I think the disappointment in the CEO's response to the blog post is understandable, but I think much of it is a reflection of different contexts. I'm sure fro

I think the disappointment in the CEO's response to the blog post is understandable, but I think much of it is a reflection of different contexts. I'm sure from the information at their disposal, the CEO thinks their IP was stolen, and feels obligated to defend it vigorously. Yes, he did not provide specific claims, but often it considered unwise to be specific in these situations (both when threatening legal action and when backing down). What's described as "misquoting" could be deliberate, but given how all of this seems to be in the context of two parties not communicating effectively, it is far more likely a case where what was heard from the CEO's context was very different from what Radon intended to communicate. Like I said, I don't begrudge Radon's feelings and perceptions of the situation, and he may well be perceiving things accurately, but with disagreements like this, the norm is that all parties have a distorted perception. I'm just glad it has been resolved without going to court.