Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Businesses Apple

Apple Lawyering Up On "Fake Steve Jobs" 346

Posted by kdawson
from the end-of-the-blog-as-we-know-it dept.
An anonymous reader sends us to The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs for a developing situation. Daniel Lyons, a.k.a. Fake Steve Jobs, made a post earlier today revealing that Apple was offering him some money (in the wake of the ThinkSecret shutdown) to close down his blog. He said he was interested in taking it. A few hours later, Lyons posted again revealing that Apple's lawyers had contacted him angrily, saying the details of the deal were supposed to remain private. Fake Steve replied 'we either deal out in the open, completely transparently, or we don't deal.' A third post gives details of Apple's lawyers' next response, going totally medieval on him. Since then the situation has calmed down a bit.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Lawyering Up On "Fake Steve Jobs"

Comments Filter:
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday December 22, 2007 @11:28PM (#21795040)
    to boil a few of those kinds of attorneys in oil, just as a warning to others.
  • by wakim1618 (579135) on Saturday December 22, 2007 @11:33PM (#21795072)
    Apple's lawyers threatened the welfare of the guy and his family and proceeded to list his assets and their value:

    Their lists includes my home address, most recent assessed value of my house and all the information about my mortgage; a rental property that we own; my bank accounts and investment accounts, including the college funds for our kids, whose names are used; and our boat and two cars.

    Aren't US Banks and financial institutions legally obligated to protect your private information such as the terms of your mortgage and the details of your bank and investment accounts?

    • In my state, there's something called (I believe) a "Motion for Discovery of Assets". Something like that, anyway, but lawyers can pretty much find out whatever they want, although I think there has to be some judicial oversight. Dunno though ... any lawyers out there want to comment?
    • by jamar0303 (896820) on Saturday December 22, 2007 @11:46PM (#21795180)
      I believe that Apple will back down rather quickly now. The Reality Distortion Field can't be so strong that people won't notice Apple essentially stalking this guy... right?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rwven (663186)
        Apple legal is just a mini implementation of the Microsoft version. 99% chance of having no clue what they're talking about, but a 100% chance of making jackasses out of themselves in the process of pursuing their so-called goals.

        People really started hating MS when they started this same stuff so Apple shouldn't for a second think they're somehow immune to that same wide-spread hate. I use apple products because I like them, but I'm not going to kid myself and think they're somehow "thinking different" i
    • by maeka (518272)

      Aren't US Banks and financial institutions legally obligated to protect your private information such as the terms of your mortgage and the details of your bank and investment accounts?

      In most (all?) states, mortgages (every last page of them) are public records and filed at the court house, as are any other liens against your real property.
    • by Pedrito (94783)
      Aren't US Banks and financial institutions legally obligated to protect your private information such as the terms of your mortgage and the details of your bank and investment accounts?

      IANAL, but I've seen a bunch on TV. There's a Citation to Discover Assets that someone mentioned, but I believe these are limited to creditors. Basically, it works like this: Creditor says you owe them money. Creditor takes you to court to basically get legal enforcement of you paying them back. If you lose and are judged to
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)
      You know how all those douchebags that like to say, "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide?"

      This is a perfect example of just how wrong-headed that approach is to privacy. None of the information that the lawyer dug up on Lyons is embarrassing or evidence of illegal activities. But the implied threat that a MegaCorp of essentially unlimited resources knows where you live and who is dear to you and wants you to know that they know is enough to convince many people to just give t
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cshbell (931989)
        Too bad this whole thing is fake and you're blowing the Orwell hysteria whistle into the wind. But yes, "MegaCorp" (or, Apple) can do whatever they want with their "essentially unlimited resources." 1000x worse, just like you said. You're one sharp tack, sir.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LKM (227954)
      I should be pointed out that the whole list of articles is part of an elaborate joke. Apple did not contact Lyons at all. I think it's highly dumb of /. to post something like this without verifying it.
  • I'm just glad... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@gmai l . com> on Saturday December 22, 2007 @11:33PM (#21795082) Homepage Journal
    I'm just glad that Apple isn't a big secretive powerful corporation that threatens to sue small people, pushes DRM, or anything evil like that.

