
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don't see how getting an award would suddenly make a device legal or illegal under the law.
Hopefully, CBS' legal argument isn't "Its a terrible product, and therefore illegal".
Now, I understand why they may not want their subsidiary to address the legality of the device. That would be completely understandable. And it sounds like CNET tried to do something that would acknowledge the questionable legality of the device while also disclosing that its parent was a part to legislation and its conflict of interest, but CBS wouldn't allow it. No award, no explanation of why. Its by far the easiest decision a lawyer can make, but a terrible business decision for a news company to make.
The ironic thing is that I never trusted cnet reviews, now I guess I'll have to trust them less, if possible.
I was going to say that you probably meant "party to litigation", but on second thoughts you're probably right.
Ironically, by doing this, they *may* have just caused themselves another legal disaster:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/19332021673/cbss-censorsh...
Edit: left out the word "may", which I intended to be in my statement

Edited 2013-01-15 19:02 UTC
Member since:
2006-11-19
As far as I know, they are in a legal battle with Dish about the hopper. While I do not like old media trying to force their way, this would cause trouble for their case if they allowed them to get the award.
(i.e.: Dish lawyers could easily use this to their advantage.)
I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm trying to point the legal reason behind it.
Edited 2013-01-14 22:40 UTC