5 ms·

What would you suggest instead?

• daveguy 10y ago
  Well, this is a company doing the appropriation, so doesn't it make a lot more sense to use the term "borrow"? It wasn't some individual stealing the intellectual property of a poor corporation. A corporation just trying to create jobs and wealth for the little people. This is a corporation acting toward a government entity so steal is a bit harsh. Everyone knows companies are better than governments and individuals. Therefore Microsoft clearly borrowed fonts from the Turkish army.
  • dimino 10y ago
    You didn't read the article, did you?
    • daveguy 10y ago
      I did. Apparently that was too tongue in cheek at the ridiculousness of the title. Tongue through cheek I suppose. I am happy it gave you the opportunity to feel good about yourself.
      • dimino 10y ago
        Hey, this isn't about me, it's about making future comment threads you participate in not suck.
        • daveguy 10y ago
          We strongly disagree on the title.
          • dimino 10y ago
            Fair, but it's worth remembering how hard it is to convey sarcasm via text.
            • daveguy 10y ago
              Noted. Thank you.
• szupie 10y ago
  The title is a reference to a minor sarcastic remark made in the blog post: a forged document containing the font Calibri was claimed to be last saved (in 2002) before Microsoft released the font (in 2006), yet the questionable Turkish court disregarded this indication of tampering with the last-saved date and accepted the document as factual. In fact, most of the post has nothing to do with Microsoft. Bear in mind, this is not a news article, but just a blog post from 2012.
• oever 10y ago
  'Evidence' for Turkish 2003 coup plan predates publication of used font. Font metadata proves 2003 Turkish coup plan evidence was faked.
  • gherkin0 10y ago
    That would be a good subtitle: Did Microsoft steal its fonts from the Turkish army?: Font metadata proves 2003 Turkish coup plan evidence was faked.