    I'm sure someone is going to mod me for flamebait, but I never understand the people who insist Apple is the greatest company of the fan of the planet when there is plenty of proof that Apple is a corporation (for better or worse) on par with most corporations.
    • Re:I'm just glad... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday December 22, 2007 @11:43PM (#21795160)
      I agree. Apple sells popular products. The idea that they're somehow a better corporate citizen than any other, simply because they're popular, is sort of naive. That Apple has attack lawyers on staff, and is more than willing to use them, is readily apparent.
    • Is there a company more evil than Apple?

      If I had to come up with rankings it would probably be something like

      1. Apple
      2. Microsoft
      3. Sony

      Even Microsoft doesn't do this bullshit.
      • Re:I'm just glad... (Score:4, Informative)

        by stephentyrone (664894) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @04:36AM (#21796456)
        Apple doesn't "do this bullshit" either. If you bothered to actually do any research, it would be obvious this story is fake. (The fact that it's posted on the "FAKE steve jobs" weblog should be a big smoking clue, too). It's more like: 1 - 14. Various defense contractors 15. Sony (willful evilness) 16 - 99. Members of RIAA/MPAA, Utility companies, etc 100. Microsoft (stunning incompetence) 101 - 499. Energy companies, smaller defense contractors that you've never heard of 500. Google ("don't get caught doing evil, or turning over bloggers to totalitarian regimes") 1000. Apple ("Oh noes, they sued a blogger!!11one")
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Namlak (850746)

      I'm sure someone is going to mod me for flamebait, but I never understand the people who insist Apple is the greatest company of the fan of the planet when there is plenty of proof that Apple is a corporation (for better or worse) on par with most corporations.

      I'm sure someone is going to mod me for flamebait, but I never understand the zealots who insist religion/sports team/celebrity is the greatest religion/sports team/celebrity of the fan of the planet when there is plenty of proof that religion/sports team/celebrity is a religion/sports team/celebrity (for better or worse) on par with most religions/sports teams/celebrities.

      Fixed that for you.

    • Apparently, YHBT by Dan 'SCO Shill' Lyons. HAND. /P
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I'm sure someone is going to mod me for flamebait, but I never understand the people who insist Apple is the greatest company of the fan of the planet when there is plenty of proof that Apple is a corporation (for better or worse) on par with most corporations.

      They're not just "on par", they are one of the worst. I always get a load of crap when I point this out, but Apple is BY FAR the most evil computer company (there are certainly more evil non-computer companies). How many Bill Gates parodies are ou

    • Proof like... some frigtard not being able to tell satire from reality and posting to slashdot about how Oh Noes The Big Evil Company Is Going to Pwnzor The Blooger? With proof like this, who needs a defense?
    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @07:52AM (#21796952) Journal

      Humans are simple creatures, we need the world defined in goodies and baddies, that often means having to make the choice of the lesser of two evils, and not always getting it right.

      Godwin time perhaps, in WW2 who are the goodies and who are the baddies? You have the axis and the allies. Well Japan and Germany clearly belong in the baddies groups, these are evil nations whose people have not a single redeeming quality. The role of Italy and and Austria is slightly more complex. Italy often seems to be able to shrug of the worsed of the holocaust.

      But the goodies? The US of A? Hitler went to the east for lebensraum, the americans trekked to the west and killed the people already living there. What is the difference between a sign that says "Geine Juden" and "No Blacks"?

      England? Talk about a country bend on taking over the world, it made an empire out of astraucities. The soviet union/russia? Well at least Stalin could never be called a racist, he had entire populations wiped out of all sorts. Equality of a kind I suppose.

      Yet we must pick and in popular culture that often means we gloss over the "truth" to present one side in a better light. You might have noticed that in the recent WW2 tv series Band of Brothers absolutly no mentions is made of the US army policies regarding blacks or those with ancestors from Japan?

      Part of the final solution was to deport jews to remote areas where they could be controlled/wiped out. Explain to me the motivations between Indian reservations and the rather diminsied population figures of native americans?

      In WW2 there were only baddies, just that some at that particulair time were not as active as others and depending on your own background some weren't intrested in being very bad to you at that moment. Why string up a jew when blacks are so much more fun?

      Yet we need to have a hero, and so we make one, by putting on blinders.

