Pat, I think you missed the point of Gavin's posting.  The problem isn't so
much that Shawn wrote a review, but rather that he got to play with a
pre-release version and receive technical assistance from his
competitors under the pretext of doing a review.  One has to question
whether his motive was actually to carry out a little "industrial espionage."
I don't claim to know his motives nor do I know that his product
development effort was helped by this action, but I think that was the
issue Gavin meant to raise.  Shawn should at least have disclosed to
Interex and the competitors the fact that he was developing a competing
product.  Also, his review should have mentioned that fact so readers
could decide for themselves whether there was any bias in his
evaluation.

>>> Pat Sarkar <[log in to unmask]> 02/26/98 02:29pm >>>
I disagree with the position the other vendors are taking with respect to
Shawn reviewing their products and then coming up with his own
competing
product - it is up to Interact to decide whether to publish Shawn's
reviews
or not. Isn't it natural for someone to come up with a better solution
after evaluating existing solutions? Shawn is no journalist - would anyone
question Pat Buchanan running for president just because he criticized
competitors on national TV as a CNN CrossFire journalist? I guess the real
question is who is going to review Shawn's product - I feel that Shawn
should provide evaluation copies of TimeWarp to all other vendors who
want
to review his product and post their review of TimeWarp on this list. I
think it is great for users when someone in the know creates another
competing solution.

Pat Sarkar
----------
> From: Michael L Gueterman <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Plug Alert: Y2K software
> Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 1:31 PM
>
>   I tend to agree, a reviewer has an obligation to be un-biased, and
> I can't see how that can be if they are producing a competing product.
> I know that it can take several months from the time the review is
> completed until it is published, but I would think that a product
> such as this would have to be in the works longer than that amount
> of time.
>   Shawn, would you care to comment on this?
>
> Regards,
> Michael L Gueterman
> Easy Does It Technologies
> email: [log in to unmask]
> http://www.editcorp.com
> voice: (888) 858-EDIT -or- (509) 943-5108
> fax:   (509) 946-1170
> --
>
> On Thursday, February 26, 1998 12:01 PM, Gavin Scott
> [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> > Shawn Gordon writes:
> > > S.M.Gordon & Associates is pleased to announce the release of
> > > TimeWarp/3000, the newest entry in the world of HP3000 virtual
> > > date/time
> > > software.
> >
> > Gee.  Is this something I need to start worrying about generally?
> >
> > We're contacted about providing a copy of our HourGlass product for
> > a product review in Interact Magazine, and so we provide a pre-
> > release
> > early-access version of the software along with extensive technical
> > support and information, and repeated extensions of the
demonstration
> > period for the reviewer.
> >
> > Since the same reviewer also wrote a review of our competitor's
> > product,
> > I can only assume that they also provided copies of their software
> > and
> > similar information to said reviewer.
> >
> > Now, a week after the review comes out in Interact, that same
> > reviewer
> > announces that he has developed a product with directly competes
with
> > both of the products he reviewed?
> >
> > I mean, what am I to think?
> >
> > G.