Saw this article yesterday and, given all the interesting conversations about Google and Ajit Manocha and the EC event, I thought some of you might find it relevant.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140919163322-4292087-apple-just-lost-the-global-smartphone-war-to-google

Thanks, Steve! You made good points as well. And I believe (hope) that if POET has the opportunity to look over articles before they're published, that they will take advantage of it (although, I don't think in these particular cases that they had that opportunity). :)

"What would be the harm in letting the company read over the article before publishing?"

I'm not disagreeing with you. I actually think it could sometimes be a good idea, and as you say a 'win-win'. But just from my own knowledge of the publishing industry, though, I haven't seen or heard of it happening very often (particularly when it's the journalist who's the one being approached by the person with a story). I believe many publications have rules about conflict of interest that would not allow a source of a story to check over their own story before publication (even for accuracy's sake), as they would feel that this is the writer's job to do *during* the interview and not afterwards. If the writer, however, was unsure or confused about something before publication, it would then be up to him or her to contact the source of the story and ask more questions. But from my understanding of how magazines and newspapers work, it would not be 'standard' practice for writers to send their work to their sources to check for accuracy, as (to my understanding) it is supposed to be the writer's *job* to get that accuracy during the interview.

*we said anything published needs to be approved by us before the final draft.*

I don't know what your company is, Steve, but most publications (that I know of) who are given such ultimatums would say, well, we aren't publishing you then, and would walk away and not include your company's news story in their article, newspaper, etc. Also, I think it makes a difference too as to who is doing the approaching - is the journalist asking you for a story (in which case, you *would* have the right to ask for approval), or are you coming to the journalist and presenting a story to him or her (in that case, you would not have the right to ask for approval).

But whether or not they would let someone read over the article before it's sent off for publishing.......that I don't know about......they *might*, but I still feel it would be highly unlikely....

*but the problem there is that it was probably assimilated by the writer who doesn't quite understand the technology and hence made the two mistakes (one bad one and one that is just another way of looking at everything).*

Yes, I completely agree with you here, Steve, that it was probably the writer who erred in his understanding of the technology and not that it was POET sending out a different message than the one that they've been sending out all along. Hopefully, very soon, the two (writers and the writer's understanding of the POET technology) won't have this sort of mismatch anymore.

Again, ScaryRaccoon, you're *assuming* that POET is being interviewed. In these particular cases I'm not so sure that they were. To me these articles just seemed like lifted material from the website......However, you're probably right in that if they are indeed interviewed, it might be better for them to keep their message straight.