      Steve Jobs is a figure in IT, there are many others, but he can be very closely linked to Bill Gates, an obvious baddy (although once seen as a hero freeing us from the evil IBM, a company that is now often seen as a goodie).

      What really is the difference between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates apart from income? It is a well known part of computer history that it was Steve Jobs own (what is the word, incompetence, arrogance) that handed Bill Gates the PC market. Apple, IBM, Commodore, Atari etc etc all screwed up at a crucial point leaving Wintel to rule the market. A lot has been written about it already, including on slashdot.

      But just imagine that Steve Jobs hadn't made what ever mistake it was he made and that Apple had come to rule the PC market, what then? Would it have been any better? Imagine that the holocaust had never happened, would the US be the evil country for its treatment of blacks, would it have continued like South Africa? How much did the realization of the holocaust change american opinion on its own treatment of a part of the population?

      Apple has never been any more open with its software then Microsoft has. While MS software has always been bug prone, I have to say that the most crashy PC I have ever seen was running OS9. Supporting DRM, are we talking about Steve "Disney" Jobs here? Sony is often a villain when it comes to consumer rights, but when did Apple ever fight a legal battle FOR fair use?

      But we need a hero, and so we make one, reality be damned. The sad part is that we got real heroes in IT, Stallman in front, but that person is WAY to much of a hero. People often insultingly try to compare him to Jezus but I personally see that as a rather important clue as to real heroes who truly stand for something. The person of jezus, if he was real, was a real pain in the ass for the powers that be, even his own followers. Really read the bible and you find a guy who was kicking against a lot of pedastals and upsetting people. Very confenient he was killed and that the pleps couldn't read and that the powers that be could tell their people what Jezus had RE

  • Control? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pdbaby (609052) on Saturday December 22, 2007 @11:34PM (#21795088)

    I'm always confused by Apple on matters like this; a lot of these people are key in building & maintaining hype in Apple products. If Apple (apple legal?) had their way, it seems like there'd be... well... Apple.com and a few keynotes every year as the only way people would learn details of (and think of?) new products.

    I'm a big Apple fan & I love their approach of using/contributing to open source software where it makes sense to improve their products - but their marketing and PR people seem at odds with their engineering attitude (especially with their solution-oriented attitude recently with iPhone, Apple TV compared to their key skill as a superb platform (NB. this point was blatantly stolen from Wil Shipley's blog)). I know PR people think about things completely differently from engineers but you'd think that was a company attitude, not just with the people making the magic

    • That's how it has always been. MBA's and lawyers are the company's greatest weakness. They are the cause of the downfall of the company in the 80's. If Apple isn't careful, they will just turn into another abusive corporation sucking money from it's customers rather than providing innovative technology.
    • by dwater (72834)

      ...think about things completely differently

      "Different ly "??? ...and you call yourself an Apple fan? I don't think so.
  • Actionable Items (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@gmai l . com> on Saturday December 22, 2007 @11:36PM (#21795096) Homepage Journal
    From the article: ...he feels it is his duty to inform me that Apple's lawyers have identified at least three posts in my archive that they "deem to be actionable."

    Since when was parody actionable?
    • When they can bankrupt you simply with legal fees, hoping you cave before you eventually win? Always. Often, when I see stuff like this, I suspect that someone in legal got carried away. Not Apple - it seems like this sort of thing must actually bother Jobs and the executives. This person or site ruined their little PR event, or that one made fun of him. It's just sad. Does he actually throw tantrums like a 3-year-old, or does he just put up with toadies who do this crap on his behalf?
    • When it's such a poor parody that a reasonable person might be led to believe untrue things on its basis. If it wasn't so, then we would have, effectively, no laws against defamation; I could simply print on my blog "Daniel Lyons, also known as 'Fake Steve Jobs', was arrested today on charges of sexual deviancy and corruption of minors as he attempted to flee to Mexico" and then when the lawsuits came my way I could just simply blink innocently and say "Why ... didn't you understand that was parody?? Sure
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday December 22, 2007 @11:39PM (#21795118) Journal
    Read the comments on the "I'm feeling a bit better" page.

    One from the real Steve Jobs:

    Joel said...

            RSJ just responded to my email, saying, "I think this is a joke."

