The title is a reference to a minor sarcastic remark made in the blog post: a forged document containing the font Calibri was claimed to be last saved (in 2002) before Microsoft released the font (in 2006), yet the questionable Turkish court disregarded this indication of tampering with the last-saved date and accepted the document as factual. In fact, most of the post has nothing to do with Microsoft.

Bear in mind, this is not a news article, but just a blog post from 2012.

'Evidence' for Turkish 2003 coup plan predates publication of used font.

Font metadata proves 2003 Turkish coup plan evidence was faked.

That would be a good subtitle:

Did Microsoft steal its fonts from the Turkish army?: Font metadata proves 2003 Turkish coup plan evidence was faked.

Well, this is a company doing the appropriation, so doesn't it make a lot more sense to use the term "borrow"? It wasn't some individual stealing the intellectual property of a poor corporation. A corporation just trying to create jobs and wealth for the little people.

This is a corporation acting toward a government entity so steal is a bit harsh. Everyone knows companies are better than governments and individuals. Therefore Microsoft clearly borrowed fonts from the Turkish army.

You didn't read the article, did you?

I did. Apparently that was too tongue in cheek at the ridiculousness of the title. Tongue through cheek I suppose. I am happy it gave you the opportunity to feel good about yourself.

Hey, this isn't about me, it's about making future comment threads you participate in not suck.

We strongly disagree on the title.

Fair, but it's worth remembering how hard it is to convey sarcasm via text.

Noted. Thank you.