I will see the shirt offer and raise him one shirt. Any Google employee who forwards me confidential and highly important legal documents, and thus risking immediate firing if not a lawsuit of their own, will get not one, but two t-shirts! All the way from Italy!
It's not legitimate news. It's confidential correspondence. Arrington is seeking to bribe a Google employee to betray his employer by breaching his NDA. If the document were evidence of wrongdoing on Google's part, it would be a different matter -- the employee would be a whistleblower and his betrayal would be laudable. But that's not what we're talking about. Google is the victim of the alleged wrongdoing. If the information gets leaked, they're victimized even further by being deprived of a bargaining chip with Apple.
Apple lied in an official FCC inquiry. That's news.
Arrington is seeking to bribe a Google employee to betray his employer by breaching his NDA.
The vast majority of news leaks throughout history have been based on ulterior motives; whether they are politically or financially-based, seems inconsequential. TechCrunch isn't a party to that NDA, so they should only consider the public interest of the story.
If the information gets leaked, they're victimized even further by being deprived of a bargaining chip with Apple.
What bargaining chip? The ability to collude to scuttle a government investigation? If the FCC asks for the letter, Google has to give it up anyways.
Your kind of assuming that Google would want the FCC investigation to conclude and effectively force Apple into accepting Voice.
But perhaps they would prefer for Apple to just get so uncomfortable over the poking around they accept Voice off bat in an attempt to take the heat off.
Which means Google have that rejection letter as big guns at any later stage.
Yes Google have to give it to the FCC if they ask for it - but if they don't ask (I am not 100% sure of the rules here) they don't have to mention it or do more than vaguely hint at it's existence.
More than that, I was wondering: Who would do that for a T-Shirt? Its just disgusting to me (and indicative of why I don't read Tech Crunch) that they are so full of themselves that they feel even a T-Shirt from them holds significant value.
Agreed, perhaps the work week has sapped people of their sense of humour. Or perhaps there's a rare genetic anomaly that turns people into hackers and leaves them without a single funny-bone in their body.
Its not that its a lost sense of humour, I would guess (because I know why I thought it wasn't a joke) its because of the relatively low opinion many people here have of TechCrunch. Its almost (at least to me) like Nixon, right after Watergate, joking "I wouldn't want you to get a parking ticket..." Sure, it isn't a big deal, but it is rather slimy, and since you already have a low opinion of the party, the whole "joke" is skipped over.
And the fact that sarcasm doesn't translate over the internet well doesn't help any. Or, as I have refered to it: damn you internet and your lack of signifying sarcasm, or, in the semi-pronouncable internet acronym form: DYIAYLOSS.
I don't believe this would have gone over much better if spoken aloud. Sarcasm isn't typically a humour well used in NA, either people can't say it right or people don't understand it. Coming from the UK where sarcasm can be used in every sentence, it's like being the only person with sight in a world of blind people.
I believe (!) should become a standard for sarcasm on the web, it would at least hint people that the line is different from the norm.
I once passed on a story to TC that had one upvote on HN at the time. It went on to become a huge sensation online and in print worldwide. I won't disclose it but basically the company threatened to sue all involved in spreading it. Afraid, I wrote to Arrington and he assured me he'd rather goto jail than out a source.
Of course I never seriously thought the company had a case(especially against me). I just took a public link and fwded it to someone who made it big. Very different from leaking.
What strikes me as worrisome is that, at least by the tone of the article, there is no possible doubt in Arrington's mind that the screenshot exists, and that it is EXACTLY what was claimed to him, and he hasn't even seen it.
I'm sure it's a somewhat thin argument, but I personally would think they'd start reserving their over-committal in the wake of the Facebook-picture-fax thing. I mean, they bought that hook, line and sinker, and that was a hoax they at least SAW.
What strikes me as worrisome is that, at least by the tone of the article, there is no possible doubt in Arrington's mind that the screenshot exists, and that it is EXACTLY what was claimed to him, and he hasn't even seen it.
This is a far better critique of TechCrunch than the "quid pro quo" angle.
This is disproved by the fact that at least 10 perfectly photoshopped screenshots had to have been submitted in the first hour, and have not been posted.
I find that a little funny. By wearing the free t-shirt, wouldn't everybody know what it's you that leaked said screenshot? Unless everybody at google regularly wears techcrunch clothing, which probably isn't likely. He should probably offer something which doesn't implicitly identify his source.