            I'm a bit annoyed by this, since I was defending you, and now look something of a fool.
    And another who had mailed the same:

    Diogenes said...
    I wrote a bit of an inflammatory email to sjobs@apple.com, and actually got a response.
    Here is the text of the conversation (read bottom to top, of course) ...

    I think this is all a joke. And I think you fell for it.
    Steve

    On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Gary Baldwin wrote:
    I'm not sure who I've reached here, but in the interest of finishing what you start, this is what I'm referring to:
    http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/12/thanks-for-your-support.html [blogspot.com]

    On Dec 22, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Steve Jobs wrote:
    What, praytell, are you talking about?

    On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Gary Baldwin wrote:
    I'm an admitted Apple fanboy, but I can't say I admire this. I would have thought you all would have appreciated the affectionate satire rather than being unaccountable assholes.
    Gary Baldwin
    The amazing part to me here is that Steve Jobs is replying to mails in person. With a short delay, at a Christmas-y time like December 22nd...
  • a joke? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by clragon (923326) on Saturday December 22, 2007 @11:40PM (#21795128)
    I was just reading the comments in the last link [blogspot.com] and found a comment made by blogger Diogenes:

    I wrote a bit of an inflammatory email to sjobs@apple.com, and actually got a response.

    Here is the text of the conversation (read bottom to top, of course) ...

    I think this is all a joke. And I think you fell for it.

    Steve

    On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Gary Baldwin wrote:

    I'm not sure who I've reached here, but in the interest of finishing what you start, this is what I'm referring to:

    http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/12/thanks-for-your-support.html [blogspot.com]

    On Dec 22, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Steve Jobs wrote:

    What, praytell, are you talking about?

    On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Gary Baldwin wrote:

    I'm an admitted Apple fanboy, but I can't say I admire this. I would have thought you all would have appreciated the affectionate satire rather than being unaccountable assholes.

    Gary Baldwin

    I really do hope this is a joke, Apple doesn't have much to gain pulling a stunt like this...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by schon (31600)

      I really do hope this is a joke
      C'mon - this is Dan Lyons here. It's obviously a hoax, not a joke.

      Seriously, read some of his ramblings about the SCOX saga. He's a paid shill.
  • Apple has gotten a free ride in a lot of ways. Much of what they do is so slick, it obfuscates the heavy-handed control they strive for.

    But Apple loves their lawyers and relishes their litigation. And I predict that soon they will go too far, and when they do they will experience a backlash that makes Sony hate seem like mild annoyance. The greater the love lost, the greater the hate that remains.
  • Two of his readers write to Apple and get responses back implying that this must be some joke. Either that, or Apple is being damn sneaky with the PR and trying to discredit him. Since I'm not really in a tinfoil hat sort of mood, I'm going to have to lean towards joke on this one.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 23, 2007 @12:05AM (#21795308)
    This would be the same Dan Lyons that faked a take-down note from Apple in order to stop writing Fake Steve Jobs before his management found out about it. He didn't want his management to know because technically he was violating his contract with Forbes, but fortunately for him they didn't mind.

    Not exactly a paragon of virtue himself... and not above conducting business in public when it suits him, and in private when he can get away with it.

    This guy also thought SCO was a sure winner and wasn't very polite about the Linux community.

  • EFF? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ilyag (572316) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @12:12AM (#21795346)
    Apparently, the guy tried to contact EFF and was turned down [blogspot.com] (see bottom of the link) because the EFF didn't like some of his posts.

    Assuming that this is true, this doesn't shed too good a light on the EFF. Isn't the EFF supposed to help bloggers that are being attacked by large corporations, regardless of what is posted on the blog and, in particular, of whether the person likes the EFF? At least, isn't that what people who donate to the EFF expect it to do?

    • Re:EFF? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 1729 (581437) <slashdot1729.gmail@com> on Sunday December 23, 2007 @12:33AM (#21795470)

      Apparently, the guy tried to contact EFF and was turned down (see bottom of the link) because the EFF didn't like some of his posts.

      Do you really believe that? Parts of this hoax were believable, but the EFF part was obviously a joke.
    • by jcr (53032)
      Nope, that's bullshit too. The EFF didn't like that spammer Hamadi, but they still took his case.

