I agree that the libel suit is stupid, but as a librarian I have to point out that HardOCP's research skills could use an overhaul. They base most of their conclusions about Infinuim on "a quick search of google","another google search." That doesn't lend a lot of credibility to their article. And half the time, I don't even know what they're trying to say with their information. Like the guy who worked for WorldCom before it went bankrupt...so what?

In the end it seems more like a review of the company than of the console. And a pretty ill-informed review at that...

Yeah, I mean I'm not defending the quality of HardOCP's article. Just saying it's stupid to sue people because they wrote a bad article. Especially when they offer to correct any mistakes and publicly acknowledge that fact.

If people could get sued for bad articles there'd be a shockingly small number of gaming news websites. Okay, maybe not that shocking

At least in some jurisdictions recklessness can substitute for intent in an intentional tort claim such as defamation. So depending on the jurisdiction Infinium wouldn't necessarily be nuts to allege that HardOCP defamed them by recklessly issuing statements about the Phantom based on sloppy research. That's the same sort of thing that gets accountants sued for malpractice if they don't dig deep enough into the books when conducting an audit.

You really don't want a detailed answer on this one. The short answer is Inifinium can sue anyone wherever they want, usually its home jurisdiction for convenience, but then the party being sued can move to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction if it feels it worth it to do so. With corporations, a big part of the jurisdictional test is whether the corporation does business in the jurisdiction where the suit is being filed. Selling over the Internet in the jurisdiction is generally treated as one piece of doing business in a place, but cases are trending away from finding that an Internet connection is a sufficient basis upon which a court can assert jurisdiction.

As far as why they don't sue more often, it's probably because (1) a lot of the people they could sue have no money and (2) it's bad public relations to alienate your core consumers.

You know, they STILL haven't told anyone what it actually DOES. They've kind of done a *wink wink* when people make guesses, but that's it.

I still say it's going to be a scooter that you can't fall off of.

Ginger? Why not Tracy? Or Amber?

I thought that was good reporting on HardOCP's behalf. They didn't just search Google, they also phoned up the different companies, talked to the people involved -- when they would say anything -- and established all sorts of interesting family connections and revealed what appear to be shady venture capital schemes. Good on them. And they don't draw conclusions, just present facts. And those facts are enough to set off my reporter's bullsh*tometer. This story deserves to be investigated further. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Phantom turns out to be a venture capital-raising scam, like others the company's head man has been involved in.

I know. It is also name for God only knows how many porn stars. Same as Tracy and Amber...

You know, I don't really see anything terribly wrong with their research skills. The line "a quick search on Google" is being used here to point out that all of the information they are giving is easily publically available. When it comes to the actual information (click those links!) they reference actual articles from (what appear to be) reputable news sources.

Then they take the time to call up some of the people involved (including the company President) and to ask them questions about the console and they send a photographer out to take photos of a site that seems to be important in the story.

Frankly, I wish that the reporters in my regular old newspapers did that much work when they fact-checked their stories.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using Google to jumpstart your research (it's like using a database at your local library to search articles), you just have to be careful about the credibility sources that you get when you comb through the results. Just like you would have if you'd used a library.

You are right that the article is more a review of a company than a console. That's because THERE IS NO CONSOLE TO REVIEW. Five months ago when HardOCP published the article, hype was building about the console (for release dates that have come and gone). So HardOCP spent some time learning what they could about this upstart new company that was planning to take on the big boys.

Clicking the links that they provide every step of the way tells you where they got thier information. Are you intentionally ignoring the references that they provide or are you just new to the whole "linking" thing?

To save you some time, the vast majority of their information comes from [url="http://www.bizjournals.com"]Bizjournals.com[/url].

According to BizJournal's website: "Bizjournals is the new media division of American City Business Journals, the nation's largest publisher of metropolitan business newspapers. It operates the Web sites for each of the company's 41 print business journals and recently has launched its first Web-only local business news and information site for Los Angeles. The company plans to launch Web-only operations in additional markets."

The rest of the links point to Google-cached versions of the websites of various things and stuff that Mr. Roberts is associated with. They explain their policy of linking to the Google's cache when they say "The link sends you to a cached page on Google. We decided to use cached pages for our links to present to you the information as it appeared at the time of our research, in the chance the site is updated or altered after this article is published."

Now, given that they have clearly explained that their sources are either:
1) Cached versions of websites published by companies involving Mr Roberts himself.
2) Various incarnations of BizJournals.com
3) Internet Registrar records.
4) Telephone interviews with people involved in the companies.
or
5) Photographs taken on site.
What, as a librarian, do you see as being wrong with their research methods?