You missed the point completely in order to make some stupid personal attack, as did everybody that upvoted you.
The point of the article is about not trusting anything an acquiring company says, because they will say anything in order to get the deal. The other stuff was just some colour.
I know what you're saying, but I dismiss it for two reasons:
First, if Winer wants to get link-baity by piggybacking someone in the news, let's give some scrutiny to the relevance of that case. This is pretty silly-sounding stuff and I'm inclined to come down pretty firmly on Mayer's side by his account.
My job is to be willing to be persuaded – not to be a pushover to any opinion. It's the author's job to persuade – and to decide when name dropping is more trouble than it's worth.
The other reason: I'm not going to clap when someone makes an entirely self-evident point for the sole purpose of attaching their name to someone newsworthy.
>You missed the point completely in order to make some stupid personal attack
To be fair, the blog post in question spends the first half of its content avoiding the point completely in order to make some stupid personal attack. When the author misses his own point, it can be hard for readers not to do the same.
The point of the article is about not trusting anything an acquiring company says, because they will say anything in order to get the deal. The other stuff was just some colour.