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.