You hear it all the time with almost any successful movie/tv show/book: other people claim that they had the idea first, pitched it and had it rejected (or, the creator "copied" the idea they had produced elsewhere). And now they want money and credit (but mainly money). Of course, this ignores the fact that multiple people tend to have similar story ideas all the time -- and in these sorts of things it's rarely the idea that matters, but the execution. Yet, two different and totally unrelated guys are now suing, claiming that they deserve money for coming up with the concept behind the hit TV show Hannah Montana. First, there's Buddy Sheffield, who apparently pitched a show called Rock and Roland to ABC/Disney in 2001 about "a seemingly average middle school student who actually moonlights as a pop star."

Ok, but then there's Richard Fronduto -- who claims that all the way back in 1990 he wrote a pilot script for a show called The Secret Life of Sindi about, yes, a seemingly average middle school student who actually moonlights as a pop star.

Of course, back in the 80s, I used to day dream about my secret life as as child pop-star, as well (you should have seen my air guitar routine) -- as did probably tons of other kids. Let's face it: this idea is not particularly original in the grand scheme of things. Kids always dream about leading glamorous secret lives, and being a rock star is probably a pretty common part of that. But actually then taking that idea and turning it into the massive hit that it is today is not about the idea, but about the execution. It's unfortunate that we live in an age where we so celebrate the idea, but downplay the importance of execution. It highlights exactly the wrong situation and leads to silly scenarios like this one.

It's certainly no secret that in an age of changing business models for content creators, that understanding the nature of online marketing is important. Huge industries have grown up around online marketing, viral marketing and word of mouth marketing. But, when it gets right down to the core, it's about figuring out ways to get attention -- and it appears that one college professor is imparting that message quite clearly to his students in a class where the entire goal is for students to become famous online. It apparently doesn't matter how they become famous, but their grades depend on it. The class, at Parsons The New School for Design, has 15 students, all vying to be more famous than one another. What's amusing is that, as the semester wound down and more subtle means of becoming internet famous were proving ineffective, many in the class resorted to the old short-term standby: posting videos of scantily-clad women on blogs and using suggestive titles. You can check out the class blog to judge for yourself how famous the students have become.

With reports of huge numbers of iPhones being purchased to be unlocked and resold, it looks like Apple trying to clamp down a bit on the process by changing the rules for purchasers: requiring credit cards for purchases and limiting order to only 2 iPhones at a time. This is similar to what the original "launch day" limitations were. The credit cards let Apple track purchases more carefully (though, you have to wonder what good that really does) and the two person limit makes life harder for unlocker/resellers -- but also makes it more likely that parents will be able to pick up iPhones for their kids this holiday season. As for whether or not it's legal to turn down someone handing over the requisite amount of cash, we'll just let the US Treasury Department explain that it's perfectly fine. The whole "legal tender" bit doesn't mean anyone has to accept your cash.

A bigger question, though, is why Apple would bother? The resellers are likely to figure out ways around these limitations anyway, and it just seems more likely to cause problems for legitimate purchasers (especially younger ones who might not have a credit card yet). And, while it is true that Apple makes money from every iPhone with AT&T service, it's silly to completely shut off unlockers, who still are giving Apple plenty of money that they might not hand over if they were forced to go with AT&T service (especially those from foreign countries where iPhone service is not offered). This really seems like an unnecessary restriction that isn't likely to help Apple very much.

It's been said by many that bond ratings agencies are to the credit bubble what the tech analysts were during the dot com bubble. Whereas guys like Henry Blodget got dinged for touting IPOs for no other purpose than to move stock, many are wondering whether firms like S&P and Moody's inflated debt ratings so as to help move more business. It certainly seems plausible, and now it looks like regulators are going to delve deeper into this question, as they look at whether repeat customers tended to receive better ratings for the securities they were floating. Regardless of what regulators determine, it seems likely that the reputation of these firms will be permanently tarnished. Nevertheless, there would still seem to be a need for third parties to rate debt, so that the market can determine the appropriate interest rate. Of course, it's not like nobody saw this coming. For years now, people have been warning about the oligopoly in bond rating, and the potential for conflicts of interest. Perhaps the key is pursue a more decentralized system of disseminating information, although it will take some work (and regulatory flexibility) to figure out exactly what this model would look like.

Because a company can only be as strong as its customers, there's no way for tech companies to be completely insulated from broader economic events. Companies with a lot of exposure on Wall St. are going to be particularly susceptible to a slowdown, as some companies, like Cisco, have already stated that they're seeing weakness in this market. The latest to sound a similar warning is Tibco, a software provider with a lot of customers in finance. The firm described the financial sector as "notably weak" blaming it for an overall earnings shortfall. It should be noted that Tibco hasn't had a particularly stellar few years, so the company was already struggling a bit. Still, what's affecting Tibco is likely to affect a host of other related companies. Right now, there's a lot of concern about the health of the financial sector, but if troubles continue to persist, then the malaise is likely to spread elsewhere, potentially leading to spending slowdowns in other sectors.

Fears of a credit crunch have put a chill on fresh private equity activity, while several pending deals are thought to be in trouble. But there are still signs of life in some parts of the industry. There continues to be strong interest in medium-sized media deals, as funds that specialize in this area continue to raise money and make moves. Considering the challenges facing many media companies, it makes sense that private equity investors would think there's an opportunity to pick up assets at a bargain, reformulating them into something of more value. Obviously, the private equity industry isn't going to grind to a halt. Deals that are predicated on nothing more than cheap credit will become rare, but investors will always be on the hunt for undervalued companies that can be turned around.

Will all of the turmoil in conventional credit markets spur greater interest upstart peer-to-peer lending exchanges? It seems possible, since, in a way, sites like Prosper and Zopa are the antithesis of the highly impersonal, securitized industry that's facing so many problems right now. From the outset, these P2P lending sites have emphasized diversification, manageable risks and direct relationships between lenders and and borrowers. Whereas traditional loan brokers are closing their doors left and right, these sites continue to do brisk business. Lenders aren't seeing mass defaults, because the standards have been high since the beginning. Of course, the scale is different. You still can't finance a house through one of these sites, but for other needs, they may work just fine. Between the lack of available credit to consumers and a desire to diversify investments on the part of individuals, this moment in the business cycle offers these sites an excellent chance to really prove their worth. Update: A number of commenters make some interesting points about default rates, suggesting that they may be higher than these sites would have you believe. Also, it's pointed out that there are a number of users playing both sides of the game -- borrowing at one rate only to lend out at a higher rate, which is not so different than traditional financial institutions.

Last November, radio broadcaster Clear Channel announced that it would be taken private by a group of private equity firms for $19 billion. But the deal is just one of many such deals whose status is currently in doubt, as financing and credit have significantly dried up of late. As part of the preconditions for the sale, Clear Channel agreed to dump nearly 400 local stations across the country. Now, however, that's proving to be a significant snag, as buyers of the stations are now going back on their agreements (via Deal Journal), due to the same financing issues affecting everyone else. Assuming that agreements can't be worked out, the company may be forced to slash the prices on these stations or risk imperiling its own plan to go private.