I’m betting Bloomberg is about to get sued by a couple of trillion dollar companies and issuing a retraction admitting fault makes it easier for the lawsuits to be filed. They’re probably debating very fiercely over what course of action they should take. Either Bloomberg is right and there was a hack, or they’re wrong and they’re about to be wiped from the face of this planet.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Supermicro CEO Joins Cook in Calling for Bloomberg to Retract Supply Chain Hack Story
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think it's worth the discovery phase to Apple. Bloomberg's lawyers would request all sorts of information to soft through in order to look for "evidence" of a hack cover up. Apple would also have to demonstrate damages.
Super Micro though....their stock tanked hard. They might have incentive to sue.
Why does the accuracy of their claim have to be measured with the amount of sources they had and the amount of time they worked on this story? All that does not make the story true by magic. You need a bit more then that to convince me as a reader, All that could be just a bs for what we know.
Yes, I dismiss all that crap if they have no facts to relate to, and their reputation for sure goes down the drain once they start puplishing untrue stories (like they already have on the past) or not being able to support their claims, Just because you may be journalist and have freedom to write stuff, it doesn't mean you could say write stuff that isn't true and expect to go unchallenged,
Probably the biggest hurdle to Apple suing for libel is proving damages. Aside from all the discussion on the Internet, has this story had any tangible effect on Apple's business? We may have our opinions, but showing that in court is another matter entirely.
Not being a lawyer, I'm not certain whether Apple, being a widely recognized public company, would also have to show the story was published with malice -- an intent to harm Apple. If so, they'd have a very uphill battle and they know it.
Just my opinion....
I don't think Bloomberg overtly lied. It feels like they were played by whichever sources initially approached them, then they went looking for how the claims could have theoretically occurred.
Kinda reminds me of how Sabrina Erdely went about her bs "A Rape on Campus" story. She had a hypothesis that "somewhere in the world, a rape was whitewashed by a college" and then went searching for a way it could have happened.
She had "sources" but did a really piss poor job of vetting them, and took some liberties and huge logical leaps with some of the information, ignored information that didn't fit her agenda, etc etc.
I don't think Bloomberg overtly lied. It feels like they were played by whichever sources initially approached them, then they went looking for how the claims could have theoretically occurred.
Kinda reminds me of how Sabrina Erdely went about her bs "A Rape on Campus" story. She had a hypothesis that "somewhere in the world, a rape was whitewashed by a college" and then went searching for a way it could have happened.
She had "sources" but did a really piss poor job of vetting them, and took some liberties and huge logical leaps with some of the information, ignored information that didn't fit her agenda, etc etc.
Because people are running around saying "Where's the souses?" Bloomberg have the sources (you can believe them or not) .At this point of time I think your an Apple believer or a free press believer.
No, because there is a fairly good chance I am one of the 17, if they used one of the articles I am quoted about counterfeit chips coming from China, and I 100% believe the story as written is technically impossible, as do the other 49 engineers that got pulled into an all day read Bloomberg fest because the new VP was sure we were one of the other companies affected by the issue. Also we have no idea what the 17 are saying. We have the one gentlemen telling us he was hugely surprised that the hack happened exactly how he had told the reporters the year before how he would do it. Thats really super suspicous, I can't get two guys to lay out PC boards identically, and they sit next to each other, the Chinese put the chip and did the hack exactly as described by a consultants guess? Does he count as one of the 17 sources? Is Macrumors a source because it said Apple quit buying Supermicro months ago? Bloomberg says Apple removed and replaced 7000 servers, Apple says they DID NOT. No evidence of that multimillion dollar transaction occurs anywhere in Annual Reports, news articles etc. Its probably a minimum 50-100 million dollar SEC fine if they are lying about it in an official press release, why do you think they would do that? Also Tim would be removed from the Board of directors, and the same happens at Amazon, its crazy that people believe a technically bad article that makes little sense if you understand what they are claiming instead of press releases from the actual company which carried punishments as large as we are talking about here.
-Tig
I don't think Apple will sue, but Super Micro? Their company value *halved* after the story.
It is recovering slightly as everyone realises the story is lacking in concrete evidence, but at this rate it's hard to see them ever recovering to where they were the day before the story was published.
If they said in effect the last statement then fewer words would have been better. The more you qualify something, the more people distrust what you have to say. A bit like politician speak
[doublepost=1540331352][/doublepost]
There is almost 0% chance you are one of the 17
[doublepost=1540331404][/doublepost]
So why is Apple not suing?
Well, I don't work for Apple to know why they are not suing.
All I know is that Bloomberg has provided **** to support their claim.
Saying we have 18 sources and worked for months on this story does not cut it.
If your story is true as you claim it to be, bring it ON, unleash all the evidence (if there is any at all)
And something tells me Bloomberg would have loved to publish all the evidence if there would have been any, but no no no. So far is only sources. That's right, "we have many sources"
[doublepost=1540359047][/doublepost]
What kind of nonsense is this?
So free press means you can publish all sorts of potential untrue stories (AKA: Fake News) and all you have to do is say "we have sources" which by the way are anonymous and provide no evidence, also not being responsible for the accuracy of what you publish?
I don't think so.
Last edited:
Free Press means you can publish stories without revealing sources.
They have evidence, otherwise the editors would not publish.
They are responsible for accuracy.
Do reporters get it wrong, of course.
Are the reporters wrong in this instance? They are saying not.
What recourse does Apple have? Take it to the courts.
Apple is not making a claim here. It is denying a claim.
The logical thing to do is use all other means before suing (suing should be the last solution)
I'm not the guy who usually uses this expression but I would imagine Steve would have sued them without hesitation.
And quite right, Apple should explore all other options before suing. Actually when I think about it that is actually great advice that I wish Apple would use more often, such as suing people in all areas relating to the right to repair.
But I am sure you would agree though that this kind of "free press" without much evidence and assuming is not true, can harm companies like Apple. I am all for the free press but where do you draw the line? Surely it must not be fair if the press is allowed to publish untrue stories and if it is done by error they should apologize. They would not like it if another magazine published something nasty that is not true about them.
Yes, I would agree with you, reporting incorrectly can cause great harm.
It is hard to know either way who is correct and who is wrong, there seems to be very few facts from either side.
Apple does appear to be stating that everything about this is false, but for my liking the words they are using only seem to go about 90% there which leaves some doubts in my mind.