Replies

I never said there was a bail out.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" - Bill Clinton.

However, these are YOUR words:

. . . And with good reason, Apple looked pretty seriously hosed for a while there, heck they even needed money from MS.

. . . they rode in for the rescue . . . And there was no rumor spending after the fact it was KNOWN at the time that Apple was losing money hand over fist, their stock was in the toilet, their market share was down, and then in came MS with an infusion of cash but most importantly an agreement to keep making product for Mac.

If it quacks, waddles, swims, and has feathers... a mallard is still a duck, regardless of the word you use.

Other things you have said that were disproved on this thread by refutal from authoritative sources:

Nobody gives up preferred stock for money during the course of a suit. That’s stupid. If you have to give up money because of a suit the other side isn’t going to give you stock for it, and if you have to give up stock in a suit the other side isn’t going to pay for it.

Of course the MS-Apple suit had been over for 4 years at the time, so no the buy was not related to any suit.

and I loved this one, that you tossed off after several of us pointed out that Apple had almost $1.5 billion in cash and liquid assets on hand at the time Microsoft came in with an "infusion of cash:"

. . . while they were losing money they’d developed a serious war chest. . .

Tell me, Discostu, how did Apple do that? They must have been selling something to accumulate $1.2 billion in cash. That's the equivalent of $1.6 billion in 2008 dollars.

While you didn't use the exact words "bail out," your meaning is clear. You want people to believe that Microsoft, charging in like a knight on a white horse, "bailed out" Apple with an infusion of cash from a financial crisis that could have killed the company. I have merely provided the sources that proved this to be a wrong interpretation of what happened. The historical record, the facts, simply don't back you up. You want Microsoft to be squeaky clean and an ethical company... it really wasn't either of those things. That is the real "reality distortion field" that is FUD.

. . . it’s one of the few times MS made a boat load of money without any raping or pillaging.

Yeah, right. Microsoft lucked out. But at the time of the settlement, when NONE of those future profits had been earned, it was Microsoft who paid, not Apple. "History is prologue." It was NOT a brilliant informed choice investment made by Bill Gates to make money... it was an admission that they had screwed up and had to pay. It was Apple who agreed to the settlement, when they did not HAVE to, to give Microsoft an air of plausible deniability which MS quickly turned its spin machine loose with.

You are beginning to remind me of a Liberal who, despite mountains of contrary evidence, still believes that Bush lied in those 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union Address. It seems to be a matter of faith with you. I've been posting facts. You've been making it up as you go or quoting people who were making it up as they went.