I might believe that, until you read further that the channels that they cut were everything but the ones they own. And then the article continues to state how: “We believe several cable network groups are seriously considering filing lawsuits against Time Warner Cable and sending cease and desist letters to TWC to stop them from in-home live streaming to iPads without a new contract (meaning ‘more’ money),” In other words they might have had technical difficulties, but I'm guessing they were threatened by the other content companies with law suites and chickened out.
I've had a few problems with the browser plugin not working on some pages. But for the most part I'm very happy with Foxit. Easily way better than Adobe Reader. I don't know why Adobe doesn't just make a Reader lite that is super zippy that works for 95% of things. Most people don't need all that security and locked down features. We just want to read a doc.
Not always so. Pirated software sometimes is more of a PITA than what it's worth. If I could get my wares at a reasonable price without the risk of viri, decent support, and non-draconian DRM I would pick that in a heart beat. My time is worth that. Heck I have legitimate licenses for M$ products but use the pirated cracks just because I hate dealing with the activation. As the article points out trying to find what that price range sweet spot is what is at issue, assuming a company will ever realize this. I think it is a possibility with all these new fangle Apps for $.99. Of course there will always be people who pirate no matter what the price is. But I think most people would pay for good service and a good product if it didn't cost them say $1600 for the latest Adobe suite crap. I suspect for most things it will have to come down quite a bit in price. So the question for devs then is how low can they go and still make a high quality product. Angry Birds is fun, but it isn't an office productivity suite...
After reading the article it is light on what the details of the suite actually was. FTFA: "District Judge Denise Reilly threw out four of the five statements, saying they were either opinion or the comments of others on the blog. With respect to the remaining statement, the jury agreed with Clark's claim that Hoff had committed "tortious interference" by meddling with Moore's employment. Clark pointed out to the jury that Hoff, in a later blog post, took partial credit for Moore's firing." So most of the charges were dropped by the judge, and it seems the last was about the blogger actively trying to get the other guy fired. He claimed to be telling the truth, and the other guy says, um no that ain't so. Looks like the jury decided that he wasn't all the truthful? Hard to say when little is given as far as evidence one way or the other. Perhaps the jury was right.