Steve Jobs is NOT a public figure, he didn't chose a profession like acting or singing or politics, he is a business man just cause that business is very successful doesn't mean he should be treated any differently from any other business man
Steve Jobs is clearly a public figure, one who craves the spotlight, yet wants to control it. That said, nothing I've ever written about anyone is libelous or has invaded their privacy. Again, knowing what you're talking about has never been a requirement for posting in this forum, has it?
Jealous of Jobs?.. I want to be Jobs!!!!.. I just think apple fans are irrational. When this happens to Bill Gates, does it get reported?. Don't you think this has happened to Bill Gates?.. To other rich and famous people?. Mac people still have the inferiority complex.. anytime something negative about Apple or Jobs is said, we all go crying "mommy, the bully is picking on me". Geez.. my point is this is a non-story. We mac fans are so thin skinned. Apple is growing into a big company. It's time we shed the "us against the world" mentality. So someone tried to get a reaction out of Jobs to sell a book, BIG FUCKING DEAL. Today, somewhere in the world, someone else did the same thing to another famous person and tomorrow, they will do it again and the next day again, and again and again.
Ok.. maybe those people discuss it as much as we do.. If so, then i apologize. Let the discussion continue!!!. (besides, it's friday.. nobody gets real work done in the office on fridays)We might as well bash an author, it's seems a fun thing to do.
Sure it gets reported. If the person doing it reports it. Remember the pie in the face Gates took? But that was public.
This is different. This is private. Don't forget, if this guy didn't publicize it, we wouldn't know about it.
It's ridiculous of you to be talking about crybabies. You don't understand what we're talking about here.
And you missed my point. So what if the publisher didn't want to publish it?. So what if the author wanted a response from Jobs?. So what if jobs responded the way he did?. So what if the author showed lack of care in his response?.
So what if the mighty jobs was not pleased.
That is my point. The only reason this is a story is because it involves Jobs, who is like the rock star of technology. Nothing out of the ordinary happened here. A guy is trying to write something about jobs, some publisher didn't think it was good enough to publish or did not want to for whatever reason (like that means something.. any journalist/author of some repute will tell you he was once rejected by some publisher). The guy sent Jobs a copy, Jobs was understandbly upset and made a stupid comment (how could jobs even begin to discern the mental state of the author is beyond me). The author made a snide remark back to Jobs. End of story. This is like two high school kids snipping at each other. Why is it even in the news??.
BTW, Jobs does not have the right to dictate what is written about him, when it is written, by whoom and where. He can get angry but if i was the author, i would have responded the same way. So what if you are upset.. boo hoo!!!. At the same token, the author is not guranteed his work will be published or even read. Seems fair to me.
Excellent response in many ways. However, to correct the record, my former publisher never rejected the book -- just canceled the contract two days after MacWorld (and demandded the advance back). I kept researching a small part of what I had, which turned into a piece that Fast Company said they liked, but killed. Jobs and Apple extoll liberal principles, but when it comes to books in general, and Jobs biographies in particular, they are very Bush-like in terms of retaliation. They even sued people who put stuff on web sites they didn't like. And by the way, if you read my New York Times Magazine piece about being investigated by not only Microsoft but the Secret Service while writing my last book, maybe you can understand that many a tech exec doesn't want to be written about, except in glowing terms, and there are hazzards for and to any author in doing so.
Steve Jobs is clearly a public figure, one who craves the spotlight, yet wants to control it. That said, nothing I've ever written about anyone is libelous or has invaded their privacy. Again, knowing what you're talking about has never been a requirement for posting in this forum, has it?
Of course he's a public figure.
But not in the way that actors or musicians are. They have publicity agents to get their names in the tabloids (even though they won't admit it).
Those people have only one product to sell. Themselves.
Jobs will get up on a stage as many CEO's do, at a meeting or an event to show new products. He's just good at it. He will also give the occasional interview as other CEO's do.
So while he is a public figure, he's not putting his life in front of us. He keeps his private life private.
While I don't have a problem with someone writing an article or book, even if it's not positive, this incident is odd to begin with.
EDIT: I didn't realise for a while that you are the author, so you can accept my apology for not referring to you directly. But there's no point in changing the post at this point, so I've left it as it is.
As I've said in some of my posts above, it;s what this guy was trying to do with the e-mail that is not right. That's my beef.
If his publisher thought that the book or article was fit to be published, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Buy Jobs has the right to get pissed at this guy sending him material that he most likely wanted to forget all about.
