He's a career criminal.

He hacked for profit. He traded in stolen phone cards and turned in his compatriots for reduced sentence. He ran a "premium" phone number scam. He ran a pump and dump scheme to defraud investors. He evaded prosecution by jumping jurisdiction. He tried (and failed) to run a fake hedge fund. He sold pirated software. He committed insider trading.

He's not a self-made man. He's a career criminal and a con man.

I find it shocking that so many people are eager to lionize this sociopathic asshole.

Screw Kim Dotcom.

Quite a few of these articles have come out over the past few months. This one has glossed over exactly why they aren't making money. According to almost every other article it's because of aggressive expansion. New plane orders, updates to their on board systems next year, new routes, more planes on their pre-existing routes and on and on.

This article has quite a bit more info: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Virgin-America-a-hit-...

Sounds like they are getting ready to slow down expenses next year and prep for an IPO.

Not really sure what's made this particular article stick and make the rounds but it's conveniently short on info seemingly to make a more dramatic story.

    Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days
    to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that
    one judge said he "cannot believe".[1]

Clearly the judge hasn't ever submitted an iOS app for review?

And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non-compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were.

- Saying their device is much more popular.

- Signing off by disregarding the purpose of the statement: "Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."

- Saying that Samsung's device is "not as cool".

- Not using the correct font size. (Although, I don't care about this point)

- Dedicating 80%~ of the statement to supporting their claims in other jurisdictions... and brushing past the verbatim copied statement.

Apple were ordered to factually represent the judgment in a statement issued on their website. They cherry picked quotes, out of context and attempted to create confusion in any readers, with the intention of misleading them as to the judges present ruling.

    [1] : http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement