Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple

Fake Steve Jobs Says 'Leave the Real One Alone' 166

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the vacation-sounds-nice dept.
Stoobalou writes "Dan Lyons, who has been lampooning Apple's Steve Jobs for many years, has posted his last item as Fake Steve Jobs and signed off. Lyons, who has been impersonating the messianic Apple supremo in the notorious tech blog since 2006 and even managed to maintain his anonymity for quite some time, despite being a well-known tech hack, has parked his vitriolic pen for the last time." Most people expect FSJ to return if RSJ does.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fake Steve Jobs Says 'Leave the Real One Alone'

Comments Filter:
  • by Nialin (570647) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @11:02AM (#34916662)
    "Leave Stevie alone!"
    *applies extra eyeliner, sobbing*
  • by Grapplebeam (1892878) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @11:04AM (#34916684)
    If every Apple press conference thing wasn't really just about him in the end. He wouldn't get up there and tell people what they already know if he didn't want to be in the spotlight.
    • Then you're not the target. Most of the world isn't geeks, so in 1999 when he showcased built-in WiFi in laptops, the audience gasped since they weren't as bleeding-edge as you.

      • by node 3 (115640) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @07:30PM (#34922454)

        In 1999, when he and Phil Schiller announced the iBook with built-in WiFi, the term WiFi hadn't even been invented yet, it was called AirPort by Apple, and 802.11b by everyone else, and Apple products were the first to have it built-in. Apple worked with Lucent in the development of 802.11b.

        (disregard if you were being ironic)

    • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @11:32AM (#34917048) Journal

      In his defense, at least he didn't get all sweaty while clapping on stage for 20 minutes chanting nothing but "Developers".

      Steve Jobs looks pretty good when you compare him to other industry CEOs.

      • by Steauengeglase (512315) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @11:53AM (#34917294)

        Ballmer is a pretty poor example. To his credit, he probably comes across as one of the few people in the tech arena who would be tolerable over a beer, but a less-than-stellar showman who at his best is a parody of himself. He inspires pity more than loathing.

        Now when will we get Fake Larry Ellison? That guy is just a comedy goldmine. The often attributed, arrogance of Jobs, greedy, self-serving, with a sense of self-denial and a twinge of bat-shit insane.

        • by Sulphur (1548251)

          Ballmer is a pretty poor example. To his credit, he probably comes across as one of the few people in the tech arena who would be tolerable over a beer, but a less-than-stellar showman who at his best is a parody of himself. He inspires pity more than loathing.

          Now when will we get Fake Larry Ellison? That guy is just a comedy goldmine. The often attributed, arrogance of Jobs, greedy, self-serving, with a sense of self-denial and a twinge of bat-shit insane.

          Bat-shit insane doesn't come in twinge; ultrasonic shriek perhaps.

          • I like to imagine that he walks around his Japanese mansion dressed as a Batman villain, muttering the true, secret name of his estate; the one that only he can know, the special name, while reading and re-reading The Catcher in the Rye. Every other name is for the fakers, the phonies.

        • Fake Steve Jobs did a few entries as Fake Larry Ellison. I think they're a pretty accurate impression of Larry.

        • by Darinbob (1142669)
          Doesn't Ellison have a green goblin costume at home?
      • Or compare him to OPK.

        Steve Jobs: "Android isn't best for the customer."

        OPK: "Android is like peeing in your pants."

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @01:49PM (#34918818)
      Every press conference? I suppose you don't attend the earnings reports. He has participated in a few but most of the time it's Tim Cook, COO and Peter Oppenheimer, CFO that run them. Steve Jobs does lead the more public events like WWDC and very public announcements when they launch a new product. It's a double edge gripe: If he doesn't lead these things, people will complain how he's not involved and should do more for Apple. If he does lead them, people like you complain about it. You can't have it both ways.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Sorry, I have a problem who like to ape someone and then suddenly determine when enough is enough and act like they should have last say about who does what. You can't poke an animal with a stick and demand that others leave it alone when you've decided that enough is enough. The real world doesn't work that way.

