https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-a...
They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage.
It is a bit weird.
It really seems like the folks who are upset at the lack of coverage are so emotionally invested in this trial for whatever reason that they can't see the truth that there's no reason to care about it outside of the personal feelings of the celebrities involved. At least with SCO v IBM, and Oracle v Google, the rulings could, and did, have significant impacts on how regular tech folks went about their careers.
But if you cover before trial, it's in public's best interest you cover the outcome.
An analogy is some news outlet covering a murder trial and presenting the suspect as a ruthless criminal. By your logic, news should not cover if the criminal case turns out baseless... does that sound good to you?
That's why
The reason that this gets covered before is that it sounds like juicy gossip. Turns out the gossip isn't "true" enough to get an interesting court result. So it's not really news. Those articles are just gossip.n the words of Dennis Nedry, nobody cares.
The intersection of people who think that FB is evil because of IP theft in the occulus thing but who don't also just come to this conclusion from all the other FB coverage of their non-action to stop genocides (random example), is the empty set.
Ridiculous.
"Someone makes intense claim regarding IP law theft": interesting! Maybe it's true? If it's true, that is interesting in itself! It's pure palace intrigue with basically no important consequences (even if Palmer Lucky were to lose all his money he would end up being fine in the way that everyone above a certain strata ends up only falling up).
"Turns out the claim is not accepted by the courts": given that this didn't really matter for anyone beyond the two people, not interesting!
The important aspect here being this is like a dispute around money with really no consequences. Of course doesn't help that the people involved are not exactly super friendly. Palace intrigue. Fun to read about and talk about! Not important
Forbes "sites" are just glorified blogs. They reflect Forbes to the same extent that some random Blogger blog reflects Google/Alphabet.
> They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage.
Facebook losing would be an interesting result that may carry repercussions. Facebook winning is.. business as usual.
> It is a bit weird.
Meh, personally this is the first time I've heard of this debacle at all, and neither of the sources you mentioned are particularly prominent either.
And even then, those articles were over a year ago. Priorities and interests change over time.
Yeah, a nobody (in the public's mind) making false accusations is not a story worth telling.
Facebook stealing billions worth of IP is.
That's obvious so far, isn't it?
Though you are right with news reporting giving unproven accusations and in-process trials far too much weight. This is not just happening with 'hated' entities like Facebook, but also publicly unknown individuals. It clearly can convey a distorted picture of the facts.
In my experience, at the conclusion of a story, people never link to their previous comments that turn out to be incorrect or off-base, offering a mea culpa.
I wonder if you’re seeing is that sites have audiences that aren’t split 50/50 on potentially controversial subjects?
Their job is to report the news, not the olds.
What jumps out at me is how little is available via RECAP on this case. The amended complaints, for example, aren't available--and that's literally the most important of the lawsuit! In the more interesting cases, far more of the docket is available, and often even some of the uninteresting minutiae of the docket (e.g., applications for pro hac vice) are sometimes available, presumably because someone unfamiliar with how the courts work wonders why this isn't available, buys it themself only to discover that it actually was uninteresting.
See also how everyone believes crime is getting worse due to increasing news coverage, when the statistics say crime is decreasing.
There was coverage of the lawsuit filed against FB & Co. They got the bad press. Then once the lawsuit was ruled in their favor, there was no coverage. Whereas, if they lost, you bet there would be coverage.
"Pop culture figure accused of rape by fan!!" -> front page headlines.
"Pop culture figure acquitted" -> not news.
This I disagree with, almost every story I have had in-depth knowledge of has been very misleading. This is partially laziness, but mostly due to wanting to present a coherent and engaging narrative.
The media isn't choosing most things in the sense that online news media don't have a plotting war room where they decide what gets published and what doesn't, but rather they observe the news feeds of the agencies and their competitors and pick from this what gets printed in their own page.
Even if you are right that a news site leadership will equip different departments with staff and prescribe length etc, it is much less a guided process.
Not publishing on Oculus/Luckey/Zenimax isn't in any moral ballpark anyway.