Wozniak always tends to be the contrarian and sides against Apple. He's thrown quite a few jabs in the past few years, knocking iOS for not being 'open', etc. The thing I wonder is why the hell anyone thinks his opinion on anything has any weight, as he's been completely irrelevant for the past couple decades. Yes, he helped found Apple, but hasn't contributed much to anything since then and has lived well on value of his Apple stock. Yet the media always clamors to get his 'take' on any recent Apple happening/products/decisions, which I always find not the least bit insightful. With all due respect the guy reminds me of a little kid with the shallowness and naivity of many of the things he says.
Truth be damned, the primary defense to just about any potential law suit may be the mere threat of an aggressive discovery process in which the defendant convinces the court to order the plaintiff to divulge all manner of confidential information, even if the chance of the information being relevant is arguably miniscule. Foxconn would also need to prove measurable damages. It simply wouldn't be in Foxconn's best interest to divulge anything-and-everything, to have it all potentially publicized, and to have the case in the news for years. Daisey has likely "earned" a bundle of money from his show, with which he can defend himself, as well.
Wozniak always tends to be the contrarian and sides against Apple. He's thrown quite a few jabs in the past few years, knocking iOS for not being 'open', etc. The thing I wonder is why the hell anyone thinks his opinion on anything has any weight, as he's been completely irrelevant for the past couple decades. Yes, he helped found Apple, but hasn't contributed much to anything since then and has lived well on value of his Apple stock. Yet the media always clamors to get his 'take' on any recent Apple happening/products/decisions, which I always find not the least bit insightful. With all due respect the guy reminds me of a little kid with the shallowness and naivity of many of the things he says.
Glad to see I am not the only one who thinks this way about Wozniak.
Wozniak always tends to be the contrarian and sides against Apple. He's thrown quite a few jabs in the past few years, knocking iOS for not being 'open', etc. The thing I wonder is why the hell anyone thinks his opinion on anything has any weight, as he's been completely irrelevant for the past couple decades. Yes, he helped found Apple, but hasn't contributed much to anything since then and has lived well on value of his Apple stock. Yet the media always clamors to get his 'take' on any recent Apple happening/products/decisions, which I always find not the least bit insightful. With all due respect the guy reminds me of a little kid with the shallowness and naivity of many of the things he says.
Wozniak is not and has never been a businessman. He doesn't have it in him. He doesn't care. Without a controlling force like Jobs, Wozniak would still have invented the Apple ][, but he would have probably just given them to friends. He certainly enjoys the wealth he's earned from Apple, but if he had never achieved it, he would be the same type of person, just another anonymous retired engineer, and possibly a footnote in computing history.
Well, they don't even have grounds to sue really. At least not Daisey.
They could possibly sue "This American Life" for putting out the radio version of Daisey's act and deliberately labelling it as fact but Daisey's original version is a stage show, put on in a theatre. You can't sue anyone over "facts" from in a fantasy or a drama as it's understood from the beginning that these things don't necessarily contain factual material.
The criticism of the NYT "fact-checking" is similarly misguided. You can't fact-check a play.
Legally speaking they couldn't do anything anyway, so it's easy for them to say they "won't sue."
Why wouldn't they have grounds to sue Daisey? EVEN IF he could convince a jury that it's just a performance, that does not justify outright lies. He could be found guilty of slander even in a performance.
Of course, I agree with Foxconn's decision. Daisey already looks like an idiot and his credibility is shot, so they don't gain much by suing him - and would simply make themselves look like bullies.
"Our corporate image has been totally ruined," he said. "The point is whatever media that cited the program should not have reported it without confirming."
No it hasn't been "totally" ruined.
If it had been, they would have gone after both Daisy and NPR/This American Life with everything they have.
Gruber has a good piece on Daisey today. Daisey is still defending himself and his method, meaning that he doesn't get why people are so disgusted with him. Gruber has one answer. Daisey made it appear that one could just go to the Foxconn gate and meet underage and crippled workers any old time you wanted. That's the big lie.
But an equally disgusting aspect of the hoax is that he believes that his mission is to make people "care" by squeezing them emotionally with his graphic details and oleaginous delivery. He is feeding his audience like he appears to feed himself. Excessive, larded with emotional grease, unreasonable, in fact anti-reasonable, gluttonous with sentiment.
One of the saddest things about American culture since the advent of TV has been the drop-off of reasonableness and the rise of infantile emotionalism. I think it comes from a constant diet of "stories" that children are fed well into adulthood by the "entertainment industry." Mike Daisey is part of a class of people making a living at playing on audience emotions. When it was just the occasional play in the 19th century, or even a movie a week in the early 20th, it was not so bad. Now story-making has become an industry and mature reason is in short supply. Daisey will probably never realize that he is parasitizing people's emotional brains. Hollywood won't either.
I'm sorry that Steve jobs did not live to see Mike Daisey pilloried.
