Does anyone else plan on getting a subscription to The Athletic?

[eball]

37 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

at $2:50/month...can there really be a case made that it is not worthwhile? I read Fairburns article/interview with Beane today..my monthly investment made whole on just one piece.

 

I am truly staggered by the number of people who sweat $3.00 here..and i am sure all guys who drive cars way nicer than mine.

 

If you think that interview was great (I do), read Kris Baker's Sabres writeup pre-draft.  Awesome.

[BadLandsMeanie]

Yes. I am an Athletic Supporter.

[HT02]

I've been signed up for about 6 months (I'm a Mets and Islanders fan so I signed up for the NY coverage).  Pretty good so far

[BuffaloRush]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

at $2:50/month...can there really be a case made that it is not worthwhile? I read Fairburns article/interview with Beane today..my monthly investment made whole on just one piece.

 

I am truly staggered by the number of people who sweat $3.00 here..and i am sure all guys who drive cars way nicer than mine.

 

I would disagree.  While it was certainly a good article, Beane didn’t provide anymore insight than he does on One Bills Live.  Speaking for myself and likely others, we certainly could afford to pay for The Athletic but I don’t want think it’s worth it when there’s so much free content out there.   For me, there’s not enough value added to pay for something which has traditionally been available for free - as IS available for free.

 

It’s very similar to podcasting.  There’s podcasts that I’ll listen to occasionally like Colin Cowherd.  If left Fox and started charging $2.99 a month to listen, I would pass.  It’s not about the cost, I just don’t listen or enjoy it enough to subscribe, when there’s a lot of free content out there.   

 

Like I said, I’m keeping an open mind but right now there’s not enough value added to pay to read their coverage.  

 

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

I read Fairburns article/interview with Beane today..my monthly investment made whole on just one piece.

 

Agreed.   Beane is usually pretty generic in his remarks, but I thought he was more relaxed and candid in his interview with Fairburn than he's been with the BN.    It's a good start.    It will be interesting to watch the dynamic between OBD and the Snooze vs. TA as we get into the season...   

[BuffaloRush]

20 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Agreed.   Beane is usually pretty generic in his remarks, but I thought he was more relaxed and candid in his interview with Fairburn than he's been with the BN.    It's a good start.    It will be interesting to watch the dynamic between OBD and the Snooze vs. TA as we get into the season...   

 

Really?  Because I listened to him on One Bills Drive this past Friday and he didn’t provide any new insight 

[plenzmd1]

31 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:

 

 

 

Like I said, I’m keeping an open mind but right now there’s not enough value added to pay to read their coverage.  

 

 

I guess this is where I am lost. For $3 a month, how much "value add " do you expect? 

 

For me, if a read one article every two weeks that I enjoy..that's good value to me.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Yes. I am an Athletic Supporter.

 

Welp then, that explains a lot!

[BuffaloRush]

7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I guess this is where I am lost. For $3 a month, how much "value add " do you expect? 

 

For me, if a read one article every two weeks that I enjoy..that's good value to me.

 

That’s where we differ.  I’m not paying to read online articles with information (like the Beane interview) that’s pretty much available for free.

[timekills17]

19 hours ago, TikiTailgateRentals said:

Hell no!  Hell no to the BN Blitz too!  No need to pay for sports writing or content. Total waste of money.  

 

19 hours ago, 4_kidd_4 said:

Pay for “news”? Lulz.

 

18 hours ago, Estro said:

No I do not.  I refuse to pay for content.  There ar4 different methods of making money off of a high traffic sports website and IMO the ones that have adopted a subscription model like the athletic will not work.  I much prefer a model like the Ringer, which has advertisements.  

 

As far as Tim Graham I had to unfollow him on Twitter years ago because he was such a smart ass.  I don't know the man at all but the way he comes across on Twitter was, IMO, not only petty but embarrassing.

 

I like Fairburn's podcast with Joe B.....and I'll just continue to listen to that for free.  If they decide to charge for that eventually I'll listen to the next guy who fills the non subscription model vacuum.  

 

17 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:

I guess I’m in the minority here but I’m not paying - for the same reason I wouldn’t pay for the Buffalo Bills.  There’s more than enough free coverage and while I love Fairburn and Graham (Not a fan of Turner), excludes articles from them just doesn’t entice me.  

