> But for reasons that experts say remain unclear, that never happened.
It's very clear why. Don't think for a second this is accidental, it's way, way to high profile for that.
It's damage control. Microsoft feels it's better for them to take the blame for not investing rather than exposing their awful or even sinister practices.
This is why "Adverse inference" is a thing in court. If you destroy or refuse produce evidence that the judge knows you have, the judge can rule based on what he thinks is in that evidence. That certainly won't be in your favour.
It's very clear why. Don't think for a second this is accidental, it's way, way to high profile for that.
It's damage control. Microsoft feels it's better for them to take the blame for not investing rather than exposing their awful or even sinister practices.
This is why "Adverse inference" is a thing in court. If you destroy or refuse produce evidence that the judge knows you have, the judge can rule based on what he thinks is in that evidence. That certainly won't be in your favour.