Is it just me that thinks the Reg has gone a bit too Daily Mail on this one?
The previous incident they are referring to actually had nothing to do with forced arbitration and according the to the previous Reg article Microsoft were actually encouraging the alleged victim to go to the police. Some of the people commenting here may also want to read the previous article as it clearly states that the matter was reported to the police and they determined that no crime was committed so why are they suggesting Microsoft should have punished an innocent person?
When did we change from presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