Comments
I throw up in my mouth each time it appears on this site.
Wozniak sides with Daisey's defamation.
Wozniak always tends to be the contrarian and sides against Apple. He's thrown quite a few jabs in the past few years, knocking iOS for not being 'open', etc. The thing I wonder is why the hell anyone thinks his opinion on anything has any weight, as he's been completely irrelevant for the past couple decades. Yes, he helped found Apple, but hasn't contributed much to anything since then and has lived well on value of his Apple stock. Yet the media always clamors to get his 'take' on any recent Apple happening/products/decisions, which I always find not the least bit insightful. With all due respect the guy reminds me of a little kid with the shallowness and naivity of many of the things he says.
The #1 defense to defamation is truth.
Truth be damned, the primary defense to just about any potential law suit may be the mere threat of an aggressive discovery process in which the defendant convinces the court to order the plaintiff to divulge all manner of confidential information, even if the chance of the information being relevant is arguably miniscule. Foxconn would also need to prove measurable damages. It simply wouldn't be in Foxconn's best interest to divulge anything-and-everything, to have it all potentially publicized, and to have the case in the news for years. Daisey has likely "earned" a bundle of money from his show, with which he can defend himself, as well.
A person like Mike Daisey is best forgotten.
IANAL.
Wozniak always tends to be the contrarian and sides against Apple. He's thrown quite a few jabs in the past few years, knocking iOS for not being 'open', etc. The thing I wonder is why the hell anyone thinks his opinion on anything has any weight, as he's been completely irrelevant for the past couple decades. Yes, he helped found Apple, but hasn't contributed much to anything since then and has lived well on value of his Apple stock. Yet the media always clamors to get his 'take' on any recent Apple happening/products/decisions, which I always find not the least bit insightful. With all due respect the guy reminds me of a little kid with the shallowness and naivity of many of the things he says.
Glad to see I am not the only one who thinks this way about Wozniak.
Wozniak always tends to be the contrarian and sides against Apple. He's thrown quite a few jabs in the past few years, knocking iOS for not being 'open', etc. The thing I wonder is why the hell anyone thinks his opinion on anything has any weight, as he's been completely irrelevant for the past couple decades. Yes, he helped found Apple, but hasn't contributed much to anything since then and has lived well on value of his Apple stock. Yet the media always clamors to get his 'take' on any recent Apple happening/products/decisions, which I always find not the least bit insightful. With all due respect the guy reminds me of a little kid with the shallowness and naivity of many of the things he says.
Wozniak is not and has never been a businessman. He doesn't have it in him. He doesn't care. Without a controlling force like Jobs, Wozniak would still have invented the Apple ][, but he would have probably just given them to friends. He certainly enjoys the wealth he's earned from Apple, but if he had never achieved it, he would be the same type of person, just another anonymous retired engineer, and possibly a footnote in computing history.
Well, they don't even have grounds to sue really. At least not Daisey.
They could possibly sue "This American Life" for putting out the radio version of Daisey's act and deliberately labelling it as fact but Daisey's original version is a stage show, put on in a theatre. You can't sue anyone over "facts" from in a fantasy or a drama as it's understood from the beginning that these things don't necessarily contain factual material.
The criticism of the NYT "fact-checking" is similarly misguided. You can't fact-check a play.
Legally speaking they couldn't do anything anyway, so it's easy for them to say they "won't sue."
Why wouldn't they have grounds to sue Daisey? EVEN IF he could convince a jury that it's just a performance, that does not justify outright lies. He could be found guilty of slander even in a performance.
Of course, I agree with Foxconn's decision. Daisey already looks like an idiot and his credibility is shot, so they don't gain much by suing him - and would simply make themselves look like bullies.
"Our corporate image has been totally ruined," he said. "The point is whatever media that cited the program should not have reported it without confirming."
No it hasn't been "totally" ruined.
If it had been, they would have gone after both Daisy and NPR/This American Life with everything they have.
But an equally disgusting aspect of the hoax is that he believes that his mission is to make people "care" by squeezing them emotionally with his graphic details and oleaginous delivery. He is feeding his audience like he appears to feed himself. Excessive, larded with emotional grease, unreasonable, in fact anti-reasonable, gluttonous with sentiment.
One of the saddest things about American culture since the advent of TV has been the drop-off of reasonableness and the rise of infantile emotionalism. I think it comes from a constant diet of "stories" that children are fed well into adulthood by the "entertainment industry." Mike Daisey is part of a class of people making a living at playing on audience emotions. When it was just the occasional play in the 19th century, or even a movie a week in the early 20th, it was not so bad. Now story-making has become an industry and mature reason is in short supply. Daisey will probably never realize that he is parasitizing people's emotional brains. Hollywood won't either.
I'm sorry that Steve jobs did not live to see Mike Daisey pilloried.