Slashdot Mirror


Fake E-Mail Results in Angry Apple Shareholders

drhamad writes "Apple stock dropped 2.2% today in mid-afternoon trading as Engadget published news based on a faked e-mail inside Apple. 'Apparently an internal memo was sent to several Apple employees--and forwarded to Engadget--around 9am CT today saying that Apple issued a press release with the news that the iPhone was now scheduled for October, and Leopard was delayed until January. About an hour and a half after that e-mail went out, a second e-mail was sent--this time officially from Apple--saying the first e-mail was a fake, and that the delivery schedule for the iPhone and Leopard had not changed.'"

193 comments

  1. And when do options expire this month? :-) by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wheeee, fun time trading for somebody today.

    1. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by smilindog2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The SEC just needs to find who shorted the heck out of Apple stock yesterday.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    2. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yesterday??? We're not that stupid. We've been planning this for months.
      It will look like a perfectly normal transaction: we invested the money that we got from our grandmother's estate.
      Pity about grandma...she screamed awful loud.

    3. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by Linagee · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe they are adding actual useful features like HSDPA? Hahaha. (Or not.)

    4. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by jcr · · Score: 1

      That's the most likely scenario. There's an awful lot of $105 options hanging out there that expire in two days.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Yesterday??? We're not that stupid. We've been planning this for months.

      If you shorted it months ago you've been in a world of hurt.

    6. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Only the traders get rich off this. They get paid on either side of these.

    7. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by rts008 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Steve Ballmer:"Drats! Foiled again!"
      *Then throws chair at picture of Steve Jobs*

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    8. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by mobby_6kl · · Score: 4, Funny
      Shorting would be too obvious. Instead, here's Apple employee "get rich quick" method #5234:
      • Send out fake email which will result in a good price drop
      • Buy stock!
      • Send out official email which denies everything
        • Stock bounces back up within 1-2 days
      • Sell stock!
      They'll never catch me!
    9. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Think longer term. There are rumors of a stock consolidation at Apple.

      I wouldn't be surprised if someone smeared Apple to get a better price on stock to hold on to. Stock prices will return to normal soon enough, if they haven't already.

    10. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

      Oooh... That's really sneaky! I guess crime does pay, at least if you're brilliant.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    11. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by heretic108 · · Score: 1

      They'll never catch me!
      Of course they won't.

      Live in peace with your new-found profits.

      Some weeks/months later, wake up at 3:45am to a crowd of heavily armed people in dark clothes and ski masks, with 'SEC' in big white letters on their backs, walking out with your computer, bank statements etc and leaving a warrant on the kitchen table.

      --
      -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
    12. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you've been planning it for months then you're an idiot. AAPL dropped to $105 on the "news." Months ago, they were trading around $90. (the last couple weeks they've shot up like a junkie). If you bought your shorts that far back and are cashing out now, then you've lost your shirt.

    13. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      or they could have just bought AAPL last tuesday, when it was trading at $105.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    14. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by ninken · · Score: 2, Funny

      They trace it back to Bill Gates and Steve ballmer, come to find out Apple E-mail servers runs Exchange!

    15. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

      That post gave me a better laugh than any 0 score post in a long while... to bad I can't mod it funny!

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    16. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by misterplow · · Score: 1

      I agree -- a great time to buy! A quick (presumably) one-time drop in the stock price is almost a no-brainer because the stock will quickly rebound to where it should have been after it's common knowledge that the price dip was the result of faulty information.

      Not that I've made millions on the stock market or anything, though.

    17. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by jmp_nyc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that with Apple trading to all time highs at the beginning of the week, lots of people were shorting it, or buying puts.

      Not to mention that this Friday is the monthly expiration day for traded options. The big brokerages that underwrite most options have a vested interest in having the stock price go down by the time the market closes this Friday. There are options on about 4 million shares that expire worthless if the stock price is below 110, 3.4 million shares worth that expire worthless if the price is below 105, 5 million shares worth that are worthless if the stock is below 100, etc. The backers of those options would love nothing more than to see as many as possible expire worthless. They've been known to manipulate Apple's share price downward in the week leading into expiration. (Or at least Apple has managed to go down in the days before expiration in each of the last 6 months, even as the stock has been generally going up.)

      If you want to know who stands to benefit from Apple going down, see who the big option underwriters are...
      -JMP

    18. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Went down from $108.48 to $103.42 mostly on account of this news. Sure, they should have bought at $105, or even smeared Apple down, last week. But hindsight is 20/20. They lost a legitimate opportunity last week and made themselves an illegitimate one.

    19. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by jazzyjrw · · Score: 3, Funny

      A fake Apple email? Sounds like the work of Fake Steve Jobs...

    20. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by Basehart · · Score: 3, Funny

      Come to think of it, Ballmer reminds me of Evil Plankton more and more these days.

    21. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's evil! It's diabolical! It's lemon scented!

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    22. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by GlobalEcho · · Score: 4, Informative

      The backers of those options would love nothing more than to see as many as possible expire worthless


      You obviously don't understand how options traders operate. Those who write the options do not sell them "naked". Instead they purchase an appropriate amount of stock at the same time they sell the option, adjusting the amount according to the "Delta" as supplied by a variant of the Black-Scholes model. See here for more information on how that works.

      Because these options writers have sold the options short, and hedged the delta, they have sold volatility or are short gamma. Their best outcome is if the stock price does not move, because the risk-reward profile is positive for stable prices. They do not particularly care whether or not the options expire worthless. Big swings in the stock price like yesterday's, though, are quite painful for them.

      Disclaimer: I am a finance industry professional specializing in options models.
    23. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Ski masks? I think you're getting your law enforcement agencies confused with ninjas or terrorists.

    24. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by mehemiah · · Score: 1

      Why hasn't anyone marked this funny yet??!! I wish I could but im about to post.

    25. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by ras_b · · Score: 1

      Who says they shorted it? AAPL has been steadily going up for a long time. The trend is your friend with that one. Seems like a better buy opportunity than sell. Spread the rumor, wait for dip, buy the hell out of AAPL.

    26. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by rhombic · · Score: 1

      Bought it months ago, sold it last week to lock in profits, re-bought yesterday at discount? Sounds like an easy free 3% income, lock in a new basis price, and indistinguishable from normal trading activity == no traces for the SEC.

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    27. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by heretic108 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I think you're getting your law enforcement agencies confused with ninjas or terrorists.

      These days, what's the real difference?

      --
      -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
    28. Re:And when do options expire this month? :-) by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1

      Plus, if you're going to try to manipulate a stock so as to short it, (a) there are many candidates that are far better than Apple for such a scheme, and (b) this e-mail incident is a pretty lame way to go about it, whether it's Apple or any other company.

  2. Pump & Dump by VisceralLogic · · Score: 0, Troll

    The spammers have hacked Apple!

    --
    Stop! Dremel time!
  3. Testing the waters? by aichpvee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who else thinks they're running behind and wanted to see if they could push back the releases without scaring the sheep?

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
    1. Re:Testing the waters? by IAmTheDave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, who else thinks this was a ploy to find out who's leaking internal information? Narrow it down to a suspect, add in some known faithful employees, and send the "fake" press release.

      Engadget gets it... internal leak... plugged?

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    2. Re:Testing the waters? by evilgrug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As one Engadget reader commented mere minutes after the initial story was posted:

      "This simply does not make any sense.

      Apple only pushed Leopard back a few weeks ago, and confirmed the iPhone shipping even more recently when they released their quarterly earnings.

      Is someone pulling your leg?"

      These are the kind of things that Engadget should have thought about before the story was posted without contacting Apple.

      And if they were running behind, as you hypothesize, why would they need to "test if they could push back the releases", either they're behind and they have to, or they're not behind and they don't have to. What do they do if they are running behind and do "scare the sheep"? That makes even less sense.

    3. Re:Testing the waters? by Nossie · · Score: 1

      "test if they could push back the releases"

      Are you telling me Vista would be out if Microsoft thought they could delay it till service pack 1?

    4. Re:Testing the waters? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs himself recently said that most leaks are intentional. So no.

    5. Re:Testing the waters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the traditional meaning of leak pretty much REQUIRES that it be intentional. It's only been more recently that the term has been expanded to include unauthorized dissemination of information.

    6. Re:Testing the waters? by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Other crazy people.

    7. Re:Testing the waters? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's more likely that someone wanted to short the stock.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    8. Re:Testing the waters? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1

      Actually, who else thinks this was a ploy to find out who's leaking internal information?

      Why was the parent rated flamebait??? This is exactly the first thought that went through my mind. Although, on further consideration, it's possible that you couldn't tell whether it was one of the "targets" that forwarded it or someone else in the company who received a copy from one of the targets. Either way, I don't see a flame ware coming out of this.
      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    9. Re:Testing the waters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed.

    10. Re:Testing the waters? by Torvaun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's all about timing. This isn't a traditional Canary Trap, where a bunch of possible leaks all get slightly different stories, and you see which one gets out. It's a Timed Canary Trap. You take a possible leak, and you give him a fake story. Couple months later, you do the same thing with a different leak. Now, you keep track of how long it took to get out after you baited the trap, and the shortest one is probably it. If there are a few short ones, find out who those people talk to, and you're probably going to find one person they all connect to. It's like Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon, but it's Six Degrees to the Press instead.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    11. Re:Testing the waters? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Also remember right before Leopard actually postponed, the Mac rumour sites were flooded by "Leopard is not ready" rumours with hundreds of comments.

      Lets not forget Engadget could look like blog but it is a very respected site for years. Every professional in industry watches that site as far as I can tell. There are some people saying "random blog", no it is not a random blog. It is the site which has exclusive insider information.

    12. Re:Testing the waters? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Narrow it down to a suspect, add in some known faithful employees, and send the "fake" press release.

      Ah, the old Barium Lie technique :-)

      As once used by Jennifer Lopez, iirc. The technique of the stars!

    13. Re:Testing the waters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just that, but now the SEC is going to be heading up the investigation and no judge or law will stand in the way of Wall Street.

    14. Re:Testing the waters? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Actually I had a couple of Apple sales reps in yesterday.

      They have conferences, sales meetings, and everything all ready to roll for the iPhone on the days and weeks after the official release date. They were dead serious that the iPhone was a go.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    15. Re:Testing the waters? by mehemiah · · Score: 1

      Yes!!, Seriously, I didn't think this was an accident for a second. I think they just had to set the record straight for all the stock purposes mentioned above.

    16. Re:Testing the waters? by dwightk · · Score: 1

      right, I mean the email said "Apple has issued a press release..." or something to that effect... why not just start writing the article and release it when you SEE THE PRESS RELEASE...

      Oh yeah, everyone wants a scoop.

      --
      Like anyone can even know that
  4. What I'm surprised about... by bluemonq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is the fact that this hasn't happened more often.

    1. Re:What I'm surprised about... by Mia'cova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No kidding. Plus, engadget and friends are going to have to be extra careful for a while. It seems like this would be an easy way to make some money shorting a stock. You'd have to pull it off but it's pretty hard not to predict some copy-cat attempts in the coming months.

    2. Re:What I'm surprised about... by iamacat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case, the scams are self-correcting. The more false rumors are generated, the more users will wait for official press releases and dismiss anonymous "internal memo leaks". So this can not happen too often.

    3. Re:What I'm surprised about... by VertigoAce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Engadget wasn't really tricked here. They reported on an email that actually was sent to Apple employees and was forwarded by a real Apple employee to engadget (and it sounds like this employee has been a reliable source in the past). That is about the best source you could have short of an official press release.

      The real story is that somebody managed to fool some number of Apple employees into believing the fake memo. It's hard to say much more without some more details (was the From: header spoofed, or was it just good enough to make it past a casual glance?). Why aren't official confidential memos signed by a closely guarded private key? That way employees would know unsigned memos are quite possibly fake.

    4. Re:What I'm surprised about... by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, maybe Apple noticed that alot of their super secrets were showing up on engaget minutes after notifying internal resources? A few carefully crafted fake juicy bits emailed around later and they should be able to narrow down who the leak is. I'm sure floggings and/or sackings would then ensue.

    5. Re:What I'm surprised about... by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Troll

      well, slashdot posts fake news all the time. I guess that just goes to show that nobody influential reads slashdot.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:What I'm surprised about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Plus, engadget and friends are going to have to be extra careful for a while.

      For what? Because they did confirm that the 'email' was official and distributed within Apple? WTF are you talking about?

    7. Re:What I'm surprised about... by hoggoth · · Score: 0, Redundant

      > Hmmm, maybe Apple noticed that alot of their super secrets were showing up on engaget

      So they immediately thought, "Let's use this to trash our own stock price! Yeah! That'll show 'em"

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    8. Re:What I'm surprised about... by antic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "That is about the best source you could have short of an official press release."

      I'd argue that, quite often, an internal leak would be a better source than a fluffy and biased press release!

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    9. Re:What I'm surprised about... by vought · · Score: 1

      In this case, the scams are self-correcting. The more false rumors are generated, the more users will wait for official press releases and dismiss anonymous "internal memo leaks". So this can not happen too often.

      Maybe that's what Apple is trying to do. The Apple rumors industry is a thorn in their side on principle; the best way to torpedo rumor sites is to infect them with spurious crap that looks official, catching internal leaks as they go.

    10. Re:What I'm surprised about... by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      If they were reasonably sure that their stock would recover - like it did - it'd be pretty effective. Though I guess this sort of method can be used only once...

    11. Re:What I'm surprised about... by philpalm · · Score: 1

      If the stocks dropped long enough it would be a good time to make this day a stock option date....

    12. Re:What I'm surprised about... by MoogMan · · Score: 1

      Indeed. An interesting variation on the pump and dump scam.

      1) Send around a fake email, indicating something negative about a company.
      2) Buy a bunch of shares when the share price has reduced.
      3) Wait and monitor the market.
      4) Sell shares when the share price has been restored.
      4) Profit!!!

      Even a reduction in 2p means a significant gain when you can be reasonably confident to buy many shares, as a company as large as Apple will quickly resolve their share pricing.

      * Not even a ??? damnit, I'm failed as a /.er.

    13. Re:What I'm surprised about... by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      Ironic that technology was apple's undoing in this case - one would have expected it to happen to Microsoft first.

  5. Downside to secrecy by DogDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, I guess that when you come to expect that a company's news comes primarily from intentional and unintentional leaks due to their own secrecy, it makes sense that people would buy this. Maybe it's time Apple re-thinks their super-secret policies.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Downside to secrecy by vought · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe it's time Apple re-thinks their super-secret policies.

      Maybe it's time the Apple rumor industry shut down. It's any company's decision to keep any and all information about upcoming products secret.

      The fact that Apple has given in to preannouncing some products lately (Leopard, AppleTV, iPhone) shows that they have given ground on their previously super-secret ways.

      When you're known as the industry's R&D house, it's likely worth a lot of money to keep new projects and features secret for as long as possible. Asking a company to tell you everything they're working on (or schedules) is nuts because it lets your competitors know where to aim - would you want your employer to do that?

    2. Re:Downside to secrecy by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I guess that when you come to expect that a company's news comes primarily from intentional and unintentional leaks due to their own secrecy, it makes sense that people would buy this. Maybe it's time Apple re-thinks their super-secret policies.


      Perhaps, or maybe it's Apple's way of finding out who's been breaking their NDA. Perhaps by first looking at trading activity, then by looking at the wording of the email that was posted on Engadget. After all, if you found this out, you'd want to either short stock or something first, then leak it out... Remember, Apple still has to deal with leaks, and something as wild as this may make it obvious since it'll hit the big sites (one of which is likely to post it verbatim, thus identifying the culprit). And people who react to silly things like "A well-connected Apple employee said..." or "Our insider Apple employee" do deserve to get burned if they make financial decisions based on an unverifiable source. The source could very well be real, but it could also be made up. Speculation on new products is one thing, but actually doing stuff based on news whose validity is as good as the neighbourhood bum...

      As for intentional leaks, that's hard to determine. But if you're going to do stuff like sell stock, you might want to wait for official confirmation. Because it's so easy to write "A VP of marketing at Apple has told me that the iPhone will support 3rd party applications, and there is going to be an SDK released June 1. Developer iPhones will be released then as well."
    3. Re:Downside to secrecy by Doogie5526 · · Score: 1

      Yes but every single one of those items you mention have been delayed since being publicly announced. I also think some of the steam is released in these pre-announcements. When I found out they plan to offer non-DRMed music, I was ready to go through my collection and seek out new music. The momentum for me has since slowed.

      I'd rather hear about something when it's ready and available instead of plans that will get delayed and will likely be implemented differently than expected when announced. But I'm a consumer and not on wall street trying to guess the future of Apple.

    4. Re:Downside to secrecy by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      After all, if you found this out, you'd want to either short stock or something first, then leak it out...

      Well, if you want to commit a crime, be investigated by the SEC, convicted, and sent to jail, then yes, you'd short or something first.

      If you just want to get fired, you'd forward the email on to your outside contact without touching the stock.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    5. Re:Downside to secrecy by nevali · · Score: 1

      Er, no: ONE of those items mentioned has been delayed.

      The AppleTV launched on time, I believe? The iPhone is still scheduled for the June release that was originally announced way back when the product was introduced. The only slippage was Leopard.

    6. Re:Downside to secrecy by Doogie5526 · · Score: 1

      My bad, the iPhone hasn't been delayed. I'm sure that by now if they were to delay, it would have to be something very serious. AppleTv was.

    7. Re:Downside to secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or maybe it's Apple's way of finding out who's been breaking their NDA

      That was the first thing I thought of also. I have a hunch that someone inside Apple is feeling very nervous and embarrassed right now. Just waiting for the "knock knock" on the door, followed by someone saying "H.R. would like to talk you for a moment." Ouch.

    8. Re:Downside to secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Why haven't we heard a word about the supposed "eye-phone" or this Leper thing? At least give some dates or something! And wouldn't developers need to work with the new OS before it's released? Microsoft would figure out some way to get a large group of developers together and would simply hand them a copy! Come on Apple, get your act together!

    9. Re:Downside to secrecy by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe it's time Apple re-thinks their super-secret policies.

      Get serious.

      Shortly after I went to work there, a colleague explained to me exactly what that secrecy is worth in monetary terms. Apple got the iMac G4 on the cover of Time magazine. You can't buy Time's cover as an ad placement, but if you could it would probably be worth a tens of millions of dollars.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:Downside to secrecy by Crazyscottie · · Score: 1

      "A VP of marketing at Apple has told me that the iPhone will support 3rd party applications, and there is going to be an SDK released June 1. Developer iPhones will be released then as well."

      I am the VP of Marketing at Apple, and I demand to know where you got your information!

      --
      Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it isn't true. Science fits into reality... not the other way around.
    11. Re:Downside to secrecy by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      What secrecy? I know Apple traditionally haven't been too forthcoming, but that's because they need a competitive advantage. Why should any company tell the world what they're working on?

      Lately though, Apple have started giving out tidbits, such as the iPhone well before release. And what happened? A lot of people immediately tried to copy the iPhone.

      If Apple think they're skating to where the puck will be (as opposed to where it is now), then why would they want a welcoming commitee waiting for them?

      I think it's time for Apple to return to super-secrecy.

      Lastly, the rumour sites are a combination of invented material submitted to them, opinions of where Apple will go and a tiny kernel of actual information. Often there's no way to tell one from the other, making the entire Apple-rumour industry a worthless waste of time. These people hype products that will never appear, and then people get disappointed when they don't see the things Apple never promised.

    12. Re:Downside to secrecy by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I don't think this would be the case. Its an expensive game to play to find the source of the leak. I don' think shareholders will appreciate the tactic if true.

    13. Re:Downside to secrecy by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time the Apple rumor industry...

      Industry? Seriously? In the formal sense?

      Sorry, I just can't see how a rumor site could generate proceeds beyond $100 from Adsense every couple of months!

    14. Re:Downside to secrecy by raventh1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Although, even with that much "paid advertising" it still didn't help them garner any market share.
      It wasn't until they started to move to Intel that they picked up any gains. Even then there is something to be said about the iPod driving iPod users to macs because of software and hardware incompatibilities.

    15. Re:Downside to secrecy by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about ethical ways, or "Let's short stock in Company X then spread FUD about it!" ways? There are plenty of ways to make money off of controlling spin.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    16. Re:Downside to secrecy by jcr · · Score: 1

      Although, even with that much "paid advertising" it still didn't help them garner any market share.

      What's your next guess?

      It wasn't until they started to move to Intel that they picked up any gains.

      Apple's market share has been rising for the last four years, and the Intel transition only started two years ago.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    17. Re:Downside to secrecy by Divebus · · Score: 1

      Asking a company to tell you everything they're working on (or schedules) is nuts because it lets your competitors know where to aim .

      Or, they could use the Microsoft Method: fill the channels with bloody obvious, redundant and conflicting pronouncements of what the future holds but only deliver about 4% of it. That'll keep everyone off balance, eh? Nobody really knows what in the hell you're working on and everyone will freeze in their tracks.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    18. Re:Downside to secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's market share has been rising for the last four years, and the Intel transition only started two years ago. Ok, it wasn't until they started to move to Intel that they picked up any nontrivial gains.
    19. Re:Downside to secrecy by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      Ethical ways. I subscribe to an Apple rumor site (other than Slashdot!) I can't speak for them all--a huge selection exists--but haven't observed spin in favor of any product or company other than Apple (who doesn't pay them, and has almost certainly sent them a Cease And Desist or two over the years). If the site's subscribers did notice a strong spin on stories or non-advertising plugs for non-Apple products, I suspect we'd leave. As I said, there's a huge selection--no sense in wasting time when an ad-free version is available elsewhere.

      Undeniably, it takes a certain amount of time and dedication to dig through all these patents and things hunting for nuggetty rumors and news. There are much easier ways to make a couple of hundred bucks unethically.

      The site I subscribe to did post a link to Engadget's iPhone delay story, but did so with the warning that it seemed suspect, and updated to confirm its falsity as soon as that news broke.

    20. Re:Downside to secrecy by jcr · · Score: 1

      Billions of dollars in revenue growth is trivial? Wow, you must be really rich or something.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  6. What are the implications for the website? by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When something like this happens where a direct financial impact can be measured, do any of the rules change regarding the protections that the reporting website operate under?