      -jcr

    • by svunt (916464) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @01:15AM (#21795654) Homepage Journal
      Seriously. First, he's talking about Apple's lawyers presenting him with a list of his assets as a covert threat...bullshit - in an email? I really, rally don't see Apple putting that on paper. Now the EFF has said they only represent people they like? They've represented spammers, for fucksake. It's like everyone's critical ability has been washed away by the promise of Apple bashing, or corporate bashing.


      Shame on the lot of you. This is supposed to be a smart crowd here. Don't let your bias get to the point where you just look foolish. It's xmas, it's the weekend, but Apple lawyers are firing off quick replies that are increasingly brutal despite their previous emails all going directly public via FSJ? Come on, nerds, use your brains.

    • Re:EFF? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ntk (974) * on Sunday December 23, 2007 @02:14AM (#21795958) Homepage
      Dude, it's a joke. We'd never say that. We'd probably not take the case, either, because there's really nothing there that would affect online rights or set precedents in general. But we'd at least try and point him in the right direction for finding out his rights, and maybe seek out an affordable lawyer for him. We might even gently ping the lawyers at Apple to explain what a costly publicity nightmare this would be for them.

      Speaking personally, I do prefer Daniel Lyons when he's writing fiction like this, to when he's acting as a journalist and penning articles talking about the dangers of anonymous blogs [forbes.com], and how you should shut them up by using the DMCA or by suing them [forbes.com]. That wasn't funny advice to give to businesses, and could have got them in non-fictional legal trouble real fast.
  • by stephentyrone (664894) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @12:23AM (#21795406)
    C'mon people, think! It's the FAKE Steve Jobs blog. Did it occur to you that the stories there might be FAKE? This is satire, and you're all fools.
    • by Liquidrage (640463) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @12:26AM (#21795418)
      No, actually. Because I didn't read it on his blog. I have no history reading his blog. I read it on /.
      You're barking up the wrong tree. I expect stories posted here to be accurate for the most part. I'm not expected to be an expert on the stories, enough to call "BS" on them. You're post is utter crap. If this is a fake, the onus is on this site, not us that read this site.
      • by frdmfghtr (603968)

        I expect stories posted here to be accurate for the most part.
        You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by stephentyrone (664894)
        You might be tipped off by the fact that it's at the website "fakesteve.blogspot.com". You might also be tipped off if you, oh, I don't know, READ THE EFFING LINKS before commenting?

        Judging from your other posts up above, you're just disappointed that you spent all that effort vilifying Apple over a story that turns out to be bogus.
        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by Liquidrage (640463)
          I don't need a new reason to vilify Apple. Their shitty history is more then enough reason. I so long for the days when I can buy an Apple for 2x what it should cost so that I can run 4 pieces of software all provided by Apple while smiling about what a great experience it is to live in the Apple womb.
          And as other have pointed out he wasn't writing In Character so even if I was familiar with the blog, I'd have been fooled.

          I expect fake stories to make it through on April fools day. While an occasional fe
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Lars T. (470328)

            I expect fake stories to make it through on April fools day. While an occasional few get through, and this could be one of them, it doesn't put the blame on the reader for falling for it.
            Exactly, it sure isn't your fault you're a gullible fool.
  • It's a hoax. (Score:5, Informative)

    by jcr (53032) <[jcr] [at] [mac.com]> on Sunday December 23, 2007 @12:24AM (#21795412) Journal
    Guys,

    Dan Lyons had me fooled, since he was not in character as FSJ, and really did sound scared. I sent an e-mail to SJ about it, expressing the concerns that any shareholder would have if this situation were true, and he replied.

    He told me, quote:

    I think this is a joke.

    Steve


    -jcr

    • by Macthorpe (960048)
      And of course, Apple are such an open company and Steve is such a frigging nice guy that there's absolutely no way he'd lie about it to make the company look good?
      • by iroll (717924)
        Or, instead of dreaming up elaborate conspiracy theories just so we can have collective paranoid nerdgasms, we could stick with Occam's Razor? [wikipedia.org]

        But of course, that would be too rational. Let's wrap our heads in tinfoil, just in case.
  • by GomezAdams (679726) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @12:55AM (#21795558)
    Buying Microsoft products is like having an ex-wife you are obligated to pay all expenses for. When she gets a new dress you have to buy her a new house and abandon the old one. Then the new dress needs all new accessories and even unrelated kitchen appliances and a car.

