Yes, that's overly simplistic.
Sure, it's great to drive the a good bargain with your suppliers. But, when you drive your suppliers out of business, particularly a sole supplier, maybe it's better to let them make a little money too.
Some just don't know it...
... it will never happen with a Republican Congress.
If the company doesn't insist on a license agreement then walk away. Any lawyer worth his weight in rice would insist on a license agreement. If the company can't get that right all on their own they don't know enough about intellectual property to work with.
"They ONLY other option was to become IBM and that's to simply run around BUYING other companies."
That was Symantec for most of the last ten years.
He likely will be the CEO once the split is complete.
This isn't new...
I'm behind a firewall
now. This is hardly a new concept or a new implementation.
Just because they can crack a four digit password on an iPhone doesn't mean they can quickly crack a 24 character password. A four digit password can be easily brute forced. That's not true with a 24 character password (emphasis on "easily"). Of course, few people have 24 character passwords.
If what they did is legal, so what?
Then perhaps some of those things should be made illegal.
Can you write the proposal on how having to clean up malware that's going to infect our network because we're using old unsupported versions of IE is going to save money?
You can clear that one up...
Google is undoubtedly considering free meals as a business expense and thus it's paying lower taxes (or in Google's case, getting more money back from the government) by providing free meals. So yeah, he - and I - and you - are helping to pay for those free meals.
He had his vision, others had different visions. It doesn't mean he's right and they're wrong.