Also, we don't know if he was angry because of what was written, or over the idea that the guy would sent it to him for a reaction.
It was also a private remark that Jobs had made. The kind of remark that we have all made at one time or another.
The only thing is that Jobs should have realized that this guy was doing it just for the publicity. But, maybe he did.
If you've read my posts, you know what I think about this.
I , as I've said, have no problem with your writing the article.
But I would like an explanation as to why you felt it to be necessary to make your "confrontation" public.
Or are you going to say that it was not you that released it?
And why did you send him that in the first place. You must have known that he was reticent about it, and that he would react badly.
And, also, you didn't have to respond in such a schoolboy fashion. After all, it was you that wrote about him, not the other way around. He had a right to be ticked. You should have understood that.
I can't believe this story has dragged on like this in the comments section. Imagine that you were adopted. Imagine that you become well-known later in life. The matter of whether you go find your birth parents is one of the more deeply personal decisions you can make. In fact up until the '70s or '80s, in fact, it was illegal to look at your own adoption records, or for anyone else to look it up. They changed the law so you could go to the adoption authority, they would contact your birth parents, and IF THEY WANTED, they could give you a phone number or something.
Jobs has parents, whom he's often spoken of affectionately. They were good parents. They were his adoptive parents.
Why does this guy insist on knowing, or publicizing the identity of the people who gave Jobs up fifty years ago? That isn't "journalism," it's paparazzi crap. Of what value is it to us? Celebrity has gotten to be an incredible cross to bear in this society, because so many nutcases are out there, just like, well, this guy.
He doesn't seem to want to answer direct questions about this aspect, or the incident itself. As he bothered to come here into the thread itself, he should be willing to answer the hard aspects of this as well before leaving.
After all, he is a public figure, and shouldn't mind criticism, right?
Steve Jobs is clearly a public figure, one who craves the spotlight, yet wants to control it. That said, nothing I've ever written about anyone is libelous or has invaded their privacy. Again, knowing what you're talking about has never been a requirement for posting in this forum, has it?
How can you say your not invading his privacy, you dig up dirt on a very very sensitive subject to any one in his position. In responce to you saying i don't know that i'm talking about the point of forum is for people to express and disscuss their ideas and views, there are bound to be different points of view.
If you've read my posts, you know what I think about this.
I , as I've said, have no problem with your writing the article.
But I would like an explanation as to why you felt it to be necessary to make your "confrontation" public.
Or are you going to say that it was not you that released it?
And why did you send him that in the first place. You must have known that he was reticent about it, and that he would react badly.
And, also, you didn't have to respond in such a schoolboy fashion. After all, it was you that wrote about him, not the other way around. He had a right to be ticked. You should have understood that.
Or is this whole story untrue?
I don't spend much time in chat rooms -- and, for some reason, it took a few days for me to get registered into this one -- so I hope you understand this is rather new to me.
Melgross, your arguments seem top-notch, and the questions the same: the big one being "Why did I publicize Jobs' reaction." Good question. Answer: I was working with the NY Daily News reporter on a related story -- I assure you, there's more about the Jobs' Birth Father piece and biography that will come out, probably in court as I'm suing, but that's another story (don't ask 'cause I'm not telling now). The fact that Jobs and Apple have become so hostile toward books in general, biographies in specific, and mine in particular came up. I have no proof Apple or Jobs had anything to do with my contract being canceled earlier this year -- just as I have no proof Microsoft or Steve Ballmer had anything to do with the Secret Service launching a full investigation of me while I was writing my bio of that Steve, though many many folk think so -- but it's rather strange. After all, the publisher came to me and asked if I'd consider writing a bio of Jobs. I wrote a proposal, accepted their offer, took the advance and came to Cali to further research the text. That it was canceled two days after MacWorld makes a strong argument for causality. After all, the publisher could have waited until the book was finished and not accepted it.
Recall that Apple sued three websites (oh, you probably know this is one of them) for something called "tortuous interference with contract." In fact, what the sites did was, possibly, take some of the wind out of Mr. Jobs' Mini-Mac announcement. The cases are being argued as I write this. A STRONG ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT APPLE AND MAC WORLD TORTUOUSLY INTERFERED WITH MY CONTRACT.
I'd sent the piece off to others for their comments, and to Mr. Jobs as a professional courtesy.