    While his blogging may have been mostly harmless it doesn't give him a free pass to crap on others for doing the same thing.
    • Poke an animal with a stick while it is alive is one thing (even if I don't quite like this analogy). Keep poking and annoying it while it is dying is cruel, and at best in very poor taste.
      • by Galestar (1473827)
        I think the animal would happen to care a lot more while its alive rather than while its dead. Which one is the cruel one again?
        • I didn't know dying and dead were the same thing? Who has comprehension problems?
          • "I didn't know dying and dead were the same thing?"

            Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.

      • by DrXym (126579)
        Bad analogy. Steve Jobs is as rich as Croesus and a narcissist to boot. He's not some poor little animal getting poked with a stick. While I feel sorry for someone with an illness and wouldn't mock them for that I don't see why I should like the fucker, the monopolistic practices Apple engages in, or care if his ickle wickle feelings are hurt.
  • by bazmail (764941) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @11:05AM (#34916716)
    I thought that Fake Steve blog shut down 2 years ago. It was funny for a while but got stale real fast when he was unmasked and the whole book thing.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TaoPhoenix (980487)

      I can't imagine how it lasted more than a week without RSJ's quiet approval. Either it somehow suited Apple's master plan, or just amused RSJ.

      If it didn't pass muster, about 4 hours into it the mag would have gotten a call. "Hi. This is Su Emharder from Apple Legal. We're Apple. We don't do fakes. Neither do you. You have twelve minutes to post a retraction on your site."

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Parody is protected. There is nothing RSJ could do about it.

      • That's now how I envision Apple's legal dept. at all. For me, both Apple and Sony have a few ED-209s calling people on the phone. "You are in violation of our intellectual property. Please cease and desist. You have fifteen seconds to comply. I am authorized to use legal procedures."

        • There's plenty of people!

          Feature!

          "Choose your own flavor of getting sued!

          You are in violation of Apple rights. Please choose the form of delivery.
          ED-209
          MCP - back in dev, not seen in Tron 2.0
          Christopher Walken
          Jack Nicholson"

      • A one point RSJ said that FSJ was pretty funny.

        • by hedwards (940851)
          Which was a smart move. Whether or not he thought it was funny, it was the smart way of handling it. He's not going to be able to win a lawsuit anyways, may as well take advantage of the opportunity to appear grounded.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by node 3 (115640)

            In other words, Steve Jobs is an evil mastermind and any time he does something non-evil, it's just an evil ploy to appear non-evil...

    • by dbIII (701233)
      I was pretty stale when he used it to push his anti-linux agenda that was his day job for SCO. If it was done in a way that was remotely funny it would be forgivable but instead it was mindless insults and just flinging shovelfuls of shit. That part wasn't remotely close to anything Steve Jobs would do and not written in a way that looked like it was Steve Jobs - just pure Lyons venom. I hope he was well paid for that because otherwise it would be a complete waste of time for all.
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @11:11AM (#34916776)

    Steve Jobs breathed life back into a dying Apple. It was his management that turned the company from a third-rate HW vendor into a juggernaut of ideas, concepts, products, and customer satisfaction. Sculley, Amelio, and the rest never could have done that.

    But if Steve goes, whence Apple? I'm sure he has a large cadre of lieutenants who can make good decisions in his stead, but can they get along? Can they drive the teams and call BS on half-assed engineering like Jobs? Do they have his business acumen?

    The problem of building a company around a single person means that person is the weakest link. When Steve decides to give up the mantle, will Apple be able to adjust to the absence and still succeed in the same ways?

    I doubt it, and that's why I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

    • by dingen (958134) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @11:20AM (#34916910)
      I do think however that Jobs' ideas of what Apple should do to stay in the lead are a lot clearer now than the first time he was in charge.
    • Yes. [nytimes.com] Well, mostly.

      • by mrxak (727974) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @06:49PM (#34922086)

        Personally I think Cook and Schiller will keep the trains running, and Ives will be spokesman (he's got that watchable quality). Forstall will probably also have an increasing public profile, but in terms of products he'll probably remain with iOS stuff. Steve put so many good people in place around him, that Apple in the long run will be just fine no matter what. Obviously a succession plan in a company like Apple will have been in place for a long time, and with Steve Job's health problems in the past, he's definitely had more people in the spotlight with him recently, to get the public used to some of these guys.

