4/24/2025 at 10:35:33 PM
To be clear, I'm don't like the Microsoft has a proprietary Marketplace, but a company openly violating the terms of use for their own profit is a bit much in my opinion.> Cursor allegedly has been flouting Microsoft terms-of-service rules for some time now by setting up a reverse proxy to mask its network requests to the endpoints used by the Microsoft Visual Studio Marketplace. This allows Cursor users to install VS Code extensions from Microsoft's market. Other VS Code forks tend to point to Open VSX, an alternative extension marketplace.
by bangaladore
4/25/2025 at 10:24:59 AM
Terms of service often contain illegal provisions. I teach kids to flout them too. One of the biggest sins in school is kids learn to follow rules uncritically.There are specific protections allowed when the goal is to maintain / break compatibility. If Microsoft locks competitors out, competitors are quite often permitted to pick the lock.
I can't comment on this situation since I don't know the details, but it's very likely this is fully legal.
See Oracle / Java API lawsuit, garage door opener suit, etc. To see where the lines sit.
by grobbyy
4/25/2025 at 11:07:17 AM
I think your analogies are wrong.There is a direct cost to Microsoft that these companies are pushing on them. Specifically around bandwidth.
Microsoft does not need to provide access for downloading plugins from their servers to anyone else.
by kyrra
4/25/2025 at 11:47:23 AM
I am quite confident that the bandwidth cost is absolutely not a concern for Microsoft, and that the obvious goal is for them to capture the market.The "C/C++" extension github repository is 4MB. Probably the download size for the extension itself is a fraction of that, but I won't bother measuring. It was downloaded 400 times over the last minute (there is a live counter on the extension page [0]).
[0] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-vscod...
That's a 25MB/s or 200Mb/s bandwidth, for one of the most popular extensions. Multiply by the top 10 extensions and you get the bandwidth of an average home optic fiber connection...
by mrpopo
4/25/2025 at 12:59:23 PM
I am glad you have insider knowledge to be so confident. I would rather those costs go towards furthering VS Code than helping out Cursor. This comes from someone who uses Cursor and not the biggest fan of MSFT.Pure speculation but I would see the more logical argument being Cursor is a for pay product, why should they have access to the marketplace?
by infecto
4/25/2025 at 3:38:02 PM
> why should they have access to the marketplaceBecause MS didn’t write most of the extensions yet engineered things conveniently such that you have to use their service to get them. Other text editors somehow manage to not lock people into similar dilemmas. They’re not profiting from running the marketplace or providing VS Code for free, it’s about locking people into a product. Cursor should be allowed access because interoperability is a societal net-benefit.
> those costs
…are likely minescule. I run similar services at my day job, just at a much larger scale than a text editor app marketplace, and know the precise cost to run everything. I am often disturbed that people might actually think cost:revenue is tight enough that they should defend a behemoth about callously gating access to it.
by malwrar
4/26/2025 at 4:46:43 AM
> I am often disturbed that people might actually think cost:revenue is tight enough that they should defend a behemoth about callously gating access to it.I think it's more likely that they imagine themselves in Microsoft's shoes. After all, it's a very popular editor and the mechanism of vendor lock-in is clever - give away the editor under the noble banner of open source, while jealously gate access to the plugin ecosystem that makes the editor as useful as it is.
So no, I don't think they earnestly believe that the egress costs are anything more than pocket change. But it's almost certainly what they would argue if they were in Microsoft's position.
