Unexpectedly, the BBC writer actually responded to my email and apologized. He's adding a retroactive mention to the piece. Would have been nicer to have it there at first, of course, but still, what a class act to own up to it and fix it.
Thanks again for the mention. I'd emailed the BBC guy, who I thought had sourced that story from Virtually Blind without citing me (I had it a day or so earlier) and to my total surprise, he wrote back personally and apologized, and offered to add a mention retroactively. It would have been nicer to have it originally, of course, but still, that's a pretty classy move on his part, and I want to acknowledge it.
Thanks for the nod. Cheap work by the BBC reporter blatantly pulling from my post with no credit. They even cite me as "some experts" for the idea that damages could have been more at trial, at least I suspect so. I doubt they called some other expert. Bah. Mainstream media hates blogs... unless they can rip them off.
Anyway, yeah. I've covered this. I talk to both sides from time to time, and get all the docs first. Stay tuned for the certain appeal.
Really frustating. Really frustrating. The BBC article took every fact from my story on this over a day earlier.
I know the/. poster has linked to my stuff on this before (I've been covering this from day one) but this one slipped through the cracks. Hazard of being a little guy, I guess, but frustrating to see your stuff used by a big outlet without citation.
The BBC guy even refers to me -- at least I suspect so -- as the "some experts" who say that damages could have been higher at trial. What BS.
Here's original post:
http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/09/29/mdy-blizzard-damages/
Original stipulated damages Order (as PDF) and significantly more in-depth coverage of the backstory there.
Slashdot Mirror
Unexpectedly, the BBC writer actually responded to my email and apologized. He's adding a retroactive mention to the piece. Would have been nicer to have it there at first, of course, but still, what a class act to own up to it and fix it.
Thanks again for the mention. I'd emailed the BBC guy, who I thought had sourced that story from Virtually Blind without citing me (I had it a day or so earlier) and to my total surprise, he wrote back personally and apologized, and offered to add a mention retroactively. It would have been nicer to have it originally, of course, but still, that's a pretty classy move on his part, and I want to acknowledge it.
Thanks for the nod. Cheap work by the BBC reporter blatantly pulling from my post with no credit. They even cite me as "some experts" for the idea that damages could have been more at trial, at least I suspect so. I doubt they called some other expert. Bah. Mainstream media hates blogs... unless they can rip them off. Anyway, yeah. I've covered this. I talk to both sides from time to time, and get all the docs first. Stay tuned for the certain appeal.
Really frustating. Really frustrating. The BBC article took every fact from my story on this over a day earlier. I know the /. poster has linked to my stuff on this before (I've been covering this from day one) but this one slipped through the cracks. Hazard of being a little guy, I guess, but frustrating to see your stuff used by a big outlet without citation.
The BBC guy even refers to me -- at least I suspect so -- as the "some experts" who say that damages could have been higher at trial. What BS.
Here's original post:
http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/09/29/mdy-blizzard-damages/
Original stipulated damages Order (as PDF) and significantly more in-depth coverage of the backstory there.