I told the reporter what some well-known authors and editors said about it as well, along with Jobs' response. The Daily News made the choice of what to report. That's their job. I can tell you that the piece is being considered by two publications you know, and it might very well come down to who has the most guts to go with it. Or I might just keep it until the book is finished, whenever that is. But in no way, shape, or form did I invade Mr. Jobs' privacy or that of his birth father or mother and his biological sister, novelist Mona Simpson, or his current family. When you read the piece, you'll see how clear that is. Gotta run. Don't know when I'll be back.
It is of very little interest to me who Jobs' birth mother and father are. The nasty note he made on the draft would seem to be a good question. Now, the First Amendment is pretty near absolute, even for rats like yourself and Judith Miller and the celebrity papparazzi who get Hollywood starlets into car accidents. But don't ask me to love you, or buy your undoubtedly trashy book, and I think AppleInsider made an error in judgment publicizing it.
I don't spend much time in chat rooms -- and, for some reason, it took a few days for me to get registered into this one -- so I hope you understand this is rather new to me.
Melgross, your arguments seem top-notch, and the questions the same: the big one being "Why did I publicize Jobs' reaction." Good question. Answer: I was working with the NY Daily News reporter on a related story -- I assure you, there's more about the Jobs' Birth Father piece and biography that will come out, probably in court as I'm suing, but that's another story (don't ask 'cause I'm not telling now). The fact that Jobs and Apple have become so hostile toward books in general, biographies in specific, and mine in particular came up. I have no proof Apple or Jobs had anything to do with my contract being canceled earlier this year -- just as I have no proof Microsoft or Steve Ballmer had anything to do with the Secret Service launching a full investigation of me while I was writing my bio of that Steve, though many many folk think so -- but it's rather strange. After all, the publisher came to me and asked if I'd consider writing a bio of Jobs. I wrote a proposal, accepted their offer, took the advance and came to Cali to further research the text. That it was canceled two days after MacWorld makes a strong argument for causality. After all, the publisher could have waited until the book was finished and not accepted it.
Recall that Apple sued three websites (oh, you probably know this is one of them) for something called "tortuous interference with contract." In fact, what the sites did was, possibly, take some of the wind out of Mr. Jobs' Mini-Mac announcement. The cases are being argued as I write this. A STRONG ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT APPLE AND MAC WORLD TORTUOUSLY INTERFERED WITH MY CONTRACT.
I'd sent the piece off to others for their comments, and to Mr. Jobs as a professional courtesy.
I told the reporter what some well-known authors and editors said about it as well, along with Jobs' response. The Daily News made the choice of what to report. That's their job. I can tell you that the piece is being considered by two publications you know, and it might very well come down to who has the most guts to go with it. Or I might just keep it until the book is finished, whenever that is. But in no way, shape, or form did I invade Mr. Jobs' privacy or that of his birth father or mother and his biological sister, novelist Mona Simpson, or his current family. When you read the piece, you'll see how clear that is. Gotta run. Don't know when I'll be back.
Well, the Daily News is not exactly a yop notch organization. You must know that now.
While I certainly can't speak to what happened to you over Gates and Ballmer, I can't see why a publication would bow to Jobs and company. Wiley found that it's sales were far better than expected after Jobs banned them.
As an author you must know the value of forbidden fruit. An unauthorized biography is, after all, just that. And information about an adoptee's birth family, even if it isn't an "invasion", is going to be torture for all involved. Surely you know this as well. Ans as my daughter is adopted, I know this as well also, even though out relations with them has been very good.
If you have evidence that Jobs &Co. intefered with your contract, then you have the right to sue. If not, you could end up paying court costs.
It is of very little interest to me who Jobs' birth mother and father are. The nasty note he made on the draft would seem to be a good question. Now, the First Amendment is pretty near absolute, even for rats like yourself and Judith Miller and the celebrity papparazzi who get Hollywood starlets into car accidents. But don't ask me to love you, or buy your undoubtedly trashy book, and I think AppleInsider made an error in judgment publicizing it.
Well, at least he's willing to respond. That's more than I can say about most others.
Whether or not we may like the book is something else altogether. He does have the right to write it.
People rarely are happy about "unauthorized" biographies.
If what he says is true in his response to me, both about what he wrote and the contract, he might not be the one who is wrong.
Again, I'm glad to answer your questions and, again, since no one here has read the article/chapter, why not save judgement until you have a chance to. And why not use your real name(s), unless you don't want to stand behind what you say or have to own up to it? Feel free to write me at SteveJobsBio {at} yahoo.com
Comments
Originally posted by kiwimac
Steve Jobs is NOT a public figure, he didn't chose a profession like acting or singing or politics, he is a business man just cause that business is very successful doesn't mean he should be treated any differently from any other business man
Steve Jobs is clearly a public figure, one who craves the spotlight, yet wants to control it. That said, nothing I've ever written about anyone is libelous or has invaded their privacy. Again, knowing what you're talking about has never been a requirement for posting in this forum, has it?
