JABoa writes (in part):Don't hold your breath, Bob. It took a lot of prodding to get Peter Thelander's article acknowledged, and even then Fool HQ attributed it to Roy in some blurb. There have been other examples.I reply:I remember that, but when I pointed out the blurb to Roy here on the boards, he acknowledged the error almost immediately. I don't understand why it took so long to correct the blurb, but eventually they did; I certainly don't lay that at Roy's feet.On the other hand, this article has his by-line. It's possible that he acknowledged my contribution and some Fool editor excised the reference, but the bottom line is, what appears under his name is his responsibility. So I think I'm entitled to an explanation, and probably an apology.As to your legal point, as far as I know, it's correct. In fact, it would be correct even without the legal boilerplate; you can't copyright an idea, and in the final analysis, the "Shore sale" is an idea. For me, the issue is intellectual honesty, and that's why I'm raising a fuss. --Bob
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra