George, I'm not totally sure, but that raises an VERY interesting point. For example, I just made a post (should be the preceeding one on this thread) which included a link to an article over on CNET. That article cites a Bloomberg report on a possible deal involving Compuserve.
So, for the sake of argument, assume that what Bloomberg is reporting somehow turns out to be true or very close to true. Somebody will call it "breaking the story".
I haven't looked over at the CSRV thread (I'm assuming there is one), but what if, for the sake of argument, someone posted the exact same information as whatever was contained in the Bloomberg piece, but did it days before. Would that be called "breaking the story"?
And let's assume in both cases, "the source" was one in the same.
What's the difference?
IMHO the intitial answer is that: Bloomberg is viewed as a legitimate news source with what are likely well-established editorial guidelines and its very viability is predicated up its credibility, whereas an individual would be viewed much differently.
I don't know. Same information. Same source. Report A comes from a news organization. Report B comes from an individual.
Probably would be interesting to see if the Courts have dealt with situations where legitimate news organizations have broken a story involving non-public material information.
I think the violation would come from the actual trading v. the initial revelation...eureka! It's only taken me this far to understand your entire point (but tangents can be fun <g>)
When does the non-public info become "non-public info that shouldn't have been released, but was, and it is now quasi-public" and what are the legal implications?
I don't know. I think that's what WH was illustrating with his example of the caddy a few posts back and I'm not sure how far the "misappropriation" extends.
I think the whole issue of not having that information come out in the first place may take a path possibly involving breach of contract and/or breach of fiduciary duty which probably would rely on different case law precedent.
Good trading,
Tom |
