What, like trying to claim the word "lifted" doesn't have a defintion on dictionary.com of "to steal or pilfer"? I'm the one that has repeatedly shown that the technology was bought and paid for, while the liars on display are now down to trying to deny the meaning of the words that define theft.
MS and Spider lifted the stack from BSD and failed to give proper credit. All they would have had to do was include
"Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California" and they would have been clearly street legal and in compliance with the BSD license. Heck, it even could have been just a comment in the source code.
Instead, they didn't and then passed the code off as their own. That's lifting. Got it?
Actually, that would mean absolutely nothing. Microsoft could have paid Spider $20 million for the stack, but Spider wasn't the author, so it doesn't matter. The Regents of Berkeley holds the copyright, and the terms of its license must be honored. But as I've said before (and contrary to your assertions), I know of no evidence that Microsoft violated the BSD license.
I find that purchase kind of funny though. Microsoft paid for something it could have gotten for free straight from Berkeley.