So SPH is suing Yahoo!. Doesn’t surprise me. I had seen various pieces in Yahoo! over the past 12 months that looked close, very close to pieces that had appeared in ST or Today.
Two weeks ago (before I knew of the existence of an issue between SPH and Yahoo!), I was telling my friends about one piece from Yahoo! that was in my view very, very close to a Today piece. I was speculating openly why Yahoo! was doing this.
Well should be gd for SPH if it wins. Might relook at my decision not to own the shares despite the gd dividend.
Coming back to Yahoo!. Reuters is always quoting from WSJ and FT (behind pay walls), but it has yet to be sued.
“Our editorial business model of acquired, commissioned and original content proven,” says Yahoo!. What does “acquired” mean? It surely can’t mean taking out a subscription to ST or any other SPH publication, then cutting and pasteing stuff, and then slapping Yahoo!’s name onto the rejigged artcles? Even such a dysfunctional organisation like Yahoo! would realise that it is so easy to be caught out. SPH can ask the court for Yahoo!’s Words docs and trace changes to the originals. If an original document was an ST article … Balls-up time at Yahoo! again.
HEHEHE. Nothing new there. Think the bid by Microsoft, the problems with Jack Ma or the sacking of its CEO. Only Yahoo! could do these things.