    If the New York Times reports that Microsoft was filing bankruptcy and the stock plummeted, The NYT would be held to some sort of standard. Sometimes a retraction isn't enough, for instance, to protect from a lawsuit.

    Now when it's a website, do any of the protections exist, and what are the implications for these guys in terms of liability?

    1. Re:What are the implications for the website? by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they had a source, and a valid reason to believe that source was credible, I don't see how they can be punished for that. I would hope they had more of a reason to believe it was credible than that it came from an "apple.com" e-mail address.

      If you start punishing reporters for getting a story wrong based on a faulty source when a reasonable person would have accepted the source as credible, you will basically kill investigative journalism (as if it wasn't close enough to dead in this country as it is).

    2. Re:What are the implications for the website? by neoform · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shareholders are made fully aware of the risks of buying and selling stocks.

      If a website prints false news they can be held for libel by Apple, but not by the shareholders individually.. it's all part of the risk.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    3. Re:What are the implications for the website? by Redacted · · Score: 1

      I doubt there will be much Apple can do to them - it wasn't like they posted some NDA info they were privy to. They posted a rumour that, it their defence, seemed pretty authoritative.

      The person who sent that fake email around Apple is in for a world of hurt if they get caught though.

    4. Re:What are the implications for the website? by DTemp · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is why journalists do a thing called fact checking. You need multiple sources, or at least a source more convincing than a random @apple.com address, before you go to print with something like this. If Engaget was a legitimate news source, they would get hit HARD for this. But they aren't legitimate, so nobody really holds them in less esteem after this. Apple still has the right to legal action, however.

    5. Re:What are the implications for the website? by illumnatLA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Generally, a newspaper or journalist wouldn't just giddily publish something like this without a little old-fashioned fact checking. It's idiotic to publish this with information from only a single source. Oh, but wait... this is Web 2.0 isn't it... screw the facts... gimme page hits.

      --
      Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
    6. Re:What are the implications for the website? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      '' If you start punishing reporters for getting a story wrong based on a faulty source when a reasonable person would have accepted the source as credible, you will basically kill investigative journalism (as if it wasn't close enough to dead in this country as it is). ''

      The email claimed that Apple had issued a press release about major delays in two very important products. It would have been common sense to contact Apple and check if such a press release actually existed. We'll see what the SEC thinks about it. Apple's market caps was reduced by about four thousand million dollars for some time.

    7. Re:What are the implications for the website? by Darth · · Score: 1

      If they had a source, and a valid reason to believe that source was credible, I don't see how they can be punished for that. I would hope they had more of a reason to believe it was credible than that it came from an "apple.com" e-mail address.

      If you start punishing reporters for getting a story wrong based on a faulty source when a reasonable person would have accepted the source as credible, you will basically kill investigative journalism (as if it wasn't close enough to dead in this country as it is).


      Where was the investigative part of this journalism?

      One credible source is the basis for a story. Then the journalist does some actual investigating to corroborate and support the story. Then he publishes, usually after giving anyone involved the opportunity to contribute their position to the article.

      In this case, the writer did nothing to corroborate the source. He didn't contact Apple for confirmation or denial. He didn't even check the Apple website to see if the press release the internal email claims was published today was actually published.

      Punishing reporters for getting a story that completely wrong based on a faulty source they did nothing to verify would resurrect invetigative journalism, not kill it. The reason it is so close to dead is because people give this kind of shoddy work a free pass.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    8. Re:What are the implications for the website? by sayfawa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Punishing reporters for getting a story that completely wrong based on a faulty source they did nothing to verify would resurrect invetigative journalism, not kill it. The reason it is so close to dead is because people give this kind of shoddy work a free pass.

      If by punish you mean no one reads their stories anymore so they don't make money and have to stop writing garbage. But there can't be laws against repeating what someone told you. Well, as long as they didn't tell you the HD-DVD key.

      --
      Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
    9. Re:What are the implications for the website? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I doubt there will be much Apple can do to them

      That's the SEC's job, not Apple's.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:What are the implications for the website? by vimh42 · · Score: 1

      Why should there be any liability? They were duped. All the idiots throwing money around over rumors deserve what they got. Maybe they should have waited for an official press release.

    11. Re:What are the implications for the website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "freedom of press" do you not understand?

    12. Re:What are the implications for the website? by Darth · · Score: 1

      that is a good point that i didn't make clear. I do not advocate laws to punish journalists for getting it wrong.

      I wouldn't be opposed to a lawsuit by parties harmed by this kind of incompetent journalism, but I think the most effective way for the public at large to punish this behaviour is to stop using them as reliable sources of information.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    13. Re:What are the implications for the website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop blatant Apple-whoring for fuck sake!

    14. Re:What are the implications for the website? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Unless there was stock trading by the 'culprit' for financial advantage, it is NOT the taxpayer's responsibility for cleaning up after Apple's internal leaks.

    15. Re:What are the implications for the website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor Dan Rathers.

  7. Investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Somebody is going to jail as soon as they look to see who sold Apple short.

    Probably some 12 year old kid in Nebraska.

  8. so trace who made a big profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these things are tracked as I recall.

  9. Looks like they are flushing out folks by msew · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks like they are flushing out folks who forward internal emails. Send to a few people and see if the fake news gets out. Binary search in action!

    1. Re:Looks like they are flushing out folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Looks like they are flushing out folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooooo, that's a great idea. I hadn't considered that. HA! Some dude is getting walking papers today!

    3. Re:Looks like they are flushing out folks by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just given a few different months, you could quite easily start narrowing down a leak.
      Email 1: iPhone delayed until September. Leopard delayed until October.
      Email 2: October/October
      Email 3: October/November

      If you already had a list of suspected leaks you could narrow the field very quickly with different month combinations.

    4. Re:Looks like they are flushing out folks by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Binary searches are inefficient at revealing sources, because you need at least six or seven opportunities ... the best bet would be a Canary operation.

    5. Re:Looks like they are flushing out folks by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      '' Looks like they are flushing out folks who forward internal emails. Send to a few people and see if the fake news gets out. Binary search in action! ''

      That is extremly unlikely. If some joker thinks it is clever to fake an email, some idiot with need for a bit more importance forwards it to a rumor site, and they publish it without any fact checking, causing four billion dollars loss in market caps, that is bad. If some manager at Apple had the great idea to do this on purpose, that would be so incredibly stupid, that would be beyond any belief. If an Apple manager did this intentionally, I would expect a multi million dollar fine for Apple. Nobody would be that stupid. At least I hope so.

      Apple doesn't need to flush out any leaks. You might know that Apple recently had a court case in which the court told them in no uncertain terms exactly which steps Apple would have to take to find any leaks internally, and with these steps taken, there is no doubt that Apple would get a subpoena against any rumor website to get their sources.

    6. Re:Looks like they are flushing out folks by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Your binary search algorithm has performed an illegal operation. Cancel or Allow?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    7. Re:Looks like they are flushing out folks by tronbradia · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it has to do with testosterone: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/1 5/2026249 >:-( There you go buddies!

    8. Re:Looks like they are flushing out folks by BoChen456 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they could just search/read the email people send out?

    9. Re:Looks like they are flushing out folks by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Just given a few different months, you could quite easily start narrowing down a leak.
      Email 1: iPhone delayed until September. Leopard delayed until October.
      Email 2: October/October
      Email 3: October/November

      If you already had a list of suspected leaks you could narrow the field very quickly with different month combinations. You'd need to make it much more subtle than that. "Hey, did you get the memo that we're delaying the iPhone until September?" "What? I thought it said October." "OMG you're right... ponies!"