    • Cooke (Score:5, Interesting)

      by goombah99 (560566) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @11:31AM (#34917034)

      It's a measurable fact that Apple's market cap grew under Tim Cooke more than under Steve Jobs. One can question if he kept the idea pipeline stocked or was just a steward of an existing process. But the former is fact and the latter is speculation.

      It is likely that Steve has hired people who are great with ideas but not with the type-A self confidence he has. It's a common trait for uber egotists to drive other egotist out of their circle. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. I'm saying it is a common thing. It has been the dominant management style for most of human history.

      Thus the trouble is not replacing steve jobs but imagining who in his inner circle is capable of stepping up to be him. THat person may in fact not be in his inner circle. But maybe they alos don't need to replace him with someone just like him. they need a new leader with a new style. THey just might not find it right away till steve is truly gone.

      • by initdeep (1073290)

        yeah, i bet it was real hard to keep that train going for less than a year.......

        come back when he's had to do it for 3 or 4 years and see where the company is.

        I'm not saying he can't, but I am saying the time he was "the head" was so short as to not be statistically relevant.

        • by node 3 (115640)

          Sure, three or four years is more difficult than just one year, but he did well for the one year, so it's a bit absurd to conclude that he will fail over a longer term.

      • by Xtravar (725372)

        This. I think about this a lot since my company is run similarly. The inner circle are smart, capable, but do not have the same spark. They can emulate the leader, think "what would the leader do?", but do not have the same X-factor that makes the leader successful.

    • by qengho (54305) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @11:35AM (#34917072)

      ... I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

      Um, yeah. Some folks [cnn.com] might beg to differ [cnn.com].

      I view this as a one-day-only 5% discount sale.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by vux984 (928602)

        Um, yeah. Some folks might beg to differ.

        The same folks that were in denial about the housing bubble right up until it burst?

      • "I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise."

        ...so later when its price falls, you can buy it back up and make a profit?

      • ... I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

        I view this as a one-day-only 5% discount sale.

        Ancient wisdom: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent". The price and daily change in AAPL may be utterly irrational, but it's still a courageous bet to trade it either way in quantity.

    • by robmv (855035)

      The problem that I see in the future of Apple without Steve Jobs is that no matter how good his future replacement could be, people will always say that things are not the same, that Jobs times were better, and will be their fault for taking advantage of that cult of personality

      • The problem that I see in the future of Apple without Steve Jobs is that no matter how good his future replacement could be, people will always say that things are not the same, that Jobs times were better, and will be their fault for taking advantage of that cult of personality

        Yeah, like all the whining around here about how things were 'better in the old days". Borland / DEC / Compaq / IBM (well, maybe in the Selectric days). What's the tech equivalent for 'rose colored glasses'?

    • Steve Jobs breathed life back into a dying Apple. It was his management that turned the company from a third-rate HW vendor into a juggernaut of ideas, concepts, products, and customer satisfaction. Sculley, Amelio, and the rest never could have done that.
      But if Steve goes, whence Apple? I'm sure he has a large cadre of lieutenants who can make good decisions in his stead, but can they get along? Can they drive the teams and call BS on half-assed engineering like Jobs? Do they have his business acumen?

      It is not so much the person of Steve Jobs, it is the direction the company is taking. When Sculley threw Steve Jobs out, the company then went _intentionally_ into a different direction than Steve Jobs wanted. That's why he had to go. We also may assume that the Steve Jobs who left back then was less experienced and less good at what he was doing than the Steve Jobs that returned many years later. Amelio on the other hand did an excellent job. He came to an Apple company that was in deep shit and figured o

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I doubt it, and that's why I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

      Has Steve Jobs died?
      Has he even quit Apple?
      Has the years of planning ahead Jobs has done for Apple expired yet?
      Has Apple even done something un-Jobs like yet?
      Has Apple even hinted about a poor choice in their future?
      Has Apple posted anything but stellar results last time you checked?

      Let's go deeper now...