by LexiMax
4/26/2025 at 2:21:07 AM
People on HN are conditioned by massively inflated cloud egress pricesby fireant
4/26/2025 at 2:26:40 AM
Ehhh everything is purely speculation on everyone’s part. Again I don’t think your argument holds up to much.by infecto
4/26/2025 at 12:11:53 AM
Couldn’t it wind up being easy for Cursor and other variants of VS Code to be long run beneficial for VS Code itself? Seems like having a different third party team extending your stuff and testing it, could be hugely valuable, they take risks and move fast, the upstream project gradually learns from what works for the forks, people contribute various other new extensions.In the age of LLMs, community is worth its weight in platinum, cutting off Cursor just incentivizes them to develop some new better thing with better technology (cough Zed, Ghostty) to compete with VS Code which won’t benefit Microsoft because it’ll be separate. What’s the use in not just open sourcing the C extension? With more people moving off C anyway, might as well get the free community contributions
by bionhoward
4/26/2025 at 6:02:03 AM
MSFT want to build their own Cursor aka Copilot Agent.They can build a better product with their resources effectively extinguishing Cursor, who will then need to find a way to differentiate.
If Cursor was smart, they would have decoupled from the beginning as they had first mover advantage. They will now have to adapt while fending off competition from MSFT and the other players.
MSFT meanwhile, have discovered that this market is too profitable to be left untouched. They have probably been building their agent for a while and have now decided to launch while simultaneously blocking direct competition. They already have an ecosystem with users who have switching inertia. It's a brilliant yet ruthless move.
by r0b05
4/26/2025 at 4:30:24 AM
Cursor is a small team, MS is a titanic enterprise. I highly doubt that Cursor could exceed MS when their entire product is built on VSCode in the first place and they can't even seem to describe their usage policies to their paying users.by SR2Z
4/25/2025 at 6:06:52 PM
Aren't you curious how 4MB of typescript can parse and understand C++ code? It doesn't. It downloads an additional 200MB binary language server that does all the work.by BearOso
4/25/2025 at 1:03:25 PM
It is a public website and a public service - it's like saying "hey I got free lemonade here, but you can't have it unless I decide I like you first."If you're giving something away online for free, then you are giving it away for free. I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance of "conditionally free".
A more important question is where do we draw the line of abuse? If someone links to my website and that's okay with me, but someone else does and I don't like it, do I have the right to conditionally block access to them? And do they have the right to circumvent that to regain access that I freely give to others?
by mitchitized
4/25/2025 at 1:22:48 PM
> I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance of "conditionally free".it's not a cognitive dissonance. Lots of places have conditionally free stuff - it's a form of price discrimination (coupons, special deals etc).
Microsoft is within their rights to make their servers conditionally free. What the community can respond with is to move to a different server, if such conditions are not within the bounds of the community's lines.
by chii
4/25/2025 at 1:55:49 PM
"Bathroom for customers only" is a completely reasonable ask from a business owner, and is what Microsoft is doing here.by trimbo
4/25/2025 at 2:20:49 PM
That usually means bathroom access is included in the price of buying something. VS Code is free as in free beer.by skydhash
4/25/2025 at 9:56:29 PM
Unless said beer contains numerous nanoprobes that phone home every measurement detail about your insides while they traverse your intestinal tract, the beer is a lot freer than vscode.by tremon
4/25/2025 at 1:22:45 PM
> I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance of "conditionally free"I don't think I understand. You don't understand how something can only sometimes be free? Like, free parking only on weekends? Free entry for young children? And free software depending on who you are and what you are going to do with it?
by nsteel
4/25/2025 at 1:24:28 PM
>it's like saying "hey I got free lemonade here, but you can't have it unless I decide I like you first."Which is completely reasonable, you may need a different analogy.
by bslanej
4/25/2025 at 12:46:35 PM
> There is a direct cost to Microsoft that these companies are pushing on them. Specifically around bandwidth.If Microsoft were not be very willing to bear this cost, they would never have built a marketplace into VS Code.
by aleph_minus_one
4/25/2025 at 12:56:50 PM
I don’t understand this argument. So because MSFT is large and has healthy margins they should eat the cost?by infecto
4/25/2025 at 1:00:58 PM
> So because MSFT is large and has healthy margins they should eat the cost?If MSFT weren't willing to bear the cost, they wouldn't use the "app store" concept (marketplace) for VS Code.