    But then buying Apple products is the same except it starts with a new house and works it's way back to the dress, car, and kitchen appliances which can only come from the same company that built the house.

    I am constantly amazed with the people who flock to Apple when they do the same thing at the hardware level that Microsoft does at the software level and that is product line lock in.

    The major reason Apple lost the numbers war to Microsoft is that Windows and it's related products were allowed to run on any IBM PC clone while Jobs wanted to control every aspect of the Apple and sued out of existence the very people who were trying to clone an Apple and extend the user base of Apple and Apple-like products. Microsoft doesn't really care about pirated software in third world countries as long as the computers are running Microsoft products. They have a foot hold on future sales when the dust clears from law suits and the users are socialized into thinking that Microsoft is the only product they can use. As long as it's not Linux/x386BSD/Apple they are willing to tolerate pirating because it extends the base of users of MS technologies.

    While Apple may make a better product overall (remember Mac OS is FreeBSD under the covers) they will always be only a niche market because Jobs is a worse control freak than Gates. --

    • by theurge14 (820596) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @02:54AM (#21796114)
      I am constantly amazed with the people who flock to Apple when they do the same thing at the hardware level that Microsoft does at the software level and that is product line lock in.

      Really? I run Mac OS X and Windows XP on my Mac, and if I wanted to I could have my pick of Linux or BSD variants that work on Intel on my Mac.
      And since my iMac is really nothing but a glorified Intel-based laptop on a stand, I'm not exactly sure what part of the hardware locks me in. Perhaps it's these proprietary USB and Firewire ports on the back that only allow me to attach Apple-only peripherals. Perhaps it's the built in Pioneer DVD-RW that Apple nicknames the "Superdrive" that allows me to only burn on Apple branded discs to Apple-only formats. (If only I could manage to read ISO files, perhaps even go as far as to mount them as a new drive when I double clicked on them). If only Steve Jobs wasn't such a channel-controlling, OEM bullying monopolistic control freak...
  • Seriously, people (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MattW (97290) <matt@ender.com> on Sunday December 23, 2007 @12:58AM (#21795566) Homepage
    (1) Even Apple's lawyers don't just whip out kid's college fund numbers.
    (2) The EFF would never say that.
    (3) If Lyons has a contract to continue the blog, then his employer would most certainly be fielding the lawyers, because if anything were actionable, they'd be liable too. (duh) So his "I've already paid a ton for a lawyer" was another giveaway.

    What's hilarious is that Real Steve Jobs (or at least someone acting on his behalf) took the time to reply to a few angry readers who emailed him.

    Nice posts though. FSJ rocks.
  • It would appear that no one on Slashdot has any sort of humor at all - at least the sort that read it on a Saturday night.

    Many of you would do well to remember that FSJ is a parody blog, sometimes at its finest, sometimes not so much.

    Those of you kneejerk types can also rest easy in the fact that because FSJ is a parody blog, it doesn't have any actual news content or any "rumors" worth suing over either.
    • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @01:14AM (#21795642)
      Parody is a right that comes with responsibility like any other. When you step out of character on your parody blog and say you're being sued, and give nasty details, if you're lying that's not parody anymore, it's just lying.
    • Well, yes, it does, but there's a larger problem here: that can people can believe lawyers capable of mafioso tactics. And that belief is founded on the fact that, as far as I can tell, law schools do most of their recruiting in the Circles Of Hell. Seriously, law has to be the most seriously fucked up profession in human history at this point, and it seems to really attract people who, not having a legal career, would probably resort to some sort of serial crimes.
  • by rsidd (6328) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @01:53AM (#21795840)
    It appears, from various comments above, that this is a joke by Daniel Lyons, in very poor taste. Given how widely Slashdot is read, I think there should be a prominent clarification in the headline and story, IMMEDIATELY, that the story is dubious.

    Apple does enough things that genuinely warrant criticism. Inventing a story like this, and publicising it as fact, is unconscionable.
    • by Macthorpe (960048)
      Lyons hasn't confirmed that he's joking yet, and the fact that Steve Jobs says "I think it's a joke" doesn't make it automatically untrue.

      How about we wait until we actually get solid evidence either way before we start throwing words like 'unconscionable' around?