      Instead, change around words subtly:

      1. John Smith, Director of Product Development, has announced that the iPhone release will be pushed back to October.
      2. John Smith, Director of Product Development, announced that the iPhone release will be pushed back to October.
      3. John Smith, Director of Product Development, has announced that the release of the iPhone will be pushed back to October.
      4. John Smith, Director of Product Development, has announced that iPhone release will be delayed until October.

      etc. There's probably a dozen ways you could rearrange that and generate combinations of the possibilities that wouldn't be too obvious even if someone read their coworker's version as all the facts and basic sentence structure would be the same. Combine that with modifications in other sentences and with enough work and permutations you might be able to identify a leak with one single email, assuming that the reporting site quotes the source verbatim.
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  10. Sent on purpose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember reading somewhere that sending out false information was common practice inside Apple. They send out false information to a small group of people, if it leaks they have a good idea of who leaked it.

  11. Owned by Eddi3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think an 'owned' tag would be appropriate. =)

  12. In other news... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...an internal memo was sent to several Apple employees--and forwarded to Engadget...

    ...several Apple employees filed for unemployment this afternoon.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you can file for unemployment if you were fired for misconduct.

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You can file for unemployment no matter what. Whether or not you will receive said unemployment is a totally different story. Take for instance yourself who could file for a sense of humor....

  13. Small potatoes by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm a fan of Apple products and am about to buy one, but can't resist pointing out that whoever did this is engaged in very tiny-scale fraud compared to what Steve Jobs and the rest of upper management have already admitted doing.

    They have admitted:

    * Inventing on paper a fake Board of Directors Committee meeting that never took place (source)

    * Using this fake meeting to backdate options at a total benefit to Jobs of $20 million (contrary to Jobs' false spin) (same source)

    * Backdating a total of 6,400 stock options grants over five years, including two to Jobs (source)

    Those facts are agreed by all parties. All that's being fought about now is WHICH senior executives and board members were at fault. Since obviously Jobs rules Apple so loosely that this kind of thing can go on under his nose (cough) and just HAPPENS to have also happened at Pixar.

    The crazy part is that backdating itself is totally legally, and doesn't even affect how you accont for the options, as the New Yorker has pointed out in an excellent short essay. You just have to disclose what you did, and that, it seems, threatens the pride of a lot of Silicon Valley execs who like to pretend that stock options are a performance motivator (when in the case of backdated options they are not).

    Anyway, so some guy breeched Apple security and sent out a fake email, and probably made some cash on the stock dip. He'll probably be hunted down and prosecuted and do some time, which is kind of sad, considering far more money has been fraudulently obtained by some of the top people at Apple (again, that is not in dispute) and top people at tech companies all over the Valley.

    Not going to keep me from buying a Mac, but sad nevertheless.

    1. Re:Small potatoes by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 1

      PS to be clear, Steve Jobs has not admitted PERSONAL responsibility or liability but HAS admitted that this backdating took place at the company under his CEO tenure and that it should not have happened. (AKA, please don't sue me, Steve Jobs)

    2. Re:Small potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused... according to you:

      > The crazy part is that backdating itself is totally legally,[sic]

      and yet

      > considering far more money has been fraudulently obtained by some of the top people at Apple

      So which is it? Legal or fraudulent? And, yes - I understand they didn't disclose it, but I don't see how that constitutes the money being obtained fraudulently. They would have gotten the money regardless of whether or not they filed with the SEC.

    3. Re:Small potatoes by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, to be clear, "backdating" itself is fraud, if you mean backdating the grant, granting "in the money" options is perfectly legal, even if you based it on a the strike price of a previous date, which has also been called "backdating."

      So if you grant options based on a strike price in the past, but you admit this is what you are doing, and call them "in the money options based on Dec 1 1900 strike price" instead of "options granted Dec 1 1900", you are fine. Pretending you granted the options in the past is fraud, and it's what Apple has admitted doing.

      There's more in the New Yorker article.

    4. Re:Small potatoes by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      I understand you want to site accurate sources, unfortunately SFgate's stories are not.

      http://roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/60A1C8 8F-B504-4CD7-ACC4-4104C9887A5A.html

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    5. Re:Small potatoes by Deslock · · Score: 4, Informative

      whoever did this is engaged in very tiny-scale fraud compared to what Steve Jobs and the rest of upper management have already admitted doing.

      They have admitted:

      * Inventing on paper a fake Board of Directors Committee meeting that never took place (source)

      * Using this fake meeting to backdate options at a total benefit to Jobs of $20 million (contrary to Jobs' false spin) (same source)

      {snip}

      Those facts are agreed by all parties. In the article that you linked to, an Apple spokesman is quoted as saying:

      "After an exhaustive independent investigation, the special committee (conducted by outside legal counsel) found no evidence that Steve Jobs, any member of the current board or current management was aware of that irregularity," he said. "The options grant was canceled and Steve Jobs realized no financial benefit from the grant." Sure the weight of that statement is diminished given that it's from an Apple spokesman, however, I didn't see anything in the article that contradicts him. So I'm puzzled as to why you used that article to support your assertion that Steve Jobs has "already admitted doing" this and that the "facts are agreed by all parties". Do you have another source to support your claims?
    6. Re:Small potatoes by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The facts are agreed by all parties, the fight is over WHICH members of management/board were responsible. Apple is blaming a FORMERCFO who is no longer CURRENT management, hence the spokesman's weasel words, which you unthinkingly parrot. I don't need another source, you just need to THINK.

    7. Re:Small potatoes by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 1

      Roughly Drafted alleged a reporter and her editors fabricated facts "to dramatize and vilify the company." He offers no proof of this and does not seek comment from anyone. Your link does nothing to impugn the accuracy of any of the SF Chronicle's stories.

    8. Re:Small potatoes by Deslock · · Score: 1

      The facts are agreed by all parties, the fight is over WHICH members of management/board were responsible. Apple is blaming a FORMERCFO who is no longer CURRENT management, hence the spokesman's weasel words, which you unthinkingly parrot. I don't need another source, you just need to THINK. Unthinkingly parrot? It's from the article that you linked to and I even put in the qualifier "Sure the weight of that statement is diminished given that it's from an Apple spokesman". I have no interest in this deteriorating into a flamewar, but it seems to me that you unthinkingly cited that article. Clearly some previous board members and/or upper management are guilty. But that's not the argument... to recap:
      1. you claimed in your initial post that Apple's upper management *including* Steve Jobs have admitted to doing this stuff
      2. you used that article as a source for your claim
      3. that article doesn't back up your claim and in-fact contains a passage that contradicts it
      Note that I haven't taken any position on whether or not Steve Jobs is innocent.
    9. Re:Small potatoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need another source, you just need to THINK.
      In other words, this is all he's got.
    10. Re:Small potatoes by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      He offered proof. He WAS THERE with the reporter. He pointed out that the Chron's story of events differed dramatically from the truth. How much more proof do you need than a eye witness account.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    11. Re:Small potatoes by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 1

      He made an allegation about the motivations of the Chronicle staff -- that they were out to villify Jobs. Going to the shareholder meeting gives him no information about the motivations of the Chronicle staff, nor does their word choice prove his claim, however much he might disagree with it.

    12. Re:Small potatoes by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 1

      Well, yes I lost my temper and I apologize for that. The Apple spokesman's comment is accurate but does not actually contradict what I wrote, however much it might sound that way at first blush.