Originally posted by wnurse
Jealous of Jobs?.. I want to be Jobs!!!!.. I just think apple fans are irrational. When this happens to Bill Gates, does it get reported?. Don't you think this has happened to Bill Gates?.. To other rich and famous people?. Mac people still have the inferiority complex.. anytime something negative about Apple or Jobs is said, we all go crying "mommy, the bully is picking on me". Geez.. my point is this is a non-story. We mac fans are so thin skinned. Apple is growing into a big company. It's time we shed the "us against the world" mentality. So someone tried to get a reaction out of Jobs to sell a book, BIG FUCKING DEAL. Today, somewhere in the world, someone else did the same thing to another famous person and tomorrow, they will do it again and the next day again, and again and again.
Ok.. maybe those people discuss it as much as we do.. If so, then i apologize. Let the discussion continue!!!. (besides, it's friday.. nobody gets real work done in the office on fridays)We might as well bash an author, it's seems a fun thing to do.
Sure it gets reported. If the person doing it reports it. Remember the pie in the face Gates took? But that was public.
This is different. This is private. Don't forget, if this guy didn't publicize it, we wouldn't know about it.
It's ridiculous of you to be talking about crybabies. You don't understand what we're talking about here.
Originally posted by wnurse
And you missed my point. So what if the publisher didn't want to publish it?. So what if the author wanted a response from Jobs?. So what if jobs responded the way he did?. So what if the author showed lack of care in his response?.
So what if the mighty jobs was not pleased.
That is my point. The only reason this is a story is because it involves Jobs, who is like the rock star of technology. Nothing out of the ordinary happened here. A guy is trying to write something about jobs, some publisher didn't think it was good enough to publish or did not want to for whatever reason (like that means something.. any journalist/author of some repute will tell you he was once rejected by some publisher). The guy sent Jobs a copy, Jobs was understandbly upset and made a stupid comment (how could jobs even begin to discern the mental state of the author is beyond me). The author made a snide remark back to Jobs. End of story. This is like two high school kids snipping at each other. Why is it even in the news??.
BTW, Jobs does not have the right to dictate what is written about him, when it is written, by whoom and where. He can get angry but if i was the author, i would have responded the same way. So what if you are upset.. boo hoo!!!. At the same token, the author is not guranteed his work will be published or even read. Seems fair to me.
Excellent response in many ways. However, to correct the record, my former publisher never rejected the book -- just canceled the contract two days after MacWorld (and demandded the advance back). I kept researching a small part of what I had, which turned into a piece that Fast Company said they liked, but killed. Jobs and Apple extoll liberal principles, but when it comes to books in general, and Jobs biographies in particular, they are very Bush-like in terms of retaliation. They even sued people who put stuff on web sites they didn't like. And by the way, if you read my New York Times Magazine piece about being investigated by not only Microsoft but the Secret Service while writing my last book, maybe you can understand that many a tech exec doesn't want to be written about, except in glowing terms, and there are hazzards for and to any author in doing so.
Originally posted by Gyroscope
I don't want to hear about Steve Jobs biological father, Eric Schmidt's auntie, or Steve Ballmer's dog. This is gossip, not news.
Then don't read it. Your choice.
Originally posted by Fredric Alan Maxwell
Steve Jobs is clearly a public figure, one who craves the spotlight, yet wants to control it. That said, nothing I've ever written about anyone is libelous or has invaded their privacy. Again, knowing what you're talking about has never been a requirement for posting in this forum, has it?
Of course he's a public figure.
But not in the way that actors or musicians are. They have publicity agents to get their names in the tabloids (even though they won't admit it).
Those people have only one product to sell. Themselves.
Jobs will get up on a stage as many CEO's do, at a meeting or an event to show new products. He's just good at it. He will also give the occasional interview as other CEO's do.
So while he is a public figure, he's not putting his life in front of us. He keeps his private life private.
While I don't have a problem with someone writing an article or book, even if it's not positive, this incident is odd to begin with.
EDIT: I didn't realise for a while that you are the author, so you can accept my apology for not referring to you directly. But there's no point in changing the post at this point, so I've left it as it is.
