Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 258 posts

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#161

Post by metamemetics »

vaksel wrote: post #127
mixmax wrote: post #60

So a blogger gets a tip from a source, knows the people involved, acts on it and smells a rat. He sticks around and talks to a few people he knows, makes a few calls and gets a breaking story. Sounds to me like bloggers are the new journalists and that traditional media is in big big trouble.

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.

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#162

Post by EvanMiller »

grellas wrote: post #130

I am late in joining this thread and will add only a few observations to supplement the many good comments already here: 1. Competitor collusion and express agreements to restrict the freedom of each to compete (i.e., horizontal contractual dealings) do indeed expose the colluding parties to potentially serious liabilities under the Sherman and FTC Acts. If that is what is going on here, then Mr. Arrington has fired…

"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 wrote:

"[The conspiracy's] existence was established, not through the presentation of a formal written agreement, but through the evidence of widespread and effective conduct on the part of petitioners in relation to their existing or potential competitors."

If I remember correctly from my anti-trust class last year, the American Tobacco precedent still stands. You don't need written or audio evidence to get a conviction; anti-competitive behavior in the marketplace is sufficient.

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#163

Post by dotBen »

bl4k wrote: post #139
dotBen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Arrington lists a bunch of people were at a gathering, and they were, then there is nothing to sue over there. If he says "they were talking about pricing deals and how to club together to avoid convertable notes" , and they were, then there is nothing to sue over even if he has named the people there. I don't actually get your comment. If we DON'T believe this group were talking about what Arrington is claiming t…

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 record like TechCrunch (which while perhaps not the most whitest-of-white media outlet, still has something to stand for) owes it to his readership to do what's right.

I guess it all comes down to why you are publishing in the first place - to communicate truth and facts or for power and ego (which sure, is hard to tell with TechCrunch at times)

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#164

Post by mhendrick »

jeromec wrote: post #144
qq66 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anybody's stated interests should be taken as an indicator of their true interests. In this case, with PG, I do believe that his stated intentions are sincere. But there is often so little correlation between actual and stated intentions, that I don't take any such statement at face value.

I don't think anybody's stated interests should be taken as an indicator of their true interests. I agree. (actually I'd replace "taken as an indicator" with "taken as an absolute indicator") In this case, with PG, I do believe that his stated intentions are sincere. I agree.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it likely that the angels involved also make up a strong percentage of the people who invest on Demo Day in post-YC companies? How can it be a "PG vs Angels" situation when the parties involved are likely some of YC's portfolio companies biggest "supporters"?

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#165

Post by jeromec »

mhendrick wrote: post #164
jeromec wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anybody's stated interests should be taken as an indicator of their true interests. I agree. (actually I'd replace "taken as an indicator" with "taken as an absolute indicator") In this case, with PG, I do believe that his stated intentions are sincere. I agree.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it likely that the angels involved also make up a strong percentage of the people who invest on Demo Day in post-YC companies? How can it be a "PG vs Angels" situation when the parties involved are likely some of YC's portfolio companies biggest "supporters"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it likely that the angels involved also make up a strong percentage of the people who invest on Demo Day in post-YC companies?

Yes, I believe so.

How can it be a "PG vs Angels" situation when the parties involved are likely some of YC's portfolio companies biggest "supporters"?

That question might be better put to those Angels in the bar...

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#166

Post by cletus »

mattmaroon wrote: post #93
j_baker wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, this is Michael Arrington. He's not above sensationalism to get a few extra clicks.

This goes well beyond sensationalism. I'm inclined to believe him for three reasons: 1. Mike's not known for boldly lying. He might publish rumors that Facebook is building a phone too liberally, but I've not heard of him saying "I saw x happen" and it wasn't true. Assuming the account of what he himself saw was accurate it's hard to imagine collusion wouldn't be the purpose. 2. This sounds like something that would…

I believe it too. You succinctly enumerate the reasons. The biggest for me was that (he claims) he saw it happen. That puts his personal reputation at stake, which I think will have to meet a far higher standard than the rumour publishing "go tos" of "an anonymous source".

The FB phone was (imho) classic Arrington (the bad side). Posted on the weekend (in the hopes that FB PR would be slow to respond and debunk it), quoting anonymous sources and no substance at all. Basically, link bait. That sort of story does him (or rather his credibility) no favours.

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#167

Post by MediaSquirrel »

mhendrick wrote: post #164
jeromec wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anybody's stated interests should be taken as an indicator of their true interests. I agree. (actually I'd replace "taken as an indicator" with "taken as an absolute indicator") In this case, with PG, I do believe that his stated intentions are sincere. I agree.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it likely that the angels involved also make up a strong percentage of the people who invest on Demo Day in post-YC companies? How can it be a "PG vs Angels" situation when the parties involved are likely some of YC's portfolio companies biggest "supporters"?

YC is the seller, angels at Demo Day are the buyers. Just cuz you work with someone closely doesn't mean you won't or can't try to screw them.

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#168

Post by bl4k »

dotBen wrote: post #163
bl4k wrote: post #139

Earlier 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…

It is a process of journalism. He is using the story as leverage to fill in the remainder of the story. See how the Scamville story evolved.

I think Arrington has shown time and again that he places the story and public interest above all else. To even suggest or insinuate that Arrington is only publishing this story to fuel his own ego is completely wrong. He likely burnt a lot of bridges with todays story and lost a lot of sources in order to give the public a very rare view of what takes place behind closed doors.

Re: So A Blogger Walks Into A Bar…

#169

Post by brendonjason »

EvanMiller wrote: post #162
grellas wrote: post #130

I am late in joining this thread and will add only a few observations to supplement the many good comments already here: 1. Competitor collusion and express agreements to restrict the freedom of each to compete (i.e., horizontal contractual dealings) do indeed expose the colluding parties to potentially serious liabilities under the Sherman and FTC Acts. If that is what is going on here, then Mr. Arrington has fired…

"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…

I find this somewhat dubious; I wasn't there, but if I was one of those guys, I'm not sure I'd continue the "evil meeting" after Michael stumbled in uninvited. If he came after the meeting ended, why weren't they all "just about to leave."

Having said that, I'm sorry if my confusion gives a way my ignorance of the subject, but are these angels selling anything to a marketplace? I thought angels invested their money. If that's the case, aren't they colluding to the terms of their buying, as a group? Or at least to loosely manage the terms of buying? If that is illegal, why does it apply to angel investing but not, say, Groupon? What I don't understand is what is their "price" that they are colluding to "fix"? I thought antitrust was for the collusion for the price asked, not price willing to pay.

Post reply on HN