Quote:
Originally Posted by kindlekitten
it's lying by omission
they started with the lending
then it's the release date
next who knows what?
|
Okay, so you've made your claims more specific, but this sort of reasoning can be called "Begging the question". You use claims that they lied, to say that they lied. And topping it off with that question doesn't help make the argument any more valid either.
What did they say that was a lie about the lending? They said the following the day of the announcement:
- Only some books will be enabled, and they will be marked in the eBook store so you know before you buy.
- These books can only be lent once.
Now. It may not be an ideal arrangement, but answering the specifics during Q&As with the press after the on-stage announcement doesn't strike me as a lie. A 20-30 minute demo on stage isn't exactly the ideal place to get into the nitty/gritty of every feature of a new product when you have one on one demos and Q&A sessions with the press literally minutes afterwards.
How can we prove that the release date was a lie (i.e. deception said with intent)? And this is a serious question. We've got more mundane explanations that don't require malice on the part of B&N employees (multiple employees mind you), just a lack of foresight as to how Spring Design would react, and the advice a legal firm would give them in response to the lawsuit. If we assume that the inability to accurately predict the future 100% is more common than malice in society, Occam's Razor tells us that the lawsuit's timing for hearings (and the attempt at the preliminary injunction) is a more likely reason for the shipping delays than something else that B&N was lying about.