Mike Arrington is selling newspapers. http://goo.gl/fb/PpyhK
So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…
251–258 of 258 posts
Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Quora list is very different from yours. And I think we should all be really careful about guessing, considering how much damage you could do to someone's reputation by guessing wrongly. There's at least one person on your list above who I'd be surprised to see part of this. Vide the cognitive psychology experiments which show that once you mention a person's name, it gets connected in memory regardless of how do…
Thiel seems like a clear thinker, but almost anybody can gradually drift in the wrong direction--especially if, as grellas says above, it probably wasn't quite illegal.
Well, he ain't on the Quora list and no one there has even suggested him yet, so let's all be a little careful with our public guessing, shall we?
Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…
#253In what sense do antitrust laws apply to investors? Why is it unlawful for investors to band together to get better terms for themselves? Wouldn't it be perfectly legal for these people to sit around a table an agree to merge and start a fund? If that's the case, how could it be unlawful for them to work on a joint venture? Just because I don't like the JV doesn't make it unlawful!
When investors band together to get better terms, don't we just call that a VC or a hedgefund?
Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
a breaking story would name names...him not naming names just means he can use this as a hammer to get better terms for Techcrunch(either I get exclusive to every deal you guys do...or your names will be posted)
I would argue it's more ethical to discourage and prevent crime from ever happening in the first place. Seeking satisfaction from "catching the bad guy" (naming names) is to setup a market dependent on the need for new crimes. Arrington did the right thing. It's not about whether he caught a criminal, it's about whether he prevented someone from becoming one.
Someone (maybe everyone) in that group knew what they were doing to be wrong.
I doubt that they will abandon their ethical choice; they'll find smarter ways to do what they'd intended all along.
One thing that might work is if someone in the group has damning correspondence, everyone will panic and promise to "never talk about that summer again," genuinely preventing future problems.
Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
He doesn't need to expose himself to lawsuits by naming names. The names are pretty obvious to anyone in the field.
Yes, but that's the thing — you can't get sued for "obvious names." Even if he's completely making this up, if one of the obvious suspects sues him, he can just say, "Oh, no, I didn't mean him ." The comment I was replying to said, "his claims are laid out clearly without any weasel words. Either this is happening or it isn't." I disagree with that — Arrington is not laying it all out here as a black-and-white truth.…
If he calls them felons and they wind up being acquitted for whatever reason, however technical or stupid, then he would be liable for libel.
He clearly wanted to avoid using weasel words. The only way to do that without being reckless is to not refer directly to the objects of the post.
Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
You go from lawsuit to settlement in a punctuation mark where in reality it is months/years and millions of dollars. Never give a person wealthier than you a reason to sue you - regardless of if you are wrong or right.
I spent the earlier part of my career working for independent and free media and campaigning for free press. Of course you should never publish anything libelous or incorrect but it saddens me to no end to think that people wouldn't publish something that they could stand by as true, right and accurate simply because they were scared they might get sued. And certainly someone as the proprietor of a publication of rec…
Keep in mind the purpose and tone of this article of his.
He is not trying to merely state matters of fact. He is stating some matters of fact while also betting his reputation on a few matters of inference.
Betting your reputation is one thing, but committing libel is something else.
A safe article would have said, "I saw these people together. The end."
To go beyond that, he'd need sources on tape. He may or may not have that, and even if he does, he may not feel like escalating this that quickly.
Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing the top 10 super angels would include Marc Andreessen, Chris Dixon, Ron Conway and the PayPal guys Peter Thiel, Reid Hoffman, Max Levchin, Keith Rabois Who else?
The Quora list is very different from yours. And I think we should all be really careful about guessing, considering how much damage you could do to someone's reputation by guessing wrongly. There's at least one person on your list above who I'd be surprised to see part of this. Vide the cognitive psychology experiments which show that once you mention a person's name, it gets connected in memory regardless of how do…
[deleted]
Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
"3. Parallel action by competitors is in itself normally quite harmless and does not subject them to liabilities." Not sure what your sources are, but courts have ruled that parallel action can be sufficient evidence of conspiracy under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. See e.g. American Tobacco v. United States (1946), available here: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/american-tobacco-v-united-states... The Supreme Court wrot…
Concerted action can take as many forms as human imagination and ingenuity permit and does not require a formal agreement. And parallel action, coupled with other evidence of collusion (e.g., secret meetings or other suspicious conduct) can be the basis of an antitrust violation. That said, normally , the mere fact of parallel action is not problematic unless there is more to show suspicious activities. The venture f…
So essentially the red flag here is the secret meeting, right? That is, if they had acted in exactly the same way but openly, with a contract and a trade association and so on, this would not be illegal?