As I've said in some of my posts above, it;s what this guy was trying to do with the e-mail that is not right. That's my beef.
If his publisher thought that the book or article was fit to be published, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Buy Jobs has the right to get pissed at this guy sending him material that he most likely wanted to forget all about.
Also, we don't know if he was angry because of what was written, or over the idea that the guy would sent it to him for a reaction.
It was also a private remark that Jobs had made. The kind of remark that we have all made at one time or another.
The only thing is that Jobs should have realized that this guy was doing it just for the publicity. But, maybe he did.
Originally posted by Fredric Alan Maxwell
Then don't read it. Your choice.
Ok, so you're here with us. That's good.
If you've read my posts, you know what I think about this.
I , as I've said, have no problem with your writing the article.
But I would like an explanation as to why you felt it to be necessary to make your "confrontation" public.
Or are you going to say that it was not you that released it?
And why did you send him that in the first place. You must have known that he was reticent about it, and that he would react badly.
And, also, you didn't have to respond in such a schoolboy fashion. After all, it was you that wrote about him, not the other way around. He had a right to be ticked. You should have understood that.
Or is this whole story untrue?
Jobs has parents, whom he's often spoken of affectionately. They were good parents. They were his adoptive parents.
Why does this guy insist on knowing, or publicizing the identity of the people who gave Jobs up fifty years ago? That isn't "journalism," it's paparazzi crap. Of what value is it to us? Celebrity has gotten to be an incredible cross to bear in this society, because so many nutcases are out there, just like, well, this guy.
After all, he is a public figure, and shouldn't mind criticism, right?
At least, that's his argument.
Originally posted by Fredric Alan Maxwell
Then don't read it. Your choice.
I don't believe I will read it. You would be as well off to choose something else to write about.
My bad.
My bad.
Please delete one of my double posts mods.
tyvm
Originally posted by Fredric Alan Maxwell
Steve Jobs is clearly a public figure, one who craves the spotlight, yet wants to control it. That said, nothing I've ever written about anyone is libelous or has invaded their privacy. Again, knowing what you're talking about has never been a requirement for posting in this forum, has it?
How can you say your not invading his privacy, you dig up dirt on a very very sensitive subject to any one in his position. In responce to you saying i don't know that i'm talking about the point of forum is for people to express and disscuss their ideas and views, there are bound to be different points of view.
Originally posted by melgross
Ok, so you're here with us. That's good.
If you've read my posts, you know what I think about this.
I , as I've said, have no problem with your writing the article.
But I would like an explanation as to why you felt it to be necessary to make your "confrontation" public.
Or are you going to say that it was not you that released it?
And why did you send him that in the first place. You must have known that he was reticent about it, and that he would react badly.
And, also, you didn't have to respond in such a schoolboy fashion. After all, it was you that wrote about him, not the other way around. He had a right to be ticked. You should have understood that.
Or is this whole story untrue?
I don't spend much time in chat rooms -- and, for some reason, it took a few days for me to get registered into this one -- so I hope you understand this is rather new to me.
Melgross, your arguments seem top-notch, and the questions the same: the big one being "Why did I publicize Jobs' reaction." Good question. Answer: I was working with the NY Daily News reporter on a related story -- I assure you, there's more about the Jobs' Birth Father piece and biography that will come out, probably in court as I'm suing, but that's another story (don't ask 'cause I'm not telling now). The fact that Jobs and Apple have become so hostile toward books in general, biographies in specific, and mine in particular came up. I have no proof Apple or Jobs had anything to do with my contract being canceled earlier this year -- just as I have no proof Microsoft or Steve Ballmer had anything to do with the Secret Service launching a full investigation of me while I was writing my bio of that Steve, though many many folk think so -- but it's rather strange. After all, the publisher came to me and asked if I'd consider writing a bio of Jobs. I wrote a proposal, accepted their offer, took the advance and came to Cali to further research the text. That it was canceled two days after MacWorld makes a strong argument for causality. After all, the publisher could have waited until the book was finished and not accepted it.
Recall that Apple sued three websites (oh, you probably know this is one of them) for something called "tortuous interference with contract." In fact, what the sites did was, possibly, take some of the wind out of Mr. Jobs' Mini-Mac announcement. The cases are being argued as I write this. A STRONG ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT APPLE AND MAC WORLD TORTUOUSLY INTERFERED WITH MY CONTRACT.
I'd sent the piece off to others for their comments, and to Mr. Jobs as a professional courtesy.
