If you take a whizbang feature from Java and use it in Python, you're more likely to be sued by Oracle than doing the equivalent getting you sued by Microsoft.
Except that Java is covered under the GPL which would forbid that. Oracle can still be dicks about it but the Oracle - Google case, the lower court ruled for Google. It was remanded for reconsideration back to the lower court. The other difference is that Sun open sourced Java and Jonathan Schwartz (former Sun CEO) did not think that Google did anything wrong. It was Oracle who later bought Sun that re-interpreted what they would allow.
In this case MS from the beginning has issues with claiming
Yes, there is a difference between open source and free. But you completely missed the point in that the authors are complaining that "Open Source"
For example, if there was a library that I wanted to port from
Microsoft has very specific requirements for its browsers - namely corporate use. Other browser manufacturers don't have this pressure.
I'm afraid you got that backwards. MS imposed very strict requirements on corporate use because IE (and MS) gave the finger to standards compliance for a very long time. Now that they have a huge install base on a browser in a mess they created. Either IE breaks with backwards compatibility for standards compliance on the next version or they have to release a different browser (Spartan) and keep IE for legacy. Either way it's going to be painful.
Rendering HTML is actually very difficult, and that's ignoring media, JavaScript, extensions, user profiles, bookmarks, system integration, and so on. Saying it's just HTML isn't really helping the discussion...
Basic HTML is easy. HTML5 and extensions like scripting are harder; however, that's why other browsers have spent years working on these whereas MS has tried to stay entrenched on their browser and lock-in. They are just playing catchup now.
You buy a company, bankrupt it because your idea didn't work out and then offer to help some of the people who;s job you destroyed.
What part of your statement is true?
Did Apple buy GTAT? No. They paid GTAT for a contract to build sapphire that GTAT could not deliver. When GTAT declared bankruptcy, Apple would be their largest creditor and are entitled to some portion of the assets but they did not "buy" GTAT. The rumors are that Apple advanced GTAT $350 million to build whatever facilities they would need to supply Apple with the necessary amount of sapphire and equipment. So GTAT may have spent part or all of the money.
Second it wasn't Apple's idea to get into the sapphire business for GTAT. GTAT was in the business long before Apple. Now GTAT's problem was that they were not a large scale manufacturer of sapphire or manufacturing equipment. At best they had a small business doing both. According to estimates, Apple would need at least 2600 furnaces to meet with estimates. From what I read, the original agreement was that GTAT would manufacture, install, and operate those furnaces at an Apple facility. They were not able to do so and the agreement had GTAT manufacturing rather being simply an equipment manufacturer.
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