      I did say, as you point out, that Steve Jobs and senior management admitted doing this stuff. That is still correct.

      The spokesman you cited as refuting my claim says Jobs and management were not _aware_ of _irregularities_. In other words, they did not know what was going on. This could mean they didn't know the law, it could mean they didn't know the board minutes were fake. Apple is being opaque about this, of course.

      But saying you were not aware of irregularities is not the same as saying you didn't do it. Jobs did receive backdated options, this is admitted. He is CEO of the company that granted him those options. There were thousands of backdated options granted and dispensed through Apple senior management. They DID it.

      What is at question is WHO, if anyone, was _aware_ of irregularities, and whether anyone has broken the law. But there is no question whatsoever that what the company did as a collective entity was fraudulent, nor is there any question some senior managers and members of the board must have had awareness, nor is there any question Jobs personally made all the money I said he made from illegally backdated stock options.

      You are right to ask questions, and I think you'll find the truth. If I seem frustrated, it is because for some insane reason I had an expectation I could explain this on Slashdot and get modpoints, which is both greedy and naive.

      Plus, ya, I was kind of a dick in my last post.

    13. Re:Small potatoes by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      All that's being fought about now is WHICH senior executives and board members were at fault.

      Uh, no. The SEC has cleared everyone at Apple but the former CFO and the former general counsel, both of whom where involved in backdating options granted to themselves from which they benefited. They're also the only people who would have had to know.

      Since obviously Jobs rules Apple so loosely that this kind of thing can go on under his nose (cough) and just HAPPENS to have also happened at Pixar.

      I've never heard anything to suggest that Jobs dictatorial style extends to details like proper filing of options grants, which are rightly the responsibility of the CFO and general counsel. As you said, backdating is legal and common if it's done right, and it's the job of the CFO, not the CEO, to make sure that it is.

      Also, that similar issues happened at Pixar is unsurprising. The SEC is investigating hundreds of (mostly tech) companies for options backdating discrepancies during the 1997-2003 timeframe.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  14. Re:HAHA by basic0 · · Score: 1

    "Is this an accurate report?" isn't a "dumb" question. It's more of an obvious, first-thing-anyone-with-half-a-brain-would-ask sort of question. Heaven forbid anyone ever waste time and resources, lose money, or even get killed because some idiot was too lazy, stupid, or uninformed to bother fact-checking (or was aware of the facts and disregarded them). Oh wait...all that stuff that happened over the course of history up to this point...yeah...hmm...

    People having knee-jerk reactions to news before (or without ever) checking it's accuracy is NOT limited to the stock market my friend...

  15. Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The person who made the false statement could get in trouble under securities law, specifically something called Rule 10b-5, which states that "It shall be unlawful for any person . . . by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce . . . . To make any untrue statement of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."

    However, liability under 10b-5 requires scienter, or a intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. It's possible the person who wrote the fake email had an intent to decieve, but seems unlikely that engadget did.

  16. interesting... by blackcoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    because i heard the same story about delaying the iphone till october from a cingular rep two weeks ago. i wonder if this is the same leak...

    1. Re:interesting... by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

      Apple has a tendency not to tell the lower level workers anything they don't need to, and would likey expect the same of Cingular if they are working together.

      --
      There is more to science than physics!

      www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
    2. Re:interesting... by blackcoot · · Score: 1

      exactly --- i was quite shocked that the guy would have disclosed anything (although maybe the fact that he was trying to pressure me into buying a blackberry 8800 might have had something to do with it...)

      well, you know what they say --- once is luck, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend...

  17. I wonder ... by Ace905 · · Score: 1

    What does the Securities Exchange Commission have to say about all of this? It would be interesting to know who has recently shorted a tonne of Apple Stock - as they would have the most to gain from a temporary smear campaign.

    ---
    This doesn't smear

    --

    Ace
  18. Lesson Learned? by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

    Don't believe what you read on the internets.

    1. Re:Lesson Learned? by Foxpaw · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't believe you.

    2. Re:Lesson Learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't believe what you read on the internets

      I don't believe you, if you can believe it.

  19. Re:Don't Worry, The Real Drop Will Still Happen by neoform · · Score: 1

    Nice troll. But wrong on all counts.

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
  20. Legal != Fraudulent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fraudulent (frô'j-lnt) pronunciation

    adj.

          1. Engaging in fraud; deceitful.

    Was the meeting real? Were the dates on the options correct?

  21. Wow, Microsoft must be desperate! by kimvette · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    First, they claim that Linux infringes on more than 250 of their software patents. They have been backpedaling since then but are pretty consistent in alleging that Linux infringes on their IP somehow. They are also implying that Open Source is a risk due to the lack of a backing corporation or warranty (Uh, have they read their own Windows EULA lately?).

    Now, a faked memo is released stating that Apple's important releases this year are delayed, which strongly implies to PHBs that the products are flawed.

    I can't help but think that Microsoft is behind this in their desperation to maintain market dominance.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Wow, Microsoft must be desperate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait?

      I see that a Microsoft fanboi has mod points today.

  22. Telling sig by edwardpickman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Maybe the "B. Gates" signature should have been a clue.

  23. Re:HAHA by Abeydoun · · Score: 1

    The nature of a "good" investor to react to news the fastest. In most cases, especially when it comes to short-term earnings, the mob mentality is the wave you want to ride, incidentally the mob mentality is a result of everyone trying to ride the wave that they caused and are a part of. Seeing how that's the case, it doesn't surprise me one bit how this scenario happened.

    Of course the smart investor was sitting in the corner buying off the stocks that the doubters were selling, making him an easy 2% premium. Makes me wonder if it could have been intentional with the perpetrators hoping to make a few bucks off of rumors.

    --
    The only consistency in life is the lack thereof
  24. Silly Stocks... by morari · · Score: 1

    All that imaginary money and what-not... Silly, silly stock system.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  25. Did you hear that? by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

    It was the unmistakable sound of someone's large meaty ass smacking the pavement outside Apple HQ in Santa Clara. Anyone got a web-cam of the in-flight trajectory? YouTube demands it.

  26. tempering with coorporate strategies and plans by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 1

    1) snoop on email and phone lines without warrants
    2) temper with it
    2) profit!
    Seriously, this episode shows how sensitive and precious internal company information is and how dangerous it can be, when it is tempered with. In this particular case, snooping was probably not the reason for the damage, but the story illustrates how spying on citizens could damage enterprises in the future.

    1. Re:tempering with coorporate strategies and plans by maxume · · Score: 2

      temper->tamper (since you did it twice).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  27. whenever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever I get emails like that, I check that company website's Press Release section... if it's not there, I don't react on it (it's just a rumor until their PR department confirms it)
    I BET Steve Jobs faked that email himself since he can no longer back-date his stock options. By bringing the price down, he can buy more options and sell them when this "fake email" is confirmed to be a hoax..then sell and roll in the dough like a greedy piggy that he is.
    Of course, someone could have hacked the website as well AND sent the email :)

  28. Where was the faking???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a sec - was the first one fake but actually sent within Apple (and then on to Engadget)?

    Or was the whole thing fabricated - someone outside Apple made the whole thing up and sent it to Engadget?

  29. Won't be hard to find who sent that email to Endga by strangeattraction · · Score: 1

    Hope he/she liked their job!

  30. Re:Don't Worry, The Real Drop Will Still Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iPod sales have continued to drift down for the last few quarters. And the Mac marketshare is roughly the same as when Jobs took over years ago.

    Don't know, don't care about the overpriced iPhone.