by aleph_minus_one
4/25/2025 at 2:06:57 PM
I don’t understand this line of thinking. Because they run a marketplace for Vs code they should also support paywalled forks?by infecto
4/25/2025 at 2:38:24 PM
> Because they run a marketplace for Vs code they should also support paywalled forks?Since, because of the marketplace, MSFT (somewhat) "monopolized" the access to extensions, they should not block other applications (forks) that also attempt to access the marketplace.
by aleph_minus_one
4/25/2025 at 6:39:40 PM
Those quotes around monopolized are really doing some heavy lifting considering that it is utterly trivial to use alternative marketplaces on (edit: flavors of) VS Code.Seems to me this is plainly the community wanting its cake and to eat it too.
by nrb
4/25/2025 at 1:14:24 PM
Why does Microsoft have the right to cause users unrestricted bandwidth use through updates and ads and spying? That's a real cost Microsoft is forcing onto users.If bandwidth is so precious, why isn't Microsoft paying users for the bandwidth they use pushing ads to their PC? Why isn't it considered onerous for them to foist tens of gigabytes in updates every week? This is a direct cost to consumers that Microsoft is pushing on them. Do you think that's fair? Or do you want to admit that your entire premise and argument is nonsense corporate apologism?
by mystified5016
4/25/2025 at 7:00:05 AM
cursor also hijacks the 'code' alias to start vscode from the cli, which I use a lot. It's extremely annoying to have cursor start instead and unnncessarily difficult to get rid of. I removed cursor because of this.by axpvms
4/25/2025 at 7:39:59 AM
I'm pretty sure that was an option when installing, I remember unchecking it and 'code' still launches vscode for me. Curious how it's difficult to remove, I'd expect something like rm `which code` to do it. Unless they add the alias to your shell or something?by doix
4/25/2025 at 8:23:35 AM
maybe they changed some things last I used it, which was maybe six months ago. I've tried cursor twice and had the same issue each time. I saw the dialogue you were talking about and specifically selected to not override the code extension and it happened again anyway. Maybe there was something left over from the previous install, I don't know.I was using windows and wsl, and they were adding scripts to my profile directory (code.cmd) which then took precedence over vscode, from what I remember. Tracking that down required googling to discover other people who were having the same issue. If this is what I have to do when I first start using a product, it just leaves a bad impression. Additionally it seems that it will hijack the 'code' alias in WSL if you select this option or not, which is where I primarily use it. And then when cursor updates, it seems it will again attempt to overwrite this alias.
I'm not the only one who encounters this issue https://github.com/getcursor/cursor/issues/2654 https://github.com/getcursor/cursor/issues/2566 https://forum.cursor.com/t/do-not-hijack-code-shortcut/60671 https://namvu.net/2025/01/cursor-stole-your-code-command-her...
Maybe it works great for other people and they never encounter this issue. Maybe it seems like a petty thing. For me it seems it's implemented to attempt to 'force convert' some vscode users to use cursor all the time, and maybe that works and it's a success from a business perspective. But I won't use it again.
by axpvms
4/25/2025 at 8:43:05 AM
Ouch, that does sound painful. I've only ever used it on Linux and Mac which work similar enough that if it did override it, it would be a mild annoyance at best.I don't know windows + wsl enough that I'm sure I would've been caught out by that and pissed off as well.
by doix
4/25/2025 at 8:20:43 AM
"code" is way too generic for a single program to claim exclusive rights to it.by LinAGKar
4/25/2025 at 8:24:50 AM
maybe, but their product is basically a reskinned version of that single program, it seems pretty clear they know what they are doing here.by axpvms
4/25/2025 at 8:28:06 AM
if i remember correctly, on my first start of cursor, it explicitly asked if it was allowed to do this.by hbogert
4/24/2025 at 10:42:09 PM
Yeah, I've noticed this using cursor. I was surprised that the extension marketplace seemed... identical to VS Code.by madeofpalk
4/25/2025 at 5:40:06 AM
But why should we care? It's obvious Cursor's IDE is VSCode, I cannot think of a single reason why I should be against executing whatever the hell I want on my computer. It's not Cursor doing this, it's me doing this using Cursor.by benoau
4/25/2025 at 6:27:39 AM
That’s not how companies see it.From MS point of view it’s Cursor doing it to them.