 

Maybe if they continue to evolve, it will change my mind but now I don’t feel that I would get the $40 or so out of the subscription.  

 

I'm very curious what y'all do for pay? How about if I show up to your place of work and expect your services/goods without any money?

What if I "promise" to watch an advertisement? Will you provide me the service or goods for free then?

 

Why you believe it makes sense for you to get the product these people and sites produce for free, but you wouldn't do the same is beyond me. If people stopped buying your products or goods - how long would you keep going? I'm willing to bet you're not all volunteers.

 

I completely understand not wanting to pay because you you don't feel the product is worth the cost, but the "I ain't paying for coverage, period" leads to "Why isn't there any coverage?"

[thenorthremembers]

I just signed up.  With the local and national coverage its well worth the 40 dollars for the year.  Generally pretty stringent about the way I spend my money and never would have spent the money on the Buffalo Blitz or whatever the BN was calling it, but I can tell already this was worth the money. 

[BuffaloRush]

2 minutes ago, timekills17 said:

 

 

 

 

I'm very curious what y'all do for pay? How about if I show up to your place of work and expect your services/goods without any money?

What if I "promise" to watch an advertisement? Will you provide me the service or goods for free then?

 

Why you believe it makes sense for you to get the product these people and sites produce for free, but you wouldn't do the same is beyond me. If people stopped buying your products or goods - how long would you keep going? I'm willing to bet you're not all volunteers.

 

I completely understand not wanting to pay because you you don't feel the product is worth the cost, but the "I ain't paying for coverage, period" leads to "Why isn't there any coverage?"

 

This is a very poor example because for years the “goods and services” have been offered for free online.  It’s not like we started paying and then decided to stop, as you suggested.

 

Within business it has always been a challenge charging for a produce that has historically been offered for free.  We can look at countless industries and find examples.  We saw this with satellite radio.  Initially most people said “I’m not paying for radio.”  For year’s most people didn’t and to this day you can argue that it never has really taken off.  However to get people to pay for a service that offered for free - Sirius XM had to offer some value such as exclusive programming, commercial free music etc.

 

Look at the failure of the BN Blitz.  It didn’t fail because people didn’t like Bucky and Sully.  It failed because people got news for free for years and the product didn’t entice them enough to subscribe.   While it’s not the same situation, it’s coverage from a writer (Fairburn) which has been available for free through NYupstate.  While great articles, it’s not enough to get me to subscribe.  

 

Look, I have nothing against The Athletic.  I love Fairburn and Graham and I hope that it revolves and succeeds.  I just disagree with those who thinks anyone that doesn’t want to subscribe is a cheap skate.  

[timekills17]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:

 

This is a very poor example because for years the “goods and services” have been offered for free online.  It’s not like we started paying and then decided to stop, as you suggested.

 

Within business it has always been a challenge charging for a produce that has historically been offered for free.  We can look at countless industries and find examples.  We saw this with satellite radio.  Initially most people said “I’m not paying for radio.”  For year’s most people didn’t and to this day you can argue that it never has really taken off.  However to get people to pay for a service that offered for free - Sirius XM had to offer some value such as exclusive programming, commercial free music etc.

 

Look at the failure of the BN Blitz.  It didn’t fail because people didn’t like Bucky and Sully.  It failed because people got news for free for years and the product didn’t entice them enough to subscribe.   While it’s not the same situation, it’s coverage from a writer (Fairburn) which has been available for free through NYupstate.  While great articles, it’s not enough to get me to subscribe.  

 

Look, I have nothing against The Athletic.  I love Fairburn and Graham and I hope that it revolves and succeeds.  I just disagree with those who thinks anyone that doesn’t want to subscribe is a cheap skate.  

 

I concur with your points on the challenge of offering something for free, then charging for it.

It's a great technique when the product is desirable enough (*cough* drugs...first one's free! *cough*). 

 

I'd suggest the YouTube practice of advertising for those that don't want to pay - even if it's over the top annoying - with an option to subscribe and remove the advertising.