  31. Cheaper Ways To Ferret Out NDA-busters by cmholm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps, or maybe it's Apple's way of finding out who's been breaking their NDA.

    Yeah, and I'd bet the Board of Directors would have liked a chance to vet that kind of move before blowing away $2 billion in shareholder value. I think this is just a prank gone horribly wrong. But for the grace of common sense go I.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:Cheaper Ways To Ferret Out NDA-busters by Darkangael · · Score: 1

      Unless of course the leak is *on* the board of directors.

  32. The Real Culprit Here is Engadget by Jeremy_Bee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone is jumping all over Apple for their "secrecy" when it clearly has nothing to do with these kinds of episodes which happen at all kinds of companies, not just the clever secretive ones.

    Others are guessing about which Apple employee will get fired, when all reports indicate an outsider as the source, not a real Apple employee. As consumers of news therefore, it seems that the majority of us have failed to even discern the basic facts here.

    As producers of news, the kiddies at Engadget are the real culprits here and the creators of the whole mess by means of their thoughtless and incompetent "journalism."

    They are the ones that did not bother to simply phone up Apple and ask for a confirmation as any decent journalist would normally do. They are the ones that continued to run the false story on the main page even after they received a correction from Apple itself (they put that *after* the break for about an hour after they found out and did not change their headline). They are the ones that filled up their own comments area, calling the people protesting their move "jerks" and telling them to "shut up." They are the ones that deleted posts on their site that were too critical of their actions.

    The problem is simply one of a lack of journalistic standards and a blurring of the line between "I'm a rich kid who likes computers and has a website" and "I am an IT reporter." Incompetence and asshattery plain and simple.

    1. Re:The Real Culprit Here is Engadget by Xuranova · · Score: 1

      Because companies are known for their quickness to confirm the contents of leaked internal memos when asked by a blog?

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
    2. Re:The Real Culprit Here is Engadget by tksh · · Score: 1

      I hope you realise that Engadget isn't some kid running a blog from his home. Engadget is owned by AOL and has a full staff of people, they attend all the major tech trade shows and do live coverage of some of the bigger events (including the Apple ones). They get sent demo units, get invited to pre-release press events, conduct interview with PR managers and executives (they even had an interview with Bill Gates) and have their own PR contacts at the major companies.

      In short, these guys do this for a living and know that trust and credibility is their currency. They don't post random tip offs, they have their network of internal sources and try to confirm with PR teams whenever possible before posting -- exactly how journalists get their information. They did phone Apple PR yesterday and it's when they couldn't reach anyone did they decide to run the story.

      Here, read their follow up of the incident. It doesn't excuse them for not making it clear that they were unable to confirm the news before running it and in that way, they were incompetent but asshattery? Stop being an asshole man.

  33. Uber Hacker Day Traders by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    #1 Fake email from Apple executives that product will be delayed.
    #2 When the panic happens buy Apple stock at a low price.
    #3 After Apple figures out the email was a hoax, sends out new email saying the schedule has not changed. Apple stock returns to normal.
    #4 Sell Apple stock and reap in big profits.

    I'll be the fake email was sent via some Botnet that a Uber Hacker group had controlled to pull off a daytrading scam.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  34. Apple hasn't given up secrecy by hellfire · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fact that Apple has given in to preannouncing some products lately (Leopard, AppleTV, iPhone) shows that they have given ground on their previously super-secret ways.

    Fact: Leopard is just the next version of a product that everyone already knows about. They've always hyped their OS because that's what software makers do, and how they generate buzz and interest. Plus, you can't keep an OS secret because you have to get people to generate software for the OS. That's why you have beta periods, developer networks, and the like to make sure that as many developers who want their products compatible with the next version are ready the day of the official release. Sun, Microsoft, IBM, all do it/did it. It would hurt Apple too much not to.

    Fact: AppleTV had about the same lead time as versions of the iPod and other hardware announcements from Apple. No hardware maker makes their product available right this second after it's announced. They announce it at the best time possible to generate buzz, and then gear up to ship. It helps stir speculation and anticipation. Apple TV was no exception.

    Fact: As Jobs said, he had to submit the iPhone to the FCC for approval. Jobs only announced it this early because at this point, he couldn't keep it under wraps any longer. It becomes public record once the phone is submitted to the FCC. Therefore, you announce it to keep the thunder away from everyone else.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Apple hasn't given up secrecy by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      AppleTV was previewed at an event on September 12th 2006, named on January 9th 2007, and started shipping on March 21st 2007.

      There was a 6 month period between initial announcement and the customers getting them. Not many Apple products get that sort of a lead time, its usually 'announce, make available for ordering immediately, ship within 2 months'.

    2. Re:Apple hasn't given up secrecy by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 1

      AppleTV was announced in September 2006 during one of Apple's dullest keynotes ever. Jobsie doesn't like to stand in front of the black screen without announcing something we can put our hands on.

  35. Rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All confdential documents at Apple are marked 'Apple confidential'. Any manager doing this only needs to preserve the 'Apple confidential' header/footer, and (s)he is absolved of responsibility. Responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of the employee(s) leaking the document, it's drummed into every employee when they join.

    Apple could quite legitimately point to that lawsuit-failure as evidence that the law is requiring more action on Apple's part to identify leakers internally. If this does in fact lead to someone getting fired for leaking, they could feel quite pleased with themselves. It's not as though asking an employee "did you leak this to the press" is ever going to work, is it ?

  36. not with respect to the stock by tacokill · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, the rules do not change. And the rules are "there are no rules". They have zero liability here. In good faith, they thought the story was true.

    Unless it is shown that a hedge fund or some other entity both made-up and profited from the story, it is what it is. A fake story and nothing more. Yes, the credibility of Engadget will be hurt but there isn't any legal implication whatsoever unless it was a true stock scam.

    If you are actually dumb enough to trade on information like this, then you deserve what you get. "Bad" information is everywhere. That's why the smarter ones of us don't take everything we hear as the final word. As an example, don't you ever wonder how the "Microsoft is buying Yahoo" story got started? It's much much more subtle than this story and THAT is the proper way to do a stock scam. In that case, nobody can point to the originator of the story and it just seems plausible enough to actually be true. Meanwhile, as we idiots on /. debate the details of the story, several hedge funds trade out of Yahoo at a very nice profit.

    Of course, nobody can prove the story is a pump and dump so nothing happens and the world goes on. However, I don't think the Apple/Engadget deal is the same thing.

  37. The first sign something was amiss... by Gerocrack · · Score: 2, Funny

    the mail was from sballmer@apple.com

  38. Re:Don't Worry, The Real Drop Will Still Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    care to prove AC wrong with some data?

  39. rumours can backfire... by alchemy101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While it is debatable as to whether Apple is too secretive for its own good, there is no denying that the company utilises rumour to build hype for its products through news blogs such appleinsider and thinksecret. The thing is about a rumour (that some people may forget) is that it can be both positive and negative for the subject in question. Sometimes rumours can backfire and this is just purely an instance of the Apple rumour mill NOT working in the company's favour.

  40. Can't Be Real by p0tat03 · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a former Apple employee, I can tell you without a doubt that they don't distribute this type of information in memos. The grunts like us are not privy to release dates for anything except pretty much our own assigned products. The only people who are at any point aware of big-picture information like this are the suits, and I doubt any of them would leak (especially considering you can count them on two hands).

    Like the iPhone, Apple employees rely on the same sources regular joes do to find out about new releases. Nobody besides the iPhone team even knew what an iPhone looked like before it was shown at MacWorld.