      Do you think the people in Apple have not learned anything last time Jobs quit?
      Do you think Jobs has not selected people who understand his strategy?
      Do you think Jobs single-handedly came up with the market

    • You've been shorting AAPL since it was what, something like $13 bucks a share? You must have a lot of money to waste, shorting AAPL.
      • by hedwards (940851)
        That's why I don't recommend people short. The worst case scenario is a company like APPL which is vastly overpriced, but yet finds a way of growing to fit the market cap. Or where the delusion takes years to bust, in which case you're out a shitload of interest, assuming that the price ever does come down far enough to justify covering on price alone.

        If you really think that the price is going to tank, you're much better off going with options. As much as I despise the way they distort the market, they
        • That's why I don't recommend people short.

          To be more detailed, there is literally no limit to how much you can lose by shorting.

          When you simply buy a stock, the most you can lose is what you paid for it. If the company goes bankrupt, the stock price can't go below $0.00.

          If you short a stock, you're borrowing shares to sell now, betting that the replacements you need to return later will be cheaper, and you get to keep the difference. But, if the price goes up, there's no limit. You still need

          • by StikyPad (445176)

            To be more detailed, there is literally no limit to how much you can lose by shorting.

            Not literally, just theoretically. Buyers literally have a finite supply of money, therefore there must be a limit somewhere, however vaguely defined that limit might be.

            • by Max Hyre (1974) *
              True—there is literally no limit[1] to how much you can be in debt by shorting; you can only lose everything you own, less what the bankruptcy court leaves you.
              —————
              [1] Yeah, there's a limit to the double-precision variable holding the account's value, but let's not go there.
        • The worst case scenario is a company like APPL which is vastly overpriced, but yet finds a way of growing to fit the market cap

          I think I see the problem

    • by nordah (1365739)

      [T]hat's why I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

      How to get rich of Apple and other stocks:

      Step 1. Give dubious investment advice on Slashdot.

      Step 2. Take a market position counter to your own advice.

      Step 3. ??

      Step 4. Profit!!!

    • by Eil (82413) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:38PM (#34917970) Homepage Journal

      Steve Jobs breathed life back into a dying Apple. It was his management that turned the company from a third-rate HW vendor into a juggernaut of ideas, concepts, products, and customer satisfaction. Sculley, Amelio, and the rest never could have done that.

      It's true that Steve turned Apple around when he rejoined. But let's not forget that he was originally ousted from his own company because his impulsive decisions, empty showmanship, and abusive management style threatened to rip Apple apart right when it should have been concentrating on building a long-term strategy. Those other CEOs and executives who ran Apple during Jobs' exile wouldn't have produced the superstar corporation that Apple is today, but at least they knew how to keep the company afloat long enough for Jobs to mature on both a business and behavioral level. (Even if they didn't realize that's what they were doing.)

      • by dbIII (701233)

        But let's not forget that he was originally ousted from his own company because his impulsive decisions

        He was kicked because the original Mac looked a bit too risky instead of just making Apple ][s forever. It's a textbook example of a board not having a clue what sort of company they were running.

    • Apple got rid of the great Steve a long while back. Now all they have is the good Steve. Apple has survived with and without Jobs before, and I am sure they will survive when Jobs is no longer with Apple anymore. Will it be the same company? Not so sure about that, time will tell. I am pretty sure the "Apple Formula"* can be carried on with or without Jobs though.


      *Take existing technology, put it in a very pretty box, market the hell out of it. Repeat.
    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      Frankly, it wasn't hard to outperform someone whose only experience was with selling soft drinks. Who the hell thought that marketing computers was exactly the same as marketing Coke?!? Anybody with experience in consumer electronics and computers should be able to do better than John Sculley.
      • No Coke, Pepsi. Sculley was the President of PepsiCo. He was hired becasue of his marketing experience in the "Great Cola Wars". (His #2 company was trying to go after the #1 company in the field. Sound familiar at all?) And yes - marketing is marketing - the product isn't really that relevant. Knowledge of your own product does not make you a great businessman, knowledge of how the business world works as a whole is what does.
    • Steve Jobs doesn't do everything in Apple. I'm sure he's been an excellent driver but I think they can live without him providing he is replaced with another decent leader and not someone like Ballmer for instance.
    • by dbIII (701233)
      Is it really built around a single person or is that just the public face? I know, it's the USA, land of heroes and all that, but you guys forget he has a huge company behind him. He didn't design the iPod, iMac, iPad etc and may not even have come up with the naming system. IMHO Apple slumped last time because it was being run by a guy with a background in drinks instead of computers and he shut down everything that looked like it might be a risk if he couldn't understand the possibilities. It succeede
    • by node 3 (115640)