Those that would have subscribed will do so anyway, and at worst they'll get a modicum of advertising (although ads on the Internet are woefully low income until you get into the tens of millions of unique subscribers. Trust me - I've made about $9.00 in six years of placing ads on my site that replays Bills games just to try and recoup some server cost. That doesn't pay for half of one month over the six years.

 

Just to clarify - I don't believe you're "a cheap skate" if you choose not to subscribe. But I don't agree with the conception that you should just get the stuff for free. That was my point.

[BuffaloRush]

29 minutes ago, timekills17 said:

 

I concur with your points on the challenge of offering something for free, then charging for it.

It's a great technique when the product is desirable enough (*cough* drugs...first one's free! *cough*). 

 

I'd suggest the YouTube practice of advertising for those that don't want to pay - even if it's over the top annoying - with an option to subscribe and remove the advertising.

Those that would have subscribed will do so anyway, and at worst they'll get a modicum of advertising (although ads on the Internet are woefully low income until you get into the tens of millions of unique subscribers. Trust me - I've made about $9.00 in six years of placing ads on my site that replays Bills games just to try and recoup some server cost. That doesn't pay for half of one month over the six years.

 

Just to clarify - I don't believe you're "a cheap skate" if you choose not to subscribe. But I don't agree with the conception that you should just get the stuff for free. That was my point.

 

Thanks man.  I wouldn’t rule out subscribing in the future.  Just going to wait and see.  

 

Also so what’s your website!?!?!

[PromoTheRobot]

We are currently in the dead zone for both hockey and football. Let's see how the Athletic does in the fall and winter. That's where they will earn their cred.

[Malazan]

I'm interested in their Sabres coverage. I'm thinking about signing up.

[Mrbojanglezs]

No, I don't support Tim Graham.

 

 

23 hours ago, Teddy KGB said:

Nope.   I’m busy spending my money on Arby’s curly fries.  

 

Got any stock tips?

Edited June 19, 2018 by Mrbojanglezs

[YoloinOhio]

The very best writer on Ohio state, Ari Wassermann, is part of the athletic. I joined when he did and would pay just to read his stories. He’s phenomenal. 

 

As far as the Bills writers, I wouldn’t pay just to read Fairburn or graham since i didn’t read their stuff much when it was free. Maybe if I came across it, but I didn’t seek it out. I will check out the Bills and Sabres pages but prefer certain writers for that info (i still like Carucci, and trapasso.)

 

[fridge]

On 6/18/2018 at 10:35 AM, bbb said:

Shots fired from Graham to Harrington?:

 

 

 

While not illegal, sharing non-consented text messages is highly immoral.  Mike Harrington would certainly not have written that text message to Tim Graham if he knew it would be shared online.  Similarly, excluding the full context of the texts makes this incredibly one-sided. Tim's decision to include the keyboard in the screenshot to hide the previous message tells me he wasn't entirely innocent and egged him on.

 

As for my thoughts on The Athletic...

 

I don't live in Buffalo anymore and I don't really care about sports coverage.  I periodically get my news from here and reddit and that's still way better than any fan had access to in the 80's and 90's.  I don't really get the desire to "go deeper" and get more coverage (which, let's be real...is mostly re-hashed articles written with quotes from the same press conference they've already cited...all under the guise of fresh journalism).

 

A few years back when WGR started posting articles using the all-22 screenshots I thought immediately about how unqualified they were to report it.  I was still interested in seeing the breakdown, but it didn't take long before I realized that Jeremy White had no idea what he was talking about.  I feel the same way about Cover 1.  I'm not here to argue about the guy's reputation, but I can think of multiple examples where he used screenshots of plays to support a biased theory and it was weak at best. If a former coach or player had a similar setup and broke down plays I would be very interested in reading, learning and following their articles.

 

I expect a lot of you to have different opinions -- and seeing as this is a message board about a sports team I'm sure we have our fair share of fanatics who genuinely want more "coverage".  As I've gotten older, sports in general has consumed a lot less of my time and I can't stand the NFL and the politics being injected into football.  I just like the sport, going to games, embracing victories with those from my hometown and talking about the games with friends and family during the season.