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. The Canary Trap by patio11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tom Clancy details a variation on this in one of his books: if you suspect you have a leak, you draw up a document which is a mix of truth and plausible lies which is interesting, will largely congeal with what the mole's handlers already know, and includes lurid phrasing at several locations. Then you leak N copies of that memo to your N possible leaks, and listen for what combinations of key phrases (or, not quite as easily, key facts) make it into unapproved channels. For example, you might embed twenty-five key phrases in a document about (hypothetical) insurgent activity in Iraq, and then if the New York Times quotes a briefing as saying that "Baghdad will be covered in rivers of blood" (given to 4 suspects) and that the military fears "total strategic defeat not just in Iraq but elsewhere" (given to 8 suspects) then the intersection of the two sets identifies the leak.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap

    1. Re:The Canary Trap by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      patio11, we've finally caught you! Ha-ha!!

      You see, your copy of that Tom Clancy book was the ONLY COPY that contained the phrase "Canary Trap."

      In all other prints, it was referred to as a Mockingbird Receptacle.

      Your reign of leaks and terror are at an end!

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  43. Missing the obvious? by Umuri · · Score: 1

    Ok, forgive me here, but it seems there is a lot of discussion on how someone pulled this hoax off.
    I have a better conclusion? What if this is just apple trying to see who their leaks are?
    They give a slightly differently worded memo to different suspected employees, whatever copy leaks out shows who the snitch is. Then they say the first memo was a fake, and fire/punish the employee who leaked.
    Win win for apple.

    --
    You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
  44. From AC to Commander Taco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we please reduce Apple cult lemmings' posts? Look, my first computer was Apple ][ Plus (Applesoft Basic and 6502 assembly), but this new generation of Apple devotees are unbearble. I'd rather read MS shills' posts instead.

  45. Uhhhmmm, not really by The+Mutant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They wouldn't do this in the cash markets and they certainly wouldn't go long Apples shares as you're describing.

    No, if this was manipulation (and I agree with you on the point that it probably was), then someone purchased put options, which increase in value as the underlying security, Apple shares in this case, decline.

    They'd select the precise contracts to purchase based upon expiration dates and how far out of the money the put options were. Options give the holder immense leverage; I've controlled $3.4 million in shares using only about $20K in capital.

    Short selling Apples shares wouldn't be viable as you're back in the cash market again - no leverage.

  46. The culprit revealed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was Le Chiffre!

  47. The great interest of this episode by Budenny · · Score: 1

    The great interest of this is that it shows how much the current share price reflects expectations of the performance of the iPhone. It was a great dry run. Those who believe the price has built into it unrealistic expectations of the iPhone can now confidently make a wager using options, and pretty much know for sure that if the thing doesn't take off like a rocket, they are going to clean up.

    Expect put option sales to rise gradually over the next week or so.

    1. Re:The great interest of this episode by argent · · Score: 1

      Expect put option sales to rise gradually over the next week or so.

      Will that tend to put downward pressure on the price?

      This is a serious question: what's the usual effect of people writing a lot of options like that? Wouldn't that tend to let a bit of the air out of the expectations, or is this one of those things that has counterintuitive side effects?

  48. This is what you get when depending on... by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
    ...a glorified press release web site like Engadget for news. When news that is just regurgitated p.r. becomes the basis of decision making, you're depending on professional flatterers and your decisions will be no better than the sum of their servility and gullibility.



    The problem goes a bit further, unfortunately, than tech news. Much the same servility in the higher reaches of the press explains why "weapons of mass destruction" that don't exist become the basis for a war; in that case, infamously, the faked press releases were from Washington and its allies, and the chief regurgitator was the New York Times.



    It wouldn't be a bad thing to ask why we have become such a bunch of suckers in the U.S.

    1. Re:This is what you get when depending on... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Why have we become suckers?

      First off, you have to understand that the Western World has ALWAYS been suckers for the media. Hitler's regime didn't invent propaganda. They simply picked up the same textbooks that Chuchill and Roosevelt were reading on the subject. We have "freedom of the press" built into the constitution for a damn good reason. The guys who wrote it knew damnwell how to play the media like a cheap instrument. Go as far back as the Romans, and Government knew all about how to get the press to cover what you want them to cover.

      Maichiavelli wrote in the 17th century. There is no reason to suspect his work was anything but a compilation of what was already known.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  49. Online "Journamelism" by Swift2001 · · Score: 1

    So, Engadget runs a fake e-mail. Would it have occurred to them to wait and call Apple to see if it's true first?

    Gosh, that Steve Jobs is such an ogre about the Journamelists who cover Apple. Control freak!

    Or maybe we see why.

  50. Reminds me of an old test by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

    My brother used to work for UPS back in high school, and they would regularly do theft audits. One of the best techniques was to simply open a bag of M&Ms at the start of the sorting line, and can anyone who ate some as the goodies made their way down the line. Similarly with other small, easily grabbed items that employees damnwell better have known better about.

    Despite iron-clad policies, stories of this happening in the past, and giant signs on the wall, they snagged folks all the time.

    In this case, leak a memo internally that is SO tasty that it would get past someone's better senses. Then just follow the path of destruction.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  51. Which Email Is Fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two emails, one with bad news that will hurt Apple's stock price, one with happy news that will sustain Apple's stock price. Both from Apple themselves. One is true, one is spin. All I know is that Apple CONSTANTLY misses their deadlines, and then underdelivers on things they've implied (they're careful not to promise things outright, but they definitely don't correct the positive assumptions we make when we hear things like "Jaguar is the FASTEST operating system" or "the world's FIRST 64-bit computer" or "AppleTV allows you to watch ALL your video blah blah" when the reality is that Jaguar was bloated, the G5 was not the world's first 64-bit computer and AppleTV is shit and has DRM lockin up the ass and terrible video quality.

    I am a PowerBook owner who is tired of Apple lying constantly and getting away with it -- I am now dumping the mac onto the missus and switching to Ubuntu on HP hardware -- and loving it. It's the system OS X should have been. I now view my "switcher" thing as a foolish college-era "experimentation"; at least I didn't experiment with homosexuality.

  52. Re:The Real Culprit Here is Day Traders by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 1

    Apple's entitled to their secrecy. Endgadget has no obligation to Apple, and if they receive what looks like a scoop they will naturally act on it as soon as possible. They were within their rights.

    If you invested in a stock you believe in and kept your money there, a single email on some pimple-faced teenager's blog about a delayed product or even the 2% dip in stock price that follows for a few hours wouldn't matter to you at all.

  53. Emails are news?! by natobasso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whatever happened to fact checking? The journalistic process? When did emails become newsworthy?! For god's sake people, wake up!

  54. Engaget must be thrilled by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

    Thrilled to know they have enough traffic (and aggregators checking them) to make such a stink. I bet they increase their ad sales revenue based on that alone.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
  55. AppleMail to get DomainKeys support in Leopard? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I wonder what 2.2% of the stock value costs...

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  56. Then again, who's to decide... by walter_f · · Score: 1

    ... which one of the statements can be trusted more, the so-called fake or the official one?

  57. Re:HAHA by natobasso · · Score: 1

    okay, so you equate an email as news? I bet you believe everything you read about Paris Hilton too. ;)

  58. Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Impossible to realise these two:

    1. The delivery date better not change now ...
    2. The products better be fit for use ...

    Better get rid of these share before people find out.

  59. yeah! by Jim19820315 · · Score: 1

    I worked in some mobile phone software/platform company .I thought Apple is not very dear,but SONY that i can not accept. Apple TV Converter http://www.apple-tv-converter.net/