Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WebNode.com - $4B Contract for Next Generation Internet -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Josef Svejk who wrote (407)	4/23/1999 4:22:00 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 588

'Parody dilutes our trademark but fraud doesn't.' Gag me with a spoon.

To: Josef Svejk who wrote (407)	4/23/1999 4:26:00 PM
From: SE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 588

I would suggest the stronger BW is on pushing this ridiculous claim, the more and more their reputation will be harmed. It is not the pranksters that have harmed the reputation....it is business wire themselves by making such an issue of it. If they wish to be the one entity that is paraded in front of the world to prove the point that the April Fool's joke proved, then so be it. The longer they drag this on, the more their reputation will be harmed. Why don't they just admit and live up to the fact that just because it has BW's name on the press release does not make it an honest and reputable press release? It truly amazes me that they wish to take this further and potentially claim any responsbility for the releases they issue. Maybe I should check back to see if they issued any Spectrum Information Technology press releases back when the Scully fiasco was taking place? Maybe they would care to chip in for the shareholders that bought the press releases? This is absurd.

To: Josef Svejk who wrote (407)	4/23/1999 5:01:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 588

My favourite part is where Roger Myers explains that there was some malice involved which has significantly damaged [reference deleted]'s reputation. Of course, the original release ran with a standard-industry practice Dateline: <Story Title> Business Wire; Safety Harbor FL, April 1, 1999 <Start Story Content> Now—ummm…which part of that [reference deleted] reference is untrue, and/or malicious? It is just a standard dateline which one sees everyday in any news story, such as: <Story Title> Associated Press; Littleton CO, April 23, 1999 <Start Story Content> _____________________________________________________________ And of course, it's true - [reference deleted] distributed the release. And of course, they received full and prompt payment. Furthermore, we deleted it after they asked us to! It should have ended right there. "But, nNNOOooooooo......," in the immortal words of comedian, Steve Martin. IMO, the better case for malicious damage should be [reference deleted] bringing suit against themselves for exposing themselves to severe public ridicule by persuing this charade as far as they have.

To: Josef Svejk who wrote (407)	4/24/1999 9:15:00 PM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 588

So now we should all sue Business Wire for allowing shell companies to sprinkle their PR with real companies names as if they were truly affiliated. Get off it lady (Katty), you are unearthing a can of worms that your BS company will never survive. You live in a plate glass house and you are throwing boulders. Clean up your own act before you go suing innocent people who are clearly showing holes in your business.