The way copyright and other rights to your IP you claim to have work in practice, is you need to enforce those claims or loose the rights.
by fsloth
4/25/2025 at 7:15:17 AM
> The way copyright and other rights to your IP you claim to have work in practice, is you need to enforce those claims or loose the rights.Generally only applies to trademarks, not copyrights. In most English speaking countries copyright is a proprietary right and you don't lose it if you don't actively enforce it. But there could be time limits to a plaintiff bringing a civil case to court (usually a couple years).
by hnfong
4/25/2025 at 10:56:56 AM
It doesn't apply to trademarks either but it's convenient to insist that trademark "enforcement" is required if you're either a trademark lawyer looking for more clients or you're an aggressive litigant and you want an excuse so people will forget you're a monster.Oh the Disney corporation had to sue the village primary school because their play used a trademarked name for a folk tale everybody knows about... it's not that they are monsters who care only about money and power, they were forced to secure undisclosed damages and make children cry by some principle of law which definitely exists. Mmm sure.
The last time I pointed this out on HN somebody responded with LLM generated nonsense "citing" non-existent US legal cases which they argued somehow prove I'm wrong.
by tialaramex
4/25/2025 at 12:11:26 PM
There is a huge spectrum between suing village kids for trademark infringement, and allowing everyone to misuse and abuse the trademark to the point it becomes a generic term.I don't think I disagree with you generally, but it must be recognized that trademarks are different from copyrights in that there is a mechanism where if you don't assert your rights in the trademarks you could lose them.
And, like what the sibling comment said, I'm not going to engage with you on unnamed posts where unnamed people cited some LLM to argue against you...
by hnfong
4/25/2025 at 2:17:44 PM
> I don't think I disagree with you generally, but it must be recognized that trademarks are different from copyrights in that there is a mechanism where if you don't assert your rights in the trademarks you could lose them.That sounds exactly like you disagree, and not just with me but with reality.
When this discussion topic arises, the most common thing people leap to is genericization - it is possible that if basically everybody calls this thing a Doodad when you one day sue some company to stop them using your Doodad trademark to describe their product, the judge says that's just what everybody calls these thing so you lose. But: One: This happens when you're a tremendous success! Most businesses would kill to have a product as widely known as Xerox copiers or the Hoover vacuum cleaner. Two: You can't fix this with lawsuits anyway, the judges are looking at what everybody calls the product, and you're not going to sue everybody and even if you sue movie stars and TV hosts you won't change what everybody else calls it.
Next most common are people's half memories of the 20th century trademark restitutions from World War I and World War II Germany. German industrial firms as "punishment" for their role in these conflicts had their marks invalidated in some cases. So you might well find that some mark which is protected in say, Venezuela or Japan is just generic in the United States or say France, because they won the war. In a fuzzy memory this somehow becomes the Germans "failing" to protect their marks, just conveniently in the immediate aftermath of a war, hmm, I wonder why it's only German companies, why they "failed" to do this and only in countries they'd just lost a war against...
Finally Estoppel. Estoppel isn't special to trademarks, it's a general principle in civil law about you can't tell people they can do X and then sue them for doing it. If Disney allowed primary schools to do a Little Mermaid play that's blatantly just the script of the original cartoon movie, and then one day they pick on the play at Little Nowhere Infant School and decide to sue, the lawyers for the school (if it can afford them and doesn't just settle) would argue that's Estopped, there's a long standing understanding that it's OK for schools to do this. Estoppel has practical limits so it's not a real threat and is often over-inflated by IP lawyers. So e.g. if Little Nowhere is selling a stream of the play that's not what Disney agreed to allow, or maybe the Little Nowhere "Infant" school somehow has adult actors and a huge live audience which makes $$$ on ticket sales, again a judge can see this is not what Disney envisioned, so they're entitled to sue anyway.
