4 ms·

I guess my question - given this lawsuit is so "boring" why do places like forbes go big into covering it early (facebook evil) but then when it is exposed as a

I guess my question - given this lawsuit is so "boring" why do places like forbes go big into covering it early (facebook evil) but then when it is exposed as a sham, don't cover that outcome. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-cant-avoid-technology-theft-lawsuit https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-against-oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-reinstated-a-year-after-it-was-tossed-out/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-a... They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. It is a bit weird.

Nullabillity 5y ago
> why do places like forbes go big into covering it early Forbes "sites" are just glorified blogs. They reflect Forbes to the same extent that some random Blogger blog reflects Google/Alphabet. > They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. Facebook losing would be an interesting result that may carry repercussions. Facebook winning is.. business as usual. > It is a bit weird. Meh, personally this is the first time I've heard of this debacle at all, and neither of the sources you mentioned are particularly prominent either. And even then, those articles were over a year ago. Priorities and interests change over time.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  This isn't a one-off occurrence. This happens all the time. It's so frustrating seeing people, especially here on HN, get their pitchforks out over some accusations that reaffirm their views of an entity. Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets.
  - gopher_space 5y ago
    This isn't the denouement it's a Monday.
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets. In my experience, at the conclusion of a story, people never link to their previous comments that turn out to be incorrect or off-base, offering a mea culpa. I wonder if you’re seeing is that sites have audiences that aren’t split 50/50 on potentially controversial subjects?
    - WalterGR 5y ago
      Missing word in my comment: “wonder if you’re” -> “wonder if what you’re”.
  - orangeoxidation 5y ago
    > Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets. Yeah, a nobody (in the public's mind) making false accusations is not a story worth telling. Facebook stealing billions worth of IP is. That's obvious so far, isn't it? Though you are right with news reporting giving unproven accusations and in-process trials far too much weight. This is not just happening with 'hated' entities like Facebook, but also publicly unknown individuals. It clearly can convey a distorted picture of the facts.
rdw 5y ago
It would have been surprising and mildly impactful on the world at large, had Facebook lost. So the tech journalists were following it in the small chance that that happened. It really seems like the folks who are upset at the lack of coverage are so emotionally invested in this trial for whatever reason that they can't see the truth that there's no reason to care about it outside of the personal feelings of the celebrities involved. At least with SCO v IBM, and Oracle v Google, the rulings could, and did, have significant impacts on how regular tech folks went about their careers.
- tehlike 5y ago
  If you always show bad things about fb, then you are controlling the narrative and making people believe fb is evil. If particular news outlet didn't cover before-trial, you would be ok for them to not cover trial outcome. But if you cover before trial, it's in public's best interest you cover the outcome. An analogy is some news outlet covering a murder trial and presenting the suspect as a ruthless criminal. By your logic, news should not cover if the criminal case turns out baseless... does that sound good to you? That's why
  - rtpg 5y ago
    Yes some civil claims about IP theft are definitely comparable to murder. The reason that this gets covered before is that it sounds like juicy gossip. Turns out the gossip isn't "true" enough to get an interesting court result. So it's not really news. Those articles are just gossip.n the words of Dennis Nedry, nobody cares. The intersection of people who think that FB is evil because of IP theft in the occulus thing but who don't also just come to this conclusion from all the other FB coverage of their non-action to stop genocides (random example), is the empty set.
    - tehlike 5y ago
      By your logic companies go into ip trials all the time so trial itself is boring. Ridiculous.
cowsandmilk 5y ago
That Forbes post is by a contributor, which is just a blogger, not an actual Forbes employee. Forbes didn’t cover anything here.
kmeisthax 5y ago
No, it's "if it's not novel, no coverage". Their job is to report the news, not the olds.

Nullabillity 5y ago

> why do places like forbes go big into covering it early Forbes "sites" are just glorified blogs. They reflect Forbes to the same extent that some random Blogger blog reflects Google/Alphabet. > They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. Facebook losing would be an interesting result that may carry repercussions. Facebook winning is.. business as usual. > It is a bit weird. Meh, personally this is the first time I've heard of this debacle at all, and neither of the sources you mentioned are particularly prominent either. And even then, those articles were over a year ago. Priorities and interests change over time.

dntrkv 5y ago
This isn't a one-off occurrence. This happens all the time. It's so frustrating seeing people, especially here on HN, get their pitchforks out over some accusations that reaffirm their views of an entity. Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets.
- gopher_space 5y ago
  This isn't the denouement it's a Monday.
- WalterGR 5y ago
  Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets. In my experience, at the conclusion of a story, people never link to their previous comments that turn out to be incorrect or off-base, offering a mea culpa. I wonder if you’re seeing is that sites have audiences that aren’t split 50/50 on potentially controversial subjects?
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    Missing word in my comment: “wonder if you’re” -> “wonder if what you’re”.
- orangeoxidation 5y ago
  > Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets. Yeah, a nobody (in the public's mind) making false accusations is not a story worth telling. Facebook stealing billions worth of IP is. That's obvious so far, isn't it? Though you are right with news reporting giving unproven accusations and in-process trials far too much weight. This is not just happening with 'hated' entities like Facebook, but also publicly unknown individuals. It clearly can convey a distorted picture of the facts.

rdw 5y ago

It would have been surprising and mildly impactful on the world at large, had Facebook lost. So the tech journalists were following it in the small chance that that happened. It really seems like the folks who are upset at the lack of coverage are so emotionally invested in this trial for whatever reason that they can't see the truth that there's no reason to care about it outside of the personal feelings of the celebrities involved. At least with SCO v IBM, and Oracle v Google, the rulings could, and did, have significant impacts on how regular tech folks went about their careers.

tehlike 5y ago
If you always show bad things about fb, then you are controlling the narrative and making people believe fb is evil. If particular news outlet didn't cover before-trial, you would be ok for them to not cover trial outcome. But if you cover before trial, it's in public's best interest you cover the outcome. An analogy is some news outlet covering a murder trial and presenting the suspect as a ruthless criminal. By your logic, news should not cover if the criminal case turns out baseless... does that sound good to you? That's why
- rtpg 5y ago
  Yes some civil claims about IP theft are definitely comparable to murder. The reason that this gets covered before is that it sounds like juicy gossip. Turns out the gossip isn't "true" enough to get an interesting court result. So it's not really news. Those articles are just gossip.n the words of Dennis Nedry, nobody cares. The intersection of people who think that FB is evil because of IP theft in the occulus thing but who don't also just come to this conclusion from all the other FB coverage of their non-action to stop genocides (random example), is the empty set.
  - tehlike 5y ago
    By your logic companies go into ip trials all the time so trial itself is boring. Ridiculous.

cowsandmilk 5y ago

That Forbes post is by a contributor, which is just a blogger, not an actual Forbes employee. Forbes didn’t cover anything here.

kmeisthax 5y ago

No, it's "if it's not novel, no coverage". Their job is to report the news, not the olds.