Putting a spec sheet back in Pandora's Box

So here's the situation. Review these facts carefully, because there will be an quiz later.

• A picture has been posted on the forums for Chinese website GZ Easy. The picture shows what is allegedly a leaked system specification and schematic diagram for the next Xbox system. The picture bears the name of Michael Dougherty, head of Xbox Advanced Technology Group.



• There is contradictory information about whether or not the picture is real. One anonymous source says, "I'm sure Microsoft is freaking out because this is the same stuff [developers] have now." Another expert, however, says, "there's some really surprising missing detail, like the twin-core architecture and a few other really crucial things... I'd have to guess it was a fake."



• You work at a major video game news site. Microsoft's Legal Department has specifically asked you not to post pictures of the alleged schematic.



• Some of your competitors have already posted the picture on their site, and some other mainstream technology sites have posted it as well.

The big question: Do you abide by Microsoft's request? I'll give you a few line breaks to think about it.



.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.



If you haven't guessed by now, this situation is not hypothetical. It happened recently to IGN, who did not post the picture with their story on the leak. The competitors that posted the picture included GamePro and Xbit Labs. The quotes above come from the IGN article and a GamesIndustry.biz article which also didn't post the picture.



I have to give IGN major kudos for their decision. It would have been pretty easy to ignore Microsoft's request and defend the decision by saying the picture is already available to the public elsewhere and is therefore fair game for further publication. This would also be a practical decision, seeing as IGN might be losing readership to the other sites that either didn't hear or didn't listen to Microsoft's request.



Nonetheless, given that the picture can't be confirmed as authentic and could in fact be protected proprietary information, I think the decision not to republish it is the right one. Just because a document is available elsewhere doesn't mean you have to help publicize it, especially when you're not sure if it's reliable or not. There's nothing you can do to prevent readers from going to less scrupulous sites to view the material, but at least you're not adding to the problem. I applaud IGN for taking the high road on this one.



Anyone think IGN actually made the wrong decision? Feel free to defend your position using the comments link below.