 

The social media era has had the unintended effect of dissociating the sport from the players.  We have players tweeting nonsense and actual journalists using those tweets to drum up "stories".  I don't think lazy is the right term because, well, it's content and I understand why they do that, but there's very little insight and connections that any of these journalists have with the players beyond what I have access to.  It's not like the old days when they used to be buddies.  When I read someone like Tim Graham breaking down a player's twitter rant I end up thinking that I've wasted my time.  I also read the twitter rant. How about add in some context, do research, contact those around them, see if there's even a story? I can read the twitter rant on my own and make my own assumptions.

 

I will likely never subscribe to the Athletic because I've more than paid for my share of free coverage by watching ads and being a targeted consumer.  The quality of the content on their site would need to be extraordinary for me to consider it, and even then, I doubt I'd be interested in reading lengthy articles and stories by glorified bloggers.  The one thing I won't do is make fun of those that do subscribe to The Athletic.  The greatest thing to come out of the internet age is for like minded people to find their niche and if being a sports fanatic is your niche, please subscribe and give them all the feedback you can to make it better.

 

*Edit - a word.

Edited June 19, 2018 by fridge

[Logic]

I can't help but consider signing up, now that they have an all-star cast of journalists and analysts on board.

Every day I hem and haw about it, I see a new Twitter post detailing some great new article -- most recently an in depth look at the Bills' Double A-gap nickel package -- and regret not having already given them my money.

I expect to be worn down and typing in my credit card number by the end of the business week.

[Cheektowaga Chad]

If you are purely a NFL fan/bills fan id say its not really worth it, if you are on the edge of subscribing or not. There is enough "free" content out there

 

However if you are a hockey fan its well worth it. Some of the best hockey writers/reporters/insiders in my opinion work there. On top of the fact its tough to find quality hockey coverage

[Rochesterfan]

7 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Yes. I am an Athletic Supporter.

 

 

You are a strapping Jock.

 

 

[Punching Bag]

19 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

It is ad-free

Ad-free for now according to article in NYT whose principles never promised ad-free site.

19 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

I don't think anyone is saying that Timmy is a bad writer.  From what I've seen, he's incapable of having an adult conversation with anyone who disagrees with him.  In my book, that makes him a jerk.

 

 

I had conversations twice with TG (I do not post on twitter, I am not a twit) and once he was very reasonable in discussing points for and against and the other time he got defense and nasty as soon as criticism was given.  And no time was I nasty and most of my points were over generalizations made her like Gungy did above where exaggeration was used when facts did not support entire argument.

 

Not sure what that means other than he has bad days.

[BuffaloRush]

49 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

Ad-free for now according to article in NYT whose principles never promised ad-free site.

 

I had conversations twice with TG (I do not post on twitter, I am not a twit) and once he was very reasonable in discussing points for and against and the other time he got defense and nasty as soon as criticism was given.  And no time was I nasty and most of my points were over generalizations made her like Gungy did above where exaggeration was used when facts did not support entire argument.

 

Not sure what that means other than he has bad days.

 

What topic were you talking about? 

[Punching Bag]

Just now, BuffaloRush said:

 

What topic were you talking about? 

 

Each was on an article he wrote (it has been a few years so not remember exact article) and in each case I pointed on areas where he exaggerated to try to make a point.  First one was at one of the draft parties at stadium and other was at away game at a bar where a tailgate was being held night before.  In neither case did he appear to be drinking.  The crux of my article was that is was not as strong as it could be because of hyperbole and asked him if that was due to editing. 

[Gugny]

1 hour ago, Limeaid said:

Ad-free for now according to article in NYT whose principles never promised ad-free site.

 

I had conversations twice with TG (I do not post on twitter, I am not a twit) and once he was very reasonable in discussing points for and against and the other time he got defense and nasty as soon as criticism was given.  And no time was I nasty and most of my points were over generalizations made her like Gungy did above where exaggeration was used when facts did not support entire argument.

 

Not sure what that means other than he has bad days.

 

The fact is that he does this all the time on Twitter.   Not just on "bad days."   I'm generalizing nothing.  I am stating pure facts.  So find another user to crank one out whilst dreaming about.  I'm done with you.

[Troll Toll]

11 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

The fact is that he does this all the time on Twitter.   Not just on "bad days."   I'm generalizing nothing.  I am stating pure facts.  So find another user to crank one out whilst dreaming about.  I'm done with you.

