Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 22:11 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 548785
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I don't like it, but it's understandable
by ncafferkey on Wed 16th Jan 2013 16:46
in reply to "RE: I don't like it, but it's 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
I was going to say that you probably meant "party to litigation", but on second thoughts you're probably right.




Member since:
2006-07-14
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.