And we were always told in the US that we spent too much time worrying about which politician was having affairs, while in France, it was pretty much expected that politicians had mistresses. Yet, apparently, Nicolas Sarkozy is so upset about online rumors, repeated on blogs and on Twitter, that both he and his wife have had affairs, that a criminal investigation has been kicked off. Under what law? Apparently the claim is that this would be a "fraudulent introduction of data into a computer system." That seems like a stretch. These are just internet rumors. Most people let them go. At the very least, I could see a libel claim -- but a criminal investigation for "fraudulent introduction of data into a computer system" just seems like massive abuse of power and overkill.

Way back when Friendster was the super hot social networking startup with an unworkable business model, there was suddenly a rush of rumors that the company was going to start charging for use. Even though the company never suggested plans to charge, there was an outcry among users -- and I remember getting messages from people threatening to boycott Friendster if it ever did charge. In fact, many people started suggesting alternatives... with MySpace being a key one. It wasn't long after this episode that many people really did start migrating over to MySpace. Later on there were reports that the "rumors" about Friendster charging were actually started (and then spread) by MySpace employees. And it worked.

It looks like someone may be trying to pull the same trick with Facebook. Apparently a bunch of rumors have been spreading about Facebook planning to charge, resulting in huge protest groups in Facebook, and the company needing to make a public denial of any plans to charge. In Facebook's case, this is even more believable because the company claims that it's already profitable from existing ad sales. And, knowing how Facebook operates, I can't see anyone there seriously considering charging for use. They know the idea is preposterous and would destroy the site.

So the only thing I'm wondering is who kicked off these rumors? Is it another social network? Is it MySpace again trying to regain relevance? Or was it really just another malware scam to get people to click on unsafe links, that then resulted in a misguided panic?

Earlier this year, we were quite troubled by news reports out of South Korea, concerning a (formerly) anonymous blogger who had been arrested for his financial commentary online that had been so good that it moved markets. He was charged with "spreading false rumors," when in reality the problem was that the info he was spreading was pretty accurate, and that was the problem. But, the good news is that he's now been acquitted, as the court noted that there was no evidence that the guy intended to spread false information, and that he appears to have believed the content he was writing. Of course, the case may not be over yet, as many expect the government to appeal.

If you've been on a college campus in the past couple of years, you're almost certainly aware of the site JuicyCampus -- which was a very open set of forums that encouraged people to gossip about others on campus. As you can imagine, things sometimes got pretty heated, and there were regular discussions in the legal community about the liability that JuicyCampus must face. It was definitely pushing the boundaries of safe harbor provisions concerning the separation of a site and what its users did on the site. However, it looks like we won't get a big test case involving JuicyCampus any time soon, as the site has abruptly shut down, citing the current economic climate. The site's founder claims that the cost of running the servers greatly outweighed any incoming advertising revenue, though plenty of people are guessing that pending lawsuits may have been a much bigger issue in the decision making process. Either way, given the popularity of the site, others will quickly fill the void, and perhaps we'll have new test cases in the near future.

Tiernan Ray, over at Tech Trade Daily, has an amusing post up explaining the rather circuitous route of a particular Apple rumor found on various Apple rumor sites. Basically, one Apple rumors site claimed a new research report was coming out detailing potential upgrades to various Apple products. But, the problem was that there was no such new report. The research firm in question had actually released a report over a week earlier. And then things got even more mixed up:

Macrumors, in mentioning the phantom report from *today*, cites a PC World article from yesterday, that erroneously references the August 6 note as being analyst comment *today*, meaning, Monday, the date of the PC World article. Even more hilarious, in the Macrumors post, the author says that the phantom report from today about updates to the Mac laptops and iPods is “consistent with whispers we’ve heard.” And he cites … ta da! A post from AppleInsider last week commenting on the original August six note. Oy vey.

So, basically a report from last week is used to confirm a non-existent report from this week, which is actually... the original report from the week before.

Well, well, well. So, apparently, the earlier news about Yahoo using Google ads was just the appetizer to the more meaty story, which is apparently... well... that just about all the big name internet players are going to do a bit of horse trading to figure out who owns who in the end. There seems to be a lot of speculating in the WSJ article, but apparently step one is that Yahoo and AOL might merge their internet properties (something that's been rumored before). That pairing would likely lead to Google taking over the ads (it already handles the ads for AOL and owns a stake of AOL). At the same time, the article reports that News Corp., once rumored to be a suitor of Yahoo until it vehemently denied the story, may actually be teaming up with Microsoft to make a joint bid for Yahoo. Who else did we leave out? Nobody?