I’m on the waiting list for users that can crank one out to Gugs.

[BuffaloRush]

15 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Each was on an article he wrote (it has been a few years so not remember exact article) and in each case I pointed on areas where he exaggerated to try to make a point.  First one was at one of the draft parties at stadium and other was at away game at a bar where a tailgate was being held night before.  In neither case did he appear to be drinking.  The crux of my article was that is was not as strong as it could be because of hyperbole and asked him if that was due to editing. 

 

Interesting... I can see where Tim’s responses on Twitter could make him and the BN look bad.  I remember when he was “feuding” with poor Matthew Collier who was at WGR at the time.  Collier tweeted something about playing college baseball.  Tim said he played a charity softball event with Collier, and doubted him.  Collier was adimate that he did play.  Rather than laughing it off or making a wise ass comment, Tim actually spent the time checking the baseball rosters of his college and even called the Sports Information Director to ask if he played.  It just seemed like he went out far out of his way to call out a meaningless exaggeration that a lowly producer made on Twitter.

 

On the other hand everyone who knows Tim in the media, seems to love him.  At least, the ones who publicly speak about him.  Haven’t heard much negative on him. 

[Clemfield2622]

I'm going to subscribe.

 

FWIW, I love Tim Graham. I have a feeling if he spent his Twitter time pwning libs, he'd be more popular locally.

[Gugny]

7 minutes ago, Troll Toll said:

I’m on the waiting list for users that can crank one out to Gugs.

 

So far, the list seems short ... and disturbing.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

6 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:

On the other hand everyone who knows Tim in the media, seems to love him.  At least, the ones who publicly speak about him.  Haven’t heard much negative on him. 

Restraining orders?

[bbb]

1 hour ago, BuffaloRush said:

 

Interesting... I can see where Tim’s responses on Twitter could make him and the BN look bad.  I remember when he was “feuding” with poor Matthew Collier who was at WGR at the time.  Collier tweeted something about playing college baseball.  Tim said he played a charity softball event with Collier, and doubted him.  Collier was adimate that he did play.  Rather than laughing it off or making a wise ass comment, Tim actually spent the time checking the baseball rosters of his college and even called the Sports Information Director to ask if he played.  It just seemed like he went out far out of his way to call out a meaningless exaggeration that a lowly producer made on Twitter.

 

On the other hand everyone who knows Tim in the media, seems to love him.  At least, the ones who publicly speak about him.  Haven’t heard much negative on him. 

 

I wonder how Vic and Harrington feel about him?

[BuffaloRush]

1 hour ago, bbb said:

 

I wonder how Vic and Harrington feel about him?

 

Never said a bad word about him publicly 

[bbb]

8 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:

 

Never said a bad word about him publicly 

 

They don't have to. 

[plenzmd1]

 

3 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

 

I had conversations twice with TG (I do not post on twitter, I am not a twit) and once he was very reasonable in discussing points for and against and the other time he got defense and nasty as soon as criticism was given. 

 

But you have no problem calling someone who uses  Twitter a" twit"..and yet claim you were reasonable. HMM, I always love being called a twit! Shocking someone might find something you say offensive!

 

I got a feeling you and Timmuh the same when it comes to things you think trivial or not what you consider correct and proper

Edited June 20, 2018 by plenzmd1

[Punching Bag]

Just now, plenzmd1 said:

 

But you have no problem calling someone who uses a Twitter a" twit"..and yet claim you were reasonable. HMM, I always love being called a twit! Shocking someone might find something you say offensive!

 

I got a feeling you and Timmuh the same when it comes to things you think trivial or not what you consider correct and proper

 

Twit-ter - hence meaning.

And I made no discussions about twitter in conversation with him.

And I think he considers you trivial but I don't but I may be wrong.

[The Dean]

7 hours ago, fridge said:

 

While not illegal, sharing non-consented text messages is highly immoral.  Mike Harrington would certainly not have written that text message to Tim Graham if he knew it would be shared online.  Similarly, excluding the full context of the texts makes this incredibly one-sided. Tim's decision to include the keyboard in the screenshot to hide the previous message tells me he wasn't entirely innocent and egged him on.

 

As for my thoughts on The Athletic...

