And if that works would lose copyright protection, why precisely would that be a problem ? The number of "serendipitous successes", that is work that is a unexpected success and whose authors benefit from copyright rewards after must surely be a lot smaller than the number of "orphan" works that would benefit society to access. I myself, although a published author, would very much agree to a copyright statute that would require active management to keep the copyright monopoly on reproduction of owns work.

True, but in that case he will not be able to easily pass his genes to the next generation, and as such, it is not a viable evolutionary choice.

Or posting on a silly thread just to get the achiev...

Would it be so... I have seen LOTS of examples of that not being the case (lots of unsubstantiated writing thats just copying of Wikipedia, rather than the required original research). What you call excessive warnings, I call the minimun sanity standard to prevent at least the ones that read the article to taking it at face value.

Actually, there is a third reason why business connections cost more: the business ARE less price sensitive on that regard than common consumers. Almost all that can be diferentiated and sold as "business expenses" usually comes with higher costs (and usually, though not always, higher margins for providers).

Well, Yes and No... True, were we ALL angels, the organization model chosen would not matter. Since we aren't ALL like that (and even if you can increase the standards of the average, you are going to end up having a few rotten apples there) some organizations do provide better resilience to corruption than others...

Besides the obvious (bulk revenue from the OS is not something they can just ignore) there are some other reasons: A truly free OS (no strings attached) would be something they couldn't control. Anyone could make their adaptations (even without source code, by replacing some components). This would negate the advantage they have on the Apps market (Office).

A somewhat less free OS (some restrictions on what you could do with the OS) would still suffer from problems (like security, virus, etc.) that would require them to work on it, but if it was free without any revenue stream attached.

True, but not the whole truth. Deforestation to create a new crop is always worse than sustainable forests (even if grown-for-paper), but grown-for-paper forests are usually not sustainable (mono-cultures, weak bio-diversity, usually increased water consumption).

I am from a country with a LARGE paper production industry, and I've seen first hand the razing of indigenous species to create paper-friendly forests... It wasn't pretty, even if the new forests are denser than before, with more trees, the bio-diversity took a nose-dive.