Many people would disagree with your assessment of Microsoft making a better product than the other guys at any point in history, even if you weren't wildly extrapolating from DesScorp's statement.

The real problem is that an operating system locks you into using it far more than anything Google's done so far--a problem which isn't Microsoft-specific. At this point, it'd be far easier for me to move cross-country than change my OS. Once a lot of people are in a similar position and have major incentives to use the same OS as everyone else, it's difficult NOT to be an abusive monopoly.

From Wikipedia:

Newspapers immediately pointed out how the term already had acquired its own article on Wikipedia.

Uh oh.

I recognize that goodwill has a real value to a company, but when you're claiming that half of the damage the defendant caused is due to them defending themselves, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on, regardless of how rude TPB was. At bare minimum, you might want to re-evaluate your strategy (you, of course, being Sony). It's not like TPB went well out of their way to organize a campaign against Sony or anything.

Well, awesomeness is what the courts are ruling on, isn't it? Ever since Brown v. Board of Education was settled with a crocodile-punching contest, there's been a precedent.

Am I the only one whose mind is boggling at how the prosecution thinks that phrase works? Is there a law that says you can't post complaints against you or respond to them in a way that might make the complainer look like an ass? I understand things like libel and slander, but does "loss of goodwill" prohibit me from pointing out that Sony's inclusion of rootkits in their products might be considered a negative?* If Sony wants to prevent "loss of goodwill," they should be suing themselves.

*instead of the wonderful feature that it is, of course.

And then Edison's electric company was never heard of again.

"B. Hussein Obama?" Seriously? You guys are still doing that?

Two things:

First, someone as generally intelligent as Chu should be able to figure his job out no matter what. We're not talking about idiot savants here, we're talking about people who are incredibly good learners.

Second, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Berkeley_National_Laboratory

I think this is even truer than it sounds. A lot of people Obama's tagged have very little incentive to take the position other than if they feel they might be able to get stuff done. All the good scientists I know mostly just want to work on cool and interesting things and see administration and bureaucracy as a necessary evil, making the aspects of these jobs which can be exploited for monetary gain less attractive than getting back to a lab. Furthermore, any career politicians in their positions would be ruined by going around the administration, whereas it's not like Steven Chu will ever struggle to find a job he wants. The upshot is that these guys have little to lose by being forced to resign, whereas it'd look horrible for Obama if they go off in a huff because he won't listen to them. Obama's been accused of talking change without having any substance, but I think he just hit the point of no return on following good science. It'll certainly be nice to see Nobel Prizes having more weight than Magic 8-Balls.

Obviously this is just an attempt by the democrats to distract from the nation's problems as Obama takes office. They should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the public's interest in atom interferometry this way.