 

I don't live in Buffalo anymore and I don't really care about sports coverage.  I periodically get my news from here and reddit and that's still way better than any fan had access to in the 80's and 90's.  I don't really get the desire to "go deeper" and get more coverage (which, let's be real...is mostly re-hashed articles written with quotes from the same press conference they've already cited...all under the guise of fresh journalism).

 

A few years back when WGR started posting articles using the all-22 screenshots I thought immediately about how unqualified they were to report it.  I was still interested in seeing the breakdown, but it didn't take long before I realized that Jeremy White had no idea what he was talking about.  I feel the same way about Cover 1.  I'm not here to argue about the guy's reputation, but I can think of multiple examples where he used screenshots of plays to support a biased theory and it was weak at best. If a former coach or player had a similar setup and broke down plays I would be very interested in reading, learning and following their articles.

 

I expect a lot of you to have different opinions -- and seeing as this is a message board about a sports team I'm sure we have our fair share of fanatics who genuinely want more "coverage".  As I've gotten older, sports in general has consumed a lot less of my time and I can't stand the NFL and the politics being injected into football.  I just like the sport, going to games, embracing victories with those from my hometown and talking about the games with friends and family during the season.

 

The social media era has had the unintended effect of dissociating the sport from the players.  We have players tweeting nonsense and actual journalists using those tweets to drum up "stories".  I don't think lazy is the right term because, well, it's content and I understand why they do that, but there's very little insight and connections that any of these journalists have with the players beyond what I have access to.  It's not like the old days when they used to be buddies.  When I read someone like Tim Graham breaking down a player's twitter rant I end up thinking that I've wasted my time.  I also read the twitter rant. How about add in some context, do research, contact those around them, see if there's even a story? I can read the twitter rant on my own and make my own assumptions.

 

I will likely never subscribe to the Athletic because I've more than paid for my share of free coverage by watching ads and being a targeted consumer.  The quality of the content on their site would need to be extraordinary for me to consider it, and even then, I doubt I'd be interested in reading lengthy articles and stories by glorified bloggers.  The one thing I won't do is make fun of those that do subscribe to The Athletic.  The greatest thing to come out of the internet age is for like minded people to find their niche and if being a sports fanatic is your niche, please subscribe and give them all the feedback you can to make it better.

 

*Edit - a word.

 

 

Great post.

 

When I read someone suggest "you expect to get something for nothing", I think that's mostly nonsense. Our entire lives are being constantly monetized.  If a site collects my email address, and uses cookies, I assume they are probably using that info in some way, to make money. If they have advertising, then I'm certain of it.

 

 

3 hours ago, Limeaid said:

Ad-free for now according to article in NYT whose principles never promised ad-free site.

 

I had conversations twice with TG (I do not post on twitter, I am not a twit) and once he was very reasonable in discussing points for and against and the other time he got defense and nasty as soon as criticism was given.  And no time was I nasty and most of my points were over generalizations made her like Gungy did above where exaggeration was used when facts did not support entire argument.

 

Not sure what that means other than he has bad days.

 

I've never had any bad in-person experiences with Tim. But he got unreasonably nasty in a forum reply a couple times, I recall. And I've seen that side of him many times, on this very forum.

[plenzmd1]

Just now, Limeaid said:

 

Twit-ter - hence meaning.

And I made no discussions about twitter in conversation with him.

And I think he considers you trivial but I don't but I may be wrong.

A perfect example of what I mean...you and Timmuh belong together! 

[BuffaloRush]

2 hours ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Restraining orders?

 

Clue me in on this...

[Punching Bag]

 

True story: Micro$oft had already advertised their brower with marketing and their big "IE" logo with name "Internet Exploder" with blurb about Micro$oft exploding onto browser market.

 

Someone pointed out that when it crashed people would say that the browser "exploded" so marketing guys came up with idea to call it "Internet Explorer" instead and claim it was a typo.

 

Problem was the copyright for "Internet Explorer" was owned by someone and when Micro$oft tried to buy him out he refused.  They tried to use their laywers to hammer down with legal costs but he resisted for years until Micro$oft conceded and paid him hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Words have meaning and trying to change the meaning because you do not like it does not make it right.