Anyway, I stand my by original assessment of a potential AOL-Yahoo merger ("like trying to keep a wild animal from eating you by covering yourself with feces"), but honestly, this gathering of the big players should actually be seen as a huge opportunity for everyone else. Basically, the big boys are about to make a big mess, and there will be tremendous opportunities that spill out while they try to figure out what went wrong. People are just starting to realize that you don't innovate by building up huge mega-corporations -- you do it by being small and nimble. These megamergers are going in the wrong direction and will open up huge opportunities for small, quick firms that think big.

For a few years now, there's been a legal battle going on between Apple and Think Secret, a very popular Apple rumors site for publishing certain rumors. The lawsuit had many people up in arms, as they pointed out that Think Secret should be protected in the same way a newspaper is protected (and noting that Apple would never sue the WSJ the way it sued Think Secret). It made sense to go after whoever leaked the info to ThinkSecret, but going after the publication was ridiculous. While the case has dragged on, unfortunately, Apple won some of the legal battles. Now, as sent in by Jon, comes the news that Apple and Think Secret have "settled," but that settlement means that Think Secret needs to cease publishing entirely. The guy behind Think Secret notes that he never gave up the source, and calls this settlement amicable -- but it sets a horrible precedent for plenty of sites, and may create quite the chilling effect on reporters and bloggers alike. It's really a shame that Apple even decided to pursue this vendetta, and the fact that it ends with Think Secret being shut down completely is a travesty.

Over the past few years, we've noticed a pretty consistent pattern among startups trying to create huge valuations for themselves in a short period of time. While other companies have done it in the past, the latest cycle really kicked off with Skype confusing people into thinking it was worth billions. Despite having relatively low revenues, there suddenly leaked rumors that Skype was for sale. Skype denied it, and then had one of its investors say the company was worth well over a billion. Then the feeding frenzy began, until eBay came out the winner -- a move it later regretted. Facebook was the next to follow the Skype Hype Strategy, but may have been a bit too early to the game. It took an extra year, but the company may have outdone Skype in its $15 billion valuation (though, unlike Skype, Facebook hasn't turned that into real cash yet). In between, YouTube used a nearly identical strategy to pump up its valuation.

Here's what you do: get a little buzz. Leak a report to the press about a buyout offer. Deny the reports of the buyout offer and then have either an exec or an investor make an offhanded remark about how the company is actually worth billions, allow the feeding frenzy to begin and eventually pick an exit opportunity. It also doesn't hurt to have some sort of PayPal connection (which both Facebook and YouTube had). The latest to test out this strategy may be LinkedIn, which also has the PayPal connection. Last week the rumor broke that News Corp was trying to buy LinkedIn. The company's CEO quickly denied the report and said that the company would need to sell for "a lot more" than a billion dollars. Now, the latest reports are that News Corp isn't buying LinkedIn, but just like those other stories, the stage has now been set. Suddenly others may start thinking that perhaps LinkedIn is a good buy for over a billion dollars, and the feeding frenzy begins again. Anyone want to take guesses on the next startup to play this game?

Last month, when Sprint's investors pressured former CEO Gary Forsee to resign, Derek Kerton's post here on Techdirt made some compelling points:

"The disconnect is that investors in Sprint are risk-averse, Blue-chip, dividend seekers. They invested in Sprint when it was a utility company. But Sprint's 'gambit' into WiMAX has taken them way out of the 'utility company' comfort zone -- and the reaction of the investors is as expected. With Xohm, Sprint's risk profile is looking more and more like a big tech firm, say Yahoo or Apple. Today's Sprint needs risk-seeking investors, not fixed-income seekers."

Could a big risk-seeking investor -- who surely sees an opportunity in "big tech" rather than as a "utility" play be coming along? That, at least, is the premise of a blog post from Rich Tehrani kicking off speculation that Google is sniffing around to buy Sprint -- a rumor perhaps accurately called "hare-brained" by Eric Savitz.

While I tend to lean towards Savitz's view of the likelihood of such a deal, there are some nuggets in there that could make this slightly more interesting. Obviously, Google has a tremendous interest in the mobile space these days, believing it's a key part of its continued growth. The company has made plenty of noise about its supposed intention to bid for the 700 MHz spectrum that's coming up for auction. On top of that, it's increasingly looking like Sprint's WiMax plans are in trouble. However, Sprint still controls a huge chunk of 2.5 GHz spectrum that is quite valuable (whether its used for WiMax or some other wireless broadband technology). It's not entirely ridiculous to think that Google has at least kicked the tires on a plan that would involve getting access to that spectrum. It seems like a stretch that Google would want to burden itself with all the additional legacy issues associated with Sprint, but that chunk of spectrum sure must look tempting to a company with billions of dollars on hand, just waiting to be spent.