by tialaramex
4/26/2025 at 4:01:26 AM
I think what you said makes a lot of sense.Can we not argue whether I disagree with you please? :)
by hnfong
4/25/2025 at 11:32:45 AM
Well if you’re going to cite unnamed posts where unnamed people cited some LLM to argue against you, obviously you are 100% correct.by brookst
4/25/2025 at 12:15:25 PM
Fair, I actually misremembered and it wasn't my post they responded to with LLM slop but here is a HN user named "ranger_danger" in a thread with me in it, doing exactly what I described, LLM generated "citations" of US court cases that never really happened.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43509544
It's hard to know whether it's worse if "ranger_danger" did this on purpose and thought it's OK, or whether they didn't realise how the LLM works and thought this list was real.
by tialaramex
4/26/2025 at 4:03:26 AM
While I agree that’s beyond the pale, I do not agree it necessarily means they’re wrong. It just means they are noise adding no value, and a lot of irritation.As annoying as misinformed people and hallucinating LLMs are, it is a mistake to believe they are always the exact opposite of the truth.
by brookst
4/25/2025 at 10:16:25 AM
No copyright alone afaik stops anyone from abusing said rights unless you tell them to stop.Would be happy to have counterexamples.
by fsloth
4/25/2025 at 12:04:56 PM
Of course you can't enforce your rights if you don't enforce them.That isn't what people mean by "losing" the rights.
For example somewhere on the planet somebody is running a pirated copy of Windows 10. But it would be misleading to post a headline saying "Microsoft LOSES copyright over Windows 10!!!".
by hnfong
4/25/2025 at 6:43:30 AM
Another way copyright has worked for decades is qBittorrent for instance, is not responsible for infringements by users. Along with massive carve-outs for Microsoft and the gang to avoid that responsibility too, on GitHub and YouTube and many other websites.by benoau
4/25/2025 at 11:54:19 AM
I don't care. I was just surprised at them doing that because I thought MS/VSCode did not allow it.It would impact users if things escalate and gets more hostile between the two and starts impacting features (like regressions in extension availability)
by madeofpalk
4/25/2025 at 4:41:18 PM
Fun fact, adblockers are often a violation to ToS as well. Should we all uninstall them?by bitbasher
4/25/2025 at 5:28:55 PM
I have no problem with you violating TOS. But a corporation openly doing it is problematic.I get Microsoft is a Megacorp, but I don't think too highly of all these ai startups either.
by bangaladore
4/24/2025 at 11:53:03 PM
The Cursor founders (technically the company is called Anysphere, Inc) are all young MIT grads. What they needed is a 40-year-old with a degree from Fitchburg State who could say "Woah, don't do that! It's not worth the long-term risk!"by AIPedant
4/25/2025 at 12:02:38 AM
It is worth the long term risk.Either you don't get caught and can move faster, or you get caught and the penalty is usually small and a long way down the line, by which time your company will have either folded or grown enough to pay without difficulty.
by londons_explore
4/25/2025 at 12:27:15 AM
That's the play when your adversary is regulation--the government moves slowly, court cases move even slower, and you can grease the wheels politically.That is not the scenario here. Cursor is being hunted by an extremely motivated corporate competitor. Cursor has been leeching the gorilla's blood and the gorilla finally noticed. Microsoft doesn't (necessarily) need the law here. They have it if they need it, but they can kill Cursor without needing to sue them. The disastrous outcome isn't a penalty--it's a critical mass of users switching to Copilot because they can't use their Microsoft extensions in Cursor any more. Cutting off the extensions on the same day that their Cursor clone went live was effectively a declaration of war from Microsoft.
