The logic behind this might mean that Plurk is aiming to force Microsoft into some form of settlement by which MS stipulates to certain restrictions on its future activities as a condition to obtaining a release, the spirit of which would be along the following lines: "you, as a willful infringer caught red-handed already, agree that, in the event you should ever again use any code or interface remotely resembling ours, we can apply to a court for immediate injunctive relief."
Obviously, I am speculating but the last paragraph of the press release tends in my view to support this theme, implying that these founders have a perception this was not at all innocent on Microsoft's part but instead something quite calculated.
This also may constitute gamesmanship by which Plurk is trying to create enough of a nuisance to force Microsoft to consider acquiring it as a way of clearing the way for it to enter this market in the future.
This may indeed be nothing more than bad judgment by these founders, as the comments here suggest, but it must have some logic behind it (wise or not) and that logic may well run along the above lines.
Obviously, I am speculating but the last paragraph of the press release tends in my view to support this theme, implying that these founders have a perception this was not at all innocent on Microsoft's part but instead something quite calculated.
This also may constitute gamesmanship by which Plurk is trying to create enough of a nuisance to force Microsoft to consider acquiring it as a way of clearing the way for it to enter this market in the future.
This may indeed be nothing more than bad judgment by these founders, as the comments here suggest, but it must have some logic behind it (wise or not) and that logic may well run along the above lines.