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.'"

Comments

What I'm surprised about...

[bluemonq]

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

What are the implications for the website?

[Chairboy]

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?

Re:Downside to secrecy

[jcr]

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