by electroly
4/25/2025 at 6:04:04 AM
It's possible but I think this is a bit of a non-issue for cursor. Microsoft extensions are pretty good but are not irreplacable, and in the meantime cursor has grown astronomically fast and has grabbed a ton of "AI Coding" mindshare. I think the gamble has already paid off for them: if they have to play nice with licensing and develop their own solutions to replace MS proprietary extensions, they now have the scale to do that. GH Copilot was first in the game but now has the reputation of the poor man's cursor.by extr
4/25/2025 at 6:17:28 AM
I don't know anyone that even knows Cursor exists, outside HN readership bubble.by pjmlp
4/25/2025 at 2:03:09 PM
This would only be a major issue if most development tooling was controlled by Microsoft. There's a huge market for Cursor even without microsoft's C/C++ intellisense plugins and the open source community will adapt quickly if it's gone.The risks around proxying to the marketplace are real but that doesnt seem to be an issue yet. It also continues lock-in to VSCode which benefits Microsoft so they might not care.
by dmix
4/25/2025 at 5:30:13 AM
What cursor clone?by moi2388
4/25/2025 at 5:34:31 AM
Agent mode in Copilot. It all went down on April 4th: the rollout of agent mode to all users, and the sudden enforcement of the license in their C++ extension.by electroly
4/25/2025 at 12:51:35 PM
> The disastrous outcome isn't a penalty--it's a critical mass of users switching to Copilot because they can't use their Microsoft extensions in Cursor any more.What will happen in this situation depends a lot on the "reputation" of Microsoft vs Anysphere (Cursor) and their "marketing":
If Anysphere's "marketing" wins, they mass of users will be very disgusted by Microsoft's moves that they will avoid it like the plague to touch basically any avoidable product of Microsoft (including in particular Github Copilot) again.
by aleph_minus_one
4/25/2025 at 2:48:14 AM
Or, hear me out, Microsoft decides you’d make excellent additions its House of Faces For IDE/Compiler Competitors and your face is on the wall before you know what happened.by jonstewart
4/25/2025 at 6:18:47 AM
Grow fast, raise a few billions, deal with the lawsuit in a few years.by redox99
4/25/2025 at 7:16:19 AM
Grow fast, raise a few billions, deal with the lawsuit in a few years when you're big enough to buy lobbyists in Washingon DC.by hnfong
4/25/2025 at 6:51:56 AM
I have lost the hope. Money is always the measure of ethics.by nicce
4/25/2025 at 1:35:15 AM
The amount of Boston in this comment is amazing. And 100% trueby thenipper
4/25/2025 at 5:27:41 AM
Exactly. What were they expecting would happen? They are breaking the tos while competing with Microsoft.by pier25
4/25/2025 at 12:04:12 AM
exactly! laws are for old geezers who went to State, not young superstars with fancy degrees. MIT negotiated diplomatic immunity for its graduates, after all. that's why Sam Bankman-Fried got acquitted when FTX went under.by sterlind
4/25/2025 at 12:09:03 AM
lol, Microsoft has been doing this kind of thing for a while...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Antitrust
by m463
4/25/2025 at 3:17:02 AM
While its fair to claim Microsoft has legal issues, I'm not sure what similarity you are drawing to what Cursor is doing.by bangaladore
4/25/2025 at 5:46:04 AM
It's what is motivating Microsoft to prevent what Cursor is doing.All cursor is doing is saying this blob of crap is compatible with their fork and letting you run it. This is akin to browsers supporting extensions from other browsers, and many other scenarios.
What Microsoft is doing is trying to prevent VSCode from becoming spontaneously obsolete because coding with Cursor a) removes you from VSCode and b) does it better.
by benoau
4/25/2025 at 5:31:07 PM
Microsoft spends dev time to make a C++ extension for VSCode, gives it for free to VSCode users. I feel like Microsoft has the right to say don't use our proprietary application out of "official" VSCode. Microsoft however can't claim that 3rd party extensions can only be used in "official" VSCode.by bangaladore