The Telegraph used to place stories like this for the firm I worked for, it does not exist now in its original form. I also remember the stories that the Telegraph ran after the last invasion of Iraq. How the trail blazing Telegraph journalist happened to stumble on documents in the Iraq oil ministry that “proved” George Galloway was on the take. All wrong. Telegraph for sale as usual. There are more examples if you look. So on the whole Telegraph equals paid for zero credibility.

Wait a minute. I found this review, but something is very wrong: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/7248845/Microsoft-Windows-Phone-7-series-review.html

This article gives us an overall positive review. How can that be? Roy is telling us that yet another Microsoft product is garbage. He then provides links to back up his claim. So what’s the explanation for this review that goes against the grain? Why wasn’t it included with this article?

Wait…. it must have been written by someone who was bribed by Microsoft, or maybe someone working for them directly. Anyone who says anything positive about Microsoft products must be lying for money. Right? What other logical explanation could there be?

Is Omar a lawyer? Who else would think there is any good reason to waste money on lawyers and time on courts trying to stifle competition, money better spent on researching and implementing new ideas. The courts really have no business interfering with technology in this way.

You can’t sue for ‘look and feel’ anyway, Apple already tried that, and apple and ms probably already have tons of cross patent licensing for what they can sue over.