Indeed, why should he care. and why should you. Nowadays the conditions of a TOS are so long-winded it would not be reasonable to read it all, let alone follow it to the letter. The judge didn't think it was worth a damn, it didn't even merit his thinking of it when he issued the ruling. Likewise it hadn't occurred to either side or their lawyers. And in the end, that is all that it is worth - nothing.

What? Bloggers don't organize together, they don't have guns, they don't compromise their morals, and they don't have the know-how. If the authorities don't step in, I don't see how they can defend themselves against such villains.

Companies regularly undergo brand renaming when they conveniently want their bad history to dissolve in the public eye. Don't let the US government do the same.

If Apple does enter into the health food market they would not be the incumbent there. So that's not an excuse either. Basically, there's no excuse to being a litigious jackass.

I think the article is missing another key factor - the fact that people abuse the system to their benefit.

Whoever signed that agreement has basically signed away their sovereign right to govern their countries according to the laws as they see fit. What do they get in return for that?

Then what you are looking for is Super (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512235/), that's a more realistic take, and perhaps a better movie even.

Google does have a compelling product, it's called search. If they start a platform initiative on search, they at least stand a fighting chance.

No, but whoever turned folding into a game should deserve honorable credit

Feel for you man. I bought a sony once too. Worst decision I ever made.

The straightforward answer is that a company feels they need a quick cash infusion to take them to the next level. But that must mean they already have a plan for spending that money. Facing competition from Google, knowing that they may have already jumped the shark, knowing that money will become tight real soon, the only reason to put it off till next year is because the owners are planning to cash out, and cash out big.

If Microsoft was honest with us and themselves they would have admitted that Windows 7 was a necessary update or service pack to Vista. But doing so would mean they couldn't sell it as such. So we have the versioning fiasco that is Windows 6.1, not so much the XP to Windows 2000 as XPSP2 to XP, the Service Pack that delivered everything that they marketed Vista to deliver. You know, keeping your word and all. But they're getting away with it, thanks to a great marketing team.

Anybody would tell you, those patents are not for sale, or would be prohibitively expensive to acquire. Their best chance would be to knock the patent down rather than acquire it, but that's no easy matter either. Second best would be to go one-on-one with other patents in their portfolio that Microsoft would be infringing, and getting a cross-licensing deal. As that has not happened, I guess it's because Google has no hold over them.

Any government can get their state CA included, but any user can have the CA revoked on their own computer. The problem with the intercept is that you can remove the CA, only to have it magically reappear upon visiting a site signed by their certificate.