Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Circuit City Subpoenas CheapAss Gamer and DVDTalk

Posted by Zonk on from the battening-down-the-hatches dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A poster on DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer has posted the weekly ads for Circuit City, Best Buy, and Target ahead of time for the last few years. A few weeks ago he confirmed that there was an intended price break on the PS3 and stole Sony's thunder from E3. A Circuit City ad was used for confirmation. Circuit City has threatened DVDTalk and CheapAssGamer.com to give them personal information about the poster. CheapAssGamer has hired a lawyer and is going to fight. The story is similar to the Black Friday ads being posted early and FatWallet fighting back."

11 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. What's the problem? by Quila · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW). They are reasonably, and according to legal procedure, trying to get information from a third party to help identify the thief. It is the responsibility of that third party to provide such information.

    Let's not confuse privacy with shielding yourself from just punishment for your actions.

    1. Re:What's the problem? by Puls4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Troll? Sounds like we've got some rather childish folks wielding moderator points today. The parent post made an excellent point. This is corporate strategy that should be kept secret - huge sums of money ride on generating successful buzz. If a competitor got ahold of this information they could do such things as cutting their price and announcing it the day before to make the other company appear reactionary.

      That may appear to be big things - but what if you were a stock holder who knew this was going to happen, etc etc. They ARE big things. This was a violation of company trust. The violator should be fired, if nothing else. They have every right to find out who did it.

    2. Re:What's the problem? by Quila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but these are basically news sites and would be "journalists"
      That's stretching the definition of "journalist" a bit thin.

      Their first order of business should be to clean their own house...not sue in court.
      I'd bet CC already tried an internal investigation to try to catch the guy, and the court is a last resort. Money's on he works somewhere in relation to the companies that CC contracts to print the ads.
    3. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Newspaper ads do not constitute trade secrets. Internal memos MIGHT, but a sheet of paper you print MILLIONS of for the express purpose of handing out to the public does not.

  2. Is it worth it? by RichPowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speedy1961 regularly posts BestBuy, CC, and Target prices weeks in advance on CAG's forums. As a testament to his accuracy, Gamespot and other sites use his info in stories relating to price drops, as was the case with the PS3.

    My monthy videogame expenditures have increased thanks to CAG, but I'm actually getting more games now that I know where to shop. Prior to CAG, I would only purchase videogames online. Now I venture into brick and mortar stores like CC during their sales.

    But thanks to these events, I won't be shopping at CC ever again, and I'm sure other CAGers have similar sentiments. By virtue of being a price comparison/deals website, CAG attracts more "principled" and informed consumers. Is it worth pissing off 100,000 such people, CC? Even if this is a valid case, people will be pissed if their favorite "inside" man is silenced.

    1. Re:Is it worth it? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you were forced to see the ad at the proper time, the deals would become no less money-saving. Posting the ad early does not suddenly make the deal better, nor occur sooner. If that is true, then the converse must be true too (after all it is a zero-sum game) - his viewing the ad early does not cause the deals to be any less expensive for Circuit City.

      Stopping these early postings do nothing but protect the company from illegal information leaks. If, by your own assertion, these leaks have no impact, then what interest does Circuit City have in preventing them? Even if they are "illegal" (a huge leap of faith on your part), if they have no impact, then what protection does Circuit City need?
    2. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Posting the ad early does not suddenly make the deal better, nor occur sooner.

      It's called competition, something that is foreign to a lot of "capitalists" out there.

      Not all of the ads always come out at the same time. I get my Fry's ads in Friday's paper and my Best Buy ads in Sunday's. If I really, really want a Wii, and the Fry's ad advertises that they're going to be putting the 5 they got up for sale Friday morning but only in bundles with useless accessories and unwanted games, should I call in sick to work, camp out and be first in line, or check online to discover that Best Buy will be selling their allocation without the useless crap on Sunday morning?

      Free market = fully informed participants, not suing to keep your prices secret.

    3. Re:Is it worth it? by huckda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the deals would become no less money-saving excepting the notion that perhaps one could not arrange time of work to hit the deal early(as in limited quantities of items)..
      then you are out the savings and maybe even the product until it drops within your buying price range once again...
      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
  3. Re:What's good for the goose... by seebs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The claim may not be that all forum members are journalists... But that some might be.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  4. Re:Oh Lawd by Boone^ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree with you, but most companies like Best Buy have 14 day price protection. The guy posting the ads probably screwed up, but in reality only cost the amount of $$ from purchasers who wouldn't have gotten their partial refund.

  5. not so fast by m2943 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A company is trying to go after someone responsible for theft of corporate secrets (a felony, BTW).

    Trade secret theft is a felony, but publishing trade secret information is not in general. In order to go after anybody, they first have to establish that a theft occurred. If they can't make a convincing argument to that effect, the presumption is that they simply handled their trade secret information carelessly, and that does not give them rights to go after anybody or infringe anybody's rights to anonymous free speech.