      (Good word though, I like it)
  • by theurge14 (820596) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @02:30AM (#21796028)
    ...and it's not even April.

    Not only has he baited those of us who read the FSJ blog, but he has also baited every Microsoft fanboy and Apple fanboy who read his blog, who don't read his blog, and now Slashdot.

    If the Internet ever gave out trophies, this guy deserves at least 5. Maybe 6.
  • This story is highly entertaining, but I think Fake Steve posted it about 3 months and 10 days [timeanddate.com] too early.
  • by Zelucifer (740431)
    Acting under the assumption that this is indeed a hoax:

    I believe Fake SJ was attempting to point out how incredibly believable this scenario has become, due to Apple's declining public image. Five years ago, if someone had pulled a stunt like this, no one would have believed it. Today, people were emailing Real SJ, without any doubt that Apple would sue a satire. The absurd has become reality.
  • Even thought it's probably a hoax, I still feel like going out and kicking a lawyer in the balls.

    Admit it: those of you who bought into it initially did so because you could totally believe lawyers doing something like that based on real stories in the past. It's not really all that unbelievable.
  • by m2943 (1140797) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @07:23AM (#21796852)
    I think Fake Steve Jobs is funny, but, in the end, a lot of it is trolling. Listen to his talk at Google:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLpxX9vqr5c [youtube.com]

    He says that intentionally introducing little errors (Lissabon vs Lebanon etc.) and watching the angry letters and corrections roll in is "better than sex".

    The video is well worth watching, though, also for some other insights into how the business publishing world works (e.g., Icahn placing stories that paint a bleak picture of Motorola in order to get rid of Zander).

    He may well have invented this entire legal stuff as a publicity stunt. If so, he may have crossed the line.
  • by the saltydog (450856) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @09:54AM (#21797442) Homepage
    Fake Steve Jobs? That's not the only thing he's faked being...
    How about fake journalist? Fake analyst? Fake intellectual?

    The guy is firmly attached to the corporate teat, and things like
    Linux scare him to death, because he can't figure out how to make
    money on it. When Fake SCO came along, he started spouting anti-Linux
    vitriol at every turn; here's just a sample;

    "In other words, like many religious folk, the Linux-loving crunchies
    in the open-source movement are a) convinced of their own
    righteousness, and b) sure the whole world, including judges, will
    agree."

    http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux_print.html [forbes.com]

    Of course, when it turned out we Linux supporters had it right all
    along, Dan jumped off of the SCO bandwagon while it was hurtling
    downhill at warp speed, and he nearly broke both of his ankles in the
    process. His "apology" basically blamed Darl McBride, saying all Dan
    did was repeat what Darl and company told him. Excuse me? You're
    trying to pawn yourself off as a journalist, yet you take the word of
    a litigious, all hat, no cattle wannabe cowboy, and then fail to
    research the whole story?
    If anything, Dan Lyons is an even worse shill than Rob Enderle - at
    least Rob has the decency to reply to people directly, as he has done
    with me on several occasions; Dan is too chickenshit to admit he was
    wrong, on his own accord.
    (I'd bring up the poor quality of his "blook" here, but that would
    mean I'd have to detail all of the material he blatantly stole from
    the regulars of the Yahoo SCOX message board, which I don't have the
    time for right now; I will say that when you read the material there,
    you've gotten exactly what you paid for; I don't see how Dan can live
    with himself for trying to *charge* for it in print!) -saltydogmn on
    Yahoo SCOX

    P.S. Dan, if you're reading this, make sure to have Darl send me my $699/cpu invoice for running Linux on my computers; I have 3 of them, including this IBM laptop; 2 running Kubuntu, and 1 Xubuntu. Where should I send the check, and, more importantly, WHY? kthxbye
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Sunday December 23, 2007 @11:01AM (#21797844) Homepage Journal

    It was all fun and games until he started flat-out lying about Apple and the EFF (just like he'd already flat-out lied about SCO and Linux). I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find either of them really suing them now, say for libel and defamation of character. Way to go, dumbass.

  • by Durandal64 (658649) on Sunday December 23, 2007 @09:15PM (#21801854)
    Could Slashdot please change the inflammatory title of the post to reflect that it's actually a hoax?

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A black panther is really a leopard that has a solid black coat rather then a spotted one.

Working...