan http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/microsoft-fail-msn-china-steals-code-from-plurk/127485#comment-17006 Richard Neil Ilagan Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:31:13 +0000 http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/?p=7485#comment-17006 Literally ROLL. hahahaha :D<br><br>This is inexcusable. Even if they reason out that it was not Microsoft, but a third-party contractor, that deployed the application in the first place, it's still Microsoft's responsibility to make sure that every single thing that carries their brand has passed their quality assurance - including plagiarism.<br><br>Their argument that a third party contractor made it for them is invalid. By branding it as a Microsoft service, they implied responsibility and ownership. Literally ROLL. hahahaha :D

This is inexcusable. Even if they reason out that it was not Microsoft, but a third-party contractor, that deployed the application in the first place, it's still Microsoft's responsibility to make sure that every single thing that carries their brand has passed their quality assurance – including plagiarism.

Their argument that a third party contractor made it for them is invalid. By branding it as a Microsoft service, they implied responsibility and ownership.

]]> By: Microsoft stole codes from Plurk - The News Chronicle http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/microsoft-fail-msn-china-steals-code-from-plurk/127485#comment-2557 Microsoft stole codes from Plurk - The News Chronicle Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:56:07 +0000 http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/?p=7485#comment-2557 [...] See code comparison and evidence here. [...] [...] See code comparison and evidence here. [...]

]]> By: Richard Neil Ilagan http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/microsoft-fail-msn-china-steals-code-from-plurk/127485#comment-2556 Richard Neil Ilagan Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:31:13 +0000 http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/?p=7485#comment-2556 Literally ROLL. hahahaha :D<br><br>This is inexcusable. Even if they reason out that it was not Microsoft, but a third-party contractor, that deployed the application in the first place, it's still Microsoft's responsibility to make sure that every single thing that carries their brand has passed their quality assurance - including plagiarism.<br><br>Their argument that a third party contractor made it for them is invalid. By branding it as a Microsoft service, they implied responsibility and ownership. Literally ROLL. hahahaha :D

This is inexcusable. Even if they reason out that it was not Microsoft, but a third-party contractor, that deployed the application in the first place, it's still Microsoft's responsibility to make sure that every single thing that carries their brand has passed their quality assurance – including plagiarism.

Their argument that a third party contractor made it for them is invalid. By branding it as a Microsoft service, they implied responsibility and ownership.

]]>