I told the reporter what some well-known authors and editors said about it as well, along with Jobs' response. The Daily News made the choice of what to report. That's their job. I can tell you that the piece is being considered by two publications you know, and it might very well come down to who has the most guts to go with it. Or I might just keep it until the book is finished, whenever that is. But in no way, shape, or form did I invade Mr. Jobs' privacy or that of his birth father or mother and his biological sister, novelist Mona Simpson, or his current family. When you read the piece, you'll see how clear that is. Gotta run. Don't know when I'll be back.
It is of very little interest to me who Jobs' birth mother and father are. The nasty note he made on the draft would seem to be a good question. Now, the First Amendment is pretty near absolute, even for rats like yourself and Judith Miller and the celebrity papparazzi who get Hollywood starlets into car accidents. But don't ask me to love you, or buy your undoubtedly trashy book, and I think AppleInsider made an error in judgment publicizing it.
Originally posted by Swift
Well, my only response is, "Are you a nutcase?"
Wow, no kiddin'.
Originally posted by Fredric Alan Maxwell
I don't spend much time in chat rooms -- and, for some reason, it took a few days for me to get registered into this one -- so I hope you understand this is rather new to me.
Melgross, your arguments seem top-notch, and the questions the same: the big one being "Why did I publicize Jobs' reaction." Good question. Answer: I was working with the NY Daily News reporter on a related story -- I assure you, there's more about the Jobs' Birth Father piece and biography that will come out, probably in court as I'm suing, but that's another story (don't ask 'cause I'm not telling now). The fact that Jobs and Apple have become so hostile toward books in general, biographies in specific, and mine in particular came up. I have no proof Apple or Jobs had anything to do with my contract being canceled earlier this year -- just as I have no proof Microsoft or Steve Ballmer had anything to do with the Secret Service launching a full investigation of me while I was writing my bio of that Steve, though many many folk think so -- but it's rather strange. After all, the publisher came to me and asked if I'd consider writing a bio of Jobs. I wrote a proposal, accepted their offer, took the advance and came to Cali to further research the text. That it was canceled two days after MacWorld makes a strong argument for causality. After all, the publisher could have waited until the book was finished and not accepted it.
Recall that Apple sued three websites (oh, you probably know this is one of them) for something called "tortuous interference with contract." In fact, what the sites did was, possibly, take some of the wind out of Mr. Jobs' Mini-Mac announcement. The cases are being argued as I write this. A STRONG ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT APPLE AND MAC WORLD TORTUOUSLY INTERFERED WITH MY CONTRACT.
I'd sent the piece off to others for their comments, and to Mr. Jobs as a professional courtesy.
I told the reporter what some well-known authors and editors said about it as well, along with Jobs' response. The Daily News made the choice of what to report. That's their job. I can tell you that the piece is being considered by two publications you know, and it might very well come down to who has the most guts to go with it. Or I might just keep it until the book is finished, whenever that is. But in no way, shape, or form did I invade Mr. Jobs' privacy or that of his birth father or mother and his biological sister, novelist Mona Simpson, or his current family. When you read the piece, you'll see how clear that is. Gotta run. Don't know when I'll be back.
Well, the Daily News is not exactly a yop notch organization. You must know that now.
While I certainly can't speak to what happened to you over Gates and Ballmer, I can't see why a publication would bow to Jobs and company. Wiley found that it's sales were far better than expected after Jobs banned them.
As an author you must know the value of forbidden fruit. An unauthorized biography is, after all, just that. And information about an adoptee's birth family, even if it isn't an "invasion", is going to be torture for all involved. Surely you know this as well. Ans as my daughter is adopted, I know this as well also, even though out relations with them has been very good.
If you have evidence that Jobs &Co. intefered with your contract, then you have the right to sue. If not, you could end up paying court costs.
Originally posted by Swift
Well, my only response is, "Are you a nutcase?"
It is of very little interest to me who Jobs' birth mother and father are. The nasty note he made on the draft would seem to be a good question. Now, the First Amendment is pretty near absolute, even for rats like yourself and Judith Miller and the celebrity papparazzi who get Hollywood starlets into car accidents. But don't ask me to love you, or buy your undoubtedly trashy book, and I think AppleInsider made an error in judgment publicizing it.
Well, at least he's willing to respond. That's more than I can say about most others.
Whether or not we may like the book is something else altogether. He does have the right to write it.
People rarely are happy about "unauthorized" biographies.
If what he says is true in his response to me, both about what he wrote and the contract, he might not be the one who is wrong.
We'll see.