

Google not acquiring Akamai - tatsuke95
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-12/google-is-said-not-to-plan-akamai-takeover-after-report-raised-speculation.html

======
cagenut
Its not technically ironic but certainly amusing that businessinsider's story
about akamai was so popular that it crashed their site, which could have been
avoided by using akamai (or any cdn).

~~~
alperakgun
It would be a good marketing effort by Akamai to boost their sales, by
crashing mainstream business web sites;

------
DevX101
Out of curiosity, I wonder if it would be illegal for a journalist to falsely
report a critical story about a company while buying short term puts to profit
from the stock freefall. There are early stage biotech companies going through
clinical trials where reporting failure could easily tank the stock 80% in a
day.

While this is clearly ethically corrupt, this technically isn't insider
trading since the journalist didn't have any insider info in the first place.
Any thoughts?

~~~
deepGem
No, it wouldn't be illegal as the journalist is purely speculating without any
insider information. However, if the money involved in the trade is high and
SEC's eyes fall on the trade - there is a possibility of an investigation but
that would be rare.

~~~
adgar
It really says something that we apply the word "journalist" to people who
"speculat[e] without any insider information."

~~~
deepGem
In this context, yes. Not a generalization.

------
dchuk
It really threw me off when they referenced "International Business Machines
Corp." instead of IBM...I can't name another instance where someone decided to
use the full name of IBM

~~~
ltamake
Hah, same. It's like seeing someone spell out Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) or
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M). Just kinda weird.

------
anigbrowl
[http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0060/6102/products/book_buy...](http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0060/6102/products/book_buy_sell_sell_new.jpg)

------
orijing
> _“It’s mostly just a rumor,” according to the report._

What does that mean?

~~~
sabat
Sounds like someone is really trying to say, "it's true, but I don't want you
to think it's true until we announce it."

------
culturestate
This acquisition just doesn't make sense for Google, especially for the
(likely) $5+ billion price tag. It'd make much more sense for a company like
Apple or Facebook - i.e. one that didn't just finish building its own CDN.

~~~
ltamake
It /would/ make sense for Google. Think about how many customers Akamai has
and the business they're in -- Google probably really wants a part of that.

Also, how would it make sense for Apple or Facebook to acquire Akamai? Apple's
in the computer and mobile devices business (and has its own datacentre for
iCloud to worry about), and Facebook has no use for Akamai outside of the
services it currently receives as a customer. It would be stupid for either
company to consider buying it at this point.

Just my opinion.

~~~
culturestate
I'm not advocating that _anyone_ should be buying it, only that it makes more
sense for someone who doesn't already have their own massive CDN. Apple and
Facebook are just the first two major Akamai customers that came to mind.

------
TamDenholm
I really really really get bored of journalists reporting things they heard
from anonymous sources. When I read something that cites an anonymous source,
i just assume the journalist was bored and decided to make some shit up.

Both this article and the article it refers to have done this and its getting
extremely tedious.

I'd like to see Journalists get a degree and a license just like a lawyer or a
doctor, then maybe we'll get some integrity out of an industry that is filled
to the brim of fear mongering bullshit artists.

~~~
beambot
Really? I'm guessing that you think a license (which can be revoked) would
result in more accountability. But just imagine how that sort of system could
be used to clamp down on free press and free speech.

I'd gladly keep the system we have now; I'll just get my news from credible
sources and take _everything_ with a grain of salt.

EDIT: And also... what does “It’s mostly just a rumor,” mean?

~~~
TamDenholm
It would in no way hamper free speech, just as requiring a lawyer to have a
degree and license hasn't restricted a persons right to legal counsel.

A lawyer's requirements to practice law are the guarantee that he is properly
educated in the law, same with doctors. Granted the stakes aren't quite as
high for journalists, but nor does the barrier of entry have to be made as
high.

The basics of how to be a Journalist with integrity should be taught and set
as a standard, what those actually are, i'll leave to someone else to define,
but putting an end to quoting anonymous sources i'd say is the starting point.

~~~
cjy
You can't be serious. Licenses for law and medicine impede freedom. They limit
our choices of (and the cost of) legal and medical services. We are just
willing to make this trade off because average people have a hard time
determining the quality of these practitioners and we don't want people going
to jail or dying in surgery because they aren't very smart consumers.

You can't "improve" speech without making it less free. Sometimes the loss of
freedom is worth it (like yelling fire in a crowded room) but most of the time
it is not worth it. Restrict our freedom of speech so that journalists can't
use anonymous sources? Give me a break.

"I'll leave someone else to define [the standard]." That's convenient, since
there is no standard that would be enforceable without being oppressive. I
challenge you to come up with a standard that would solve the problem you
state, that would be enforceable, that wouldn't be an insult to basic freedoms
of speech. You also have to define what a "journalist" is. In the internet
world, we are all journalists.

~~~
TamDenholm
I dont see how requiring credentials for a job in any way affects free speech.
I'm not saying you cant write something down if you dont have a license, if
you want to start a blog, magazine, newspaper, etc without a license on you
go, write whatever the hell you want.

Its about setting standards and showing that you have a seal of approval from
a governing body. Think of standards compliant HTML/CSS and the W3C, it sets
the standard, but you're completely free to ignore it and write bad markup,
but it'll be recognised by your peers that you dont meet the standard. THATS
what i'm talking about.

~~~
cjy
THAT wasn't clear. Both of your examples, law and medical licenses are legally
required.

Journalism schools already teach ethics and offer certificates. Reporters
already are members of organizations with ethics statements:
<http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp>

All I'm saying is legally requiring some sort of enforceable code of conduct
for journalists before they can work is a violation of free speech.

~~~
TamDenholm
Well my inability to articulate myself clearly has caused a torrid of
downvotes thinking i'm some kind of free speech nazi, better not to try...

------
rshm
I think Amazon would be a good purchasing party, Google alike.

