<snip>

>>Rick did not try and "sick MS lawyers onto Chen" and certainly did not act out of desire to eliminate competition. He acted from a desire to know what is legal and what not so that he, in turn, can also act accordingly. He sought clarification on an issue which he felt needed clarification. Nothing more.
>
>Sorry Jos, in my POV action speaks louder than words. If he wanted knowledge, the first step in my book would have been to ask Chen BEFORE sending a mail to MS. And then perhaps ask MS a hypothetical question - lawyers are used to that - without fingering Chen, with a few minutes of effort linking to possible action with his own project. Nope, I categorize his action as attempt to hinder/nullify competition ahead of him or cutting out possible sponsorship. I tried to verify my take on things by asking him about trying to contact Chen in advance. Again, I am not claiming 100% "conscious plotting" on his side, but there were so many better alternatives to take/consider that I do not accept the later offered verbiage selfdescribing his motives.

Fair enough. No one can be in another's mind so we can leave it at difference of opinion or perhaps just in the way it was perceived by each differently. Do we know how he approached MS, was it anonymously without giving the game away or was it in detail?


>>And if you think about it, why was everyone upset that he would contact MS lawyers if there was nothing illegal going on which may have halted Chen's work? if there was nothing illegal going on, then no harm could come from contacting MS. If there was something illegal going on, then shouldn’t we know and have that stopped because aren’t we all meant to be good law abiding citizens? Can't have it both ways.
>
>Untrue or at least besides the fact. MS has lost quite a few legal spats on licensing where MS views were not aligned with other countries laws - for instance ability to resell bought "license". Nevertheless and against court ruling MS presents the opinion ruled against as valid law.
>
>In Germany looser in a court case has to pay lawyer cost of the winner (within certain boundries). Not so in every jurisdiction - esp. the states. So there is serious financial risk evoked in some jurisdictions even "if nothing illegal [was] going on" if going against deep pockets and lawyer teams already on payroll. Also often used as a tactic to force change of behaviour by settling early/without court decision.

This is a valid point; lawyers and legal systems can ruin even the innocent. I cannot argue against this valid point. He should perhaps have considered your approach as a first step but I still dont think it was out of malice - maybe I am too naive but I prefer to always give the benefit of the doubt when certainty cannot be known.


>>Rick is probably one of the most high-integrity, principled people I have ever communicated with but he won’t bend his principles and that is what I think most people don’t get. He will not bend them for anything or anyone. Which perhaps makes him come across pedantic or stubborn. But at least he is honest and open with his intentions and thinking. You know where you stand.
>
>The flip side of his principles is/was guarantee of never finding enough people for a group effort. And not being able to see that right away borders hard on the reasons I usually don't want to be near fundamentalists - from my POV they are unstable grenades or broken tools.
>
>>And he was insulted to be called a racist just because he used Parler. On principle he had to leave. Another loss to the UT VFP world, although I guess some would not think so.
>
>I see myself as rather tolerant (or thick skinned or arrogant) online, while trying to never utter myself anything online I would not say face-2-face and mark sarcasm/irony even where most think of it as evident.

Good principle and which I abide by too. Whatever I say online I will say face to face. It seems a virtue which is rapidly being lost in the world.


>IIRC I never argued for banning before (and in his case first only asked for me and my posts to be invisible to him, NOT to ban him) but that (in your view) "desire to know" could lead to repercussions I'd rather not be in the vicinity of (imagine grenade again).

Banning is stupid except in the extreme cases. I have seen this on the UT over the many years I have been here (at least 24/25). If a forum user does not have the self-control to ignore a poster then that says perhaps more about the reader than the poster.


Go well.