Posted 04/26/2008 at 10:46:29pm

Sorry, can't let that one go without comment. [H]ardOCP were sued for dishonest reporting and accepting bribes? They were forced to print a retraction? And yet, the only evidence you've provided of this is a context-free quotation from a forum post, that's clearly been made by someone with a chip on their shoulder? Fine, I'll accept what you say about [H]ardOCP, if you can point me towards any evidence: the retraction you mentioned, for example. Said retraction must still be available to view; after all, the internet preserves such things like flies in amber. Here, I'll start the ball rolling. Wikipedia's article on Phantom Entertainment, formerly Infinium Labs, giving a summary of the [H]ardOCP suit along with other controversies, including irregularities reported by the SEC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Entertainment Summary of the court's September 2004 ruling, including demands that Infinium Labs produce supporting documentation: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122123&cid=10273115 Copy of the order under which Infinium Labs admitted they had neither been libelled nor suffered violation of copyright: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTEwNDg3NjUxMEVmbXUwTVdKRHZfMV8xX2wuZ2lm The original [H]ardOCP article which prompted Infinium Labs to launch their lawsuit: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTEyLDE= And, on a subject that's unrelated but clearly close to your heart, a joint nVidia/Futuremark statement regarding the 2003 3DMark mini-scandal referenced in the forum post you quoted: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/03/futuremark_nvidia_didnt_cheat/ Your turn.