you are a genius...in retrospect;)

"If Engadget hadn't reported the rumor, one of its many competitors surely would have." And this competitor would have looked foolish. Engadget couldn't allow that to happen. :-) Red flags or not, blogs will publish anything. "If we don't, someone else will" is a weak excuse. (Sorry for the nasty comment, but if I don't make fun of you, someone else will.)

Dont worry about any delays. Start worrying about Apple ability to meet demand if it gets so white hot. Apple hasnt announced any capability production in place . How many iPhones can it expect to produce a year? Does Apple have any contingency plans to increase production in face of higher than expected demand??? It had been alwasy a sore ass mistake that Apple kept on making just to play it safe. Apple think that buyers will wait for it to come up with more in a month or two. Technology is perishable. Make enough and sell em all fast!!! Someone will copy it!!

I am not one who purposely sold on the rumor. However, I did have a stop loss order fill prematurely due to the errant reporting. So, is Engadget or the writer going to reimburse me for the thousands the blunder cost me?

I, for one, hope there is an investigation and that heads roll.

Another red flag is that the memo was sent before business hours. Engadget claims that they tried to get comment but they did not even way until the start of business for a reply. Answer me this: would a mainstream news organisation have at least waited until a non-imaginary opportunity to reply had been extended? I think they would have. After all, it's a very small hurdle (a very small amount of time to wait) and in return -- whether you get an answer or not -- you get a way higher level of confidence that your information is not an immediately deniable hoax.

Engadget dropped the ball, pure and simple, and there's no way of spinning, although Ryan Block is currently rotating at several hundred miles an hour.

Another red flag is that the memo was sent before business hours. Engadget claims that they tried to get comment but they did not even way until the start of business for a reply. Answer me this: would a mainstream news organisation have at least waited until a non-imaginary opportunity to reply had been extended? I think they would have. After all, it's a very small hurdle (a very small amount of time to wait) and in return -- whether you get an answer or not -- you get a way higher level of confidence that your information is not an immediately deniable hoax.

Engadget dropped the ball, pure and simple, and there's no way of spinning, although Ryan Block is currently rotating at several hundred miles an hour.

Engadget took the bait and ran with it - that we all know. And when countered by an official from Apple - they recanted. But to call Engadget burned ignores the wording they presented the false information with. By presenting it as they did "on authority" - it was implicity implied that they had vetted whether or not the e-mail was genuine. And we now know that no such vetting was done - with the exception of the person who sent them the e-mail itself. Ergo - they seemed to have all the journalistic integrity to check a source with the same source. Big boo boo. This is what makes them liable for their actions and a party (unwillingly or not) to the scam. The facts we now know are that the e-mail was not "on authority" in any way. That it was not fact checked to be so and that any reporting as such was not only reckless but also bears a significant responsibility for damages caused. Simply put: placing the words "on authority" in the engadget blog was designed to fan the flames and create an impression to it's readers that they knew to be untrue.

Despite the recovery of the stock price, the damage done is very real to those who had actual and real losses on that day. Despite the recovery of the stock price those who currently hold the stock are now holding one who is even more volatile than before. That makes what is commonly called a "security" inherently less secure. Additionally there are those whom undoubtedly profited from engadget's actions - presumablty including their original source. Any and all of those profits need to be returned to shareholders.

Shame on engadget and shame on defending such reckless endangerment of others investments.