radeonic2 said:
Well, look on the bright side--at least we won't have to look forward to seeing any [H] headlines like this:
"[H] Preemptively Sues FutureMark in Defense of Freedom of Speech," right?
That alone is worth its weight in gold or platinum.
My own entirely subjective opinion is that [H] targets companies and/or individuals it believes have jello for spines and will back down at the slightest threat of negative exposure even if the critical slant is completely unjustified. I really do think that's the case, and that the IL fiasco was nothing more than a huge miscalculation on [H]'s part, as no doubt IL was expected to immediately cringe and run away screaming and sobbing, quivering in its boots, at the first peal of thunder it heard out of [H.] I am sure that [H] will be much more prudent as to its choice of victims and targets in the future, no doubt...
[Let's see [H] go after Intel in such a fashion over the Prescott fiasco, for instance--Never gonna' happen, of course...]Yes, personally, I have always been disappointed with the meekness with which FM has defended its IP and its declared principles in the past, and although I had expected them to once again quickly fold and drop their cards and skimper away, it is still somewhat disappointing to see it. After all, if FM won't defend itself in public, who will? If FM hasn't the stomach to defend its public profile, then perhaps the company might be better served by seeking a different, and private, employment venue which excludes the public sale and promotion of its software. Nothing wrong at FM that a little backbone won't cure, imo...
