Gamespot could promote this as a single piece of evidence that they aren't at the whims of their advertising parters journalistically, but they won't because they're smart people.
Microsoft probably ate some costs in legal fees, but whoever was squatting on the domain gained nothing for it. This happens all the time, its basic. Entities that squat on domain names without being able to leverage them and clearly having an inferior claim to them, as is the case here clearly, lost them when challenged like this, and for reasonable reasons. You can go register a thousand domains right now with Disney leading the URL and in 20 years one of them is luckily something Disney maybe thinks might be promotable, might get hits, or both? You're going to lose that domain in court. Every time.
You have equal right to your likeness, you'd just have a hell of a time proving they were negligent in copying it because you are not a famous, public figure. She is and can. Nothing wrong with that.
Why can't you believe it? It's a premium service that has a very tangible cost to deliver to consumers...and consumers have clearly stated that it's worth the price...
Peter Molyneux should ask Blockbuster how that went for them, foolishly defining the scope of their business too narrowly. Or the print media. Or hundreds of other examples of firms that had dominant market share in a product and were too narrowly focused on that product, ignoring that EVERY product has a shelf life.
Microsoft has made this mistake in the past with respect to personal audio devices and mobile phones and Gates owned up to it. They were too late to the parties. The Xbox division isn't going to make this mistake.
Gamespot should seriously lock comments on financial topics. The disposition is absolutely without merit. When a firm goes bankrupt, creditors are first in line for reimbursement. Any firm, any industry. There is literally nothing to argue about here at all.
I'm not talking about balancing your check book, chief. You certainly are talking about finance when you dismiss his analysis, he's a friggin CFA. His job is to inform investors and his opinion is factually not completely irrelevant...he's incredibly well paid for it.
@tightwad34 Do you truly believe his opinion is completely irrelevant and his firm is wasting the surely hundreds of thousands of dollars they pay him in salary to generate it, or do you just not understand at all what finance is? I'm going to go with the later.
JamesHetfield89's comments