Actually, posting rumours and non-credible information and passing it off as factual in a way which is financially damaging, is illegal under most western laws and as such subject to libel and defamation lawsuits. But, that is not what the Inquirer is doing. I don't recall reading a single article (though with so many I could be wrong here) where they did not clearly mark the source and its credibility, and sometimes in the byline as well as in the article itself.
Actually, the article in question which started this thread states (my enhancements):
"A Japanese web site *claims* to have inside information that *indicates* ..."
Which says very clearly that we are not dealing with a hard fact, but with someone who says something that *may* come true.
It is the very nature of rumours and loose bits of information, that they are tentative. Based on budding trends, personal experiences, single incidences. Even personal beliefs. Rumours are not truth, and they do not at all necessarily come true. And noone can write about industry rumours and be right all of the time - or even most of the time. Can you?
And speaking of the relative merits of your site and the Inquirer, I would have to say that as far as I can see the Inquirer scores rather higher on the ethics and morals scale than your site do. At least they do link to your site when they refer to it (as eg. in http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5327
). You don't. When I read a debate on the Net, I far prefer to be able to read both sides of the issue. But you prefer me not to be able to do that (ref. http://www.3dgpu.com/comments.php?id=895&category=1
). Or what?