      But if Steve goes, whence Apple? I'm sure he has a large cadre of lieutenants who can make good decisions in his stead, but can they get along? Can they drive the teams and call BS on half-assed engineering like Jobs? Do they have his business acumen?

      I dunno. Why not ask 2009 Apple how it did without Steve Jobs? Tim Cook has been doing a great job.

      When Steve decides to give up the mantle, will Apple be able to adjust to the absence and still succeed in the same ways?

      Why not? Apple won't be identical without Jobs, but he righted a wayward ship and has been piloting it for the past decade. Apple will do fine with another competent (even if not as capable as Jobs) pilot. What you're describing is that the only thing keeping the Apple ship on course is Jobs' constant hand on the wheel. I don't think there's any reason to think the ship is going to go astray with a different l

    • by LodCrappo (705968)

      perhaps a small point, but wasn't he fired by Apple's board for sucking the life out of Apple during his first shot at running the place? Expensive failures like the Apple III and Lisa, overspending on advertising for the Mac that didn't generate any sales, etc?

    • by Shadowmist (57488)

      Steve Jobs breathed life back into a dying Apple. It was his management that turned the company from a third-rate HW vendor into a juggernaut of ideas, concepts, products, and customer satisfaction. Sculley, Amelio, and the rest never could have done that.

      But if Steve goes, whence Apple? I'm sure he has a large cadre of lieutenants who can make good decisions in his stead, but can they get along? Can they drive the teams and call BS on half-assed engineering like Jobs? Do they have his business acumen?

      The problem of building a company around a single person means that person is the weakest link. When Steve decides to give up the mantle, will Apple be able to adjust to the absence and still succeed in the same ways?

      I doubt it, and that's why I've shorted Apple stock. Frankly, I suggest you all do likewise.

      I doubt that you've done ANYTHING with Apple stock. Personally Jobs has set up a good cadre of people who've already been running things since he took extended leave last year. I do think that he can't be replaced, but just as Microsoft will survive beyond Gates, Apple has a good shot to continue in a post-Jobs era.

  • This a yawn-story (== ranked a little bit above a non-story)
    • This a yawn-story (== ranked a little bit above a non-story)

      That's what Firehose is for. Once the story escapes, you're supposed to disparage the editor and the submitter. Preferably with pithy grammar related comments.

      Please Read The Manual.

  • I agree that personally people should leave Jobs alone. Large investors in AAPL can make the argument that there is an interest in Jobs health because when you buy AAPL you are buying the leadership and I agree with that completely.
  • I think he's sicker than sick. To bail before the shareholder's meeting --where he has performed both effectively and with great personal gusto--tells me that he is simply unable to do it.

    I am an Apple fanboy of 30+ years duration. I am saddened by this development and applaud Fake Steve Jobs for his tact and judgment in this case. The company itself, however, may well prosper under new leadership as Apple continues to morph into an IBM-style megacorporation focused on efficiency and customer service. The

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The company itself, however, may well prosper under new leadership as Apple continues to morph into an IBM-style megacorporation focused on efficiency and customer service.

      You are aware that the company's secondary image — second only to Steve Jobs himself — revolves entirely around them not being an IBM-style megacorporation, right*? Given that, if you completely remove the image, the flashiness, and the "we're not a heartlessly efficient megacorporation, honest!" corporate persona that was the entire cornerstone of the Mac vs. PC ads (not to mention their current advertising), what you're left with is an overpriced hardware manufacturer with paranoid fears of c

      • by hedwards (940851)
        The Mac vs PC ads were always puzzling. Sure to the people who have already drank of the flavor aid, I'm sure they were compelling. The rest of us wanted to beat the crap out of the Mac and hang out with the PC.
    • IBM customer service? Are you kidding me? I think you must have never dealt with IBM.

      They won't even fart at you unless you have a $50 million support contract with them.

      • I am looking back as far as 1928. In IBM's early days -- which are the best comparison to those of Apple's current comparative youth --customer service was job one.

        And by your own account, it's a huge profit center.

        Yes, in the past five years, esp. since Lenova, there has been a big surge in customer complaints.

        As I said, I've been an Apple booster for years and cut my teeth on the "Apple vs. IBM" wars. I've no reason to praise IBM except for the facts.

    • by goombah99 (560566)

      I felt exactly the opposite. I was ready to dump apple stock till I heard about the shareholder meeting. I think that him not announcing record sales is exactly the time to step out. Apple is going to have a huge profits on the verizon deal. Comdex showed the ipad has another year to advance without any viable competition. In a year, if they play their cards right, the app store may make this thing an unbeatable device like the ipod was once itunes came along. In fact I think apple is going to make so

      • Comdex showed the ipad has another year to advance without any viable competition.

        COMDEX? Now you're just showing your age. :)

    • I think he's sicker than sick. To bail before the shareholder's meeting --where he has performed both effectively and with great personal gusto--tells me that he is simply unable to do it.

      That's one school of thought. The other is, to announce a leave on a non-workday (market closed) JUST before announcing another record quarterly profit was timed very well to ensure that any spike from the bad news will be cancelled out by the good news.

    • applaud Fake Steve Jobs for his tact and judgment in this case

      In this particular case, yes. Unfortunately, his second-to-last blog post compared pictures of Steve Ballmer and Jared Loughner.

    • I agree, he looks terrible. I would not give him more than 2-3 months. Hopefully enough to get his affairs in order.
  • I'm not sure why or how the world still spends time listening to or having to listen to Dick Cheney, but he seems to have heart attack over and over. Whatever they have him on, put Steve on immediately.
    • by chispito (1870390)

      I'm not sure why or how the world still spends time listening to or having to listen to Dick Cheney, but he seems to have heart attack over and over. Whatever they have him on, put Steve on immediately.

      Because pancreatic cancer and a heart attack are basically the same thing.

      • I'm not sure why or how the world still spends time listening to or having to listen to Dick Cheney, but he seems to have heart attack over and over. Whatever they have him on, put Steve on immediately.

        Because pancreatic cancer and a heart attack are basically the same thing.

        Same symptom.

  • Not liking the tone surrounding him right now. Hoping for a full recovery.

  • by WillyWanker (1502057) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:49PM (#34918130)
    Isn't it now illegal for FSJ to exist? Didn't California pass a law making it illegal to impersonate a celebrity?
    • by e4g4 (533831)
      Like many other laws, intent is key. It's clear that Dan Lyons' intent has no malice. He would therefore be in the clear (if he decides to restore his FSJ mantle should RSJ return).
    • by pavon (30274)

      I think the First Amendment trumps whatever stupid law California passed. Parodies have a long history of being protected speech, and no reasonable person would mistake the Fake Steve Jobs blog as the real Steve Jobs, so it doesn't satisfy the precedent for libel.

    • No.

      There needs to be intent to defraud or mislead (of which there is no evidence here), and the law also phrases it as "credibly impersonate" (i.e. that it would fool a reasonable person), which should easily be dismissed in the case of FSJ due to the presence of the word "Fake" in his name.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      Doesn't matter what they passed, it would have to pass the courts, and it wouldn't. Parody is definitely a legitimate 1st amendment right.

      Also, is FSJ even in California?
    • I seriously doubt that there would be any problem with FSJ. The only problem would be if he tried to pass himself off as RSJ.

    • by timeOday (582209)

      Isn't it now illegal for FSJ to exist? Didn't California pass a law making it illegal to impersonate a celebrity?

      According to the juvenile activist slashdot exaggeration of the law, yes. Otherwise, no.

    • I think the word FAKE might have given you a clue.
    • How are you impersonating a celebrity when you're saying you're a fake right in your blog's title?

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...