Given what information has progressively come out this could also just be a reasonable response to a train wreck of incompetence. E.g on the 19th they could rea

Given what information has progressively come out this could also just be a reasonable response to a train wreck of incompetence. E.g on the 19th they could reasonably still believe that the board had some legitimate cause, but every day that goes on where no such action comes to light is indicative of bad faith by the board (and I saw an article on HN today I think where the new CEO is threatening to quit if the board can’t provide the actual evidence and justification for their actions). I feel this could easily be described as just the board acted in bad faith, Microsoft responded on the assumption it was operating in good faith, it discovered that they were not, and adjusted its position appropriately. Positioning a change in position as more information comes to light as indicative of bad faith, when the originating action looks increasingly to be in bad faith, is absurd.