This does make it quite confusing.

I hope they correct themselves or at least clarify that what they wrote is true or not.

Journalists add those things all the time since in plain text it might read like something different to what was implied and cause missunderstandings. Like in this thread for example. So just stop it! You know you're wrong.

that doesn't make any sense.  They are both proper, it just changes the meaning of the sentence.  I think he was calling people newbs based on their ignoring the paranthesis around the word would.

ANYWAY!.. if you feel so strongly to prove that PS3 is infact losing money on every console shiped, you'll just have to get another source of confirmation since this obviously isnt enough, so there's no point in arguing proper english.

Actually, both are correct, depending on their position in the sentence.

"If this were to happen, I would lose money"

"Every time this happens, I lose money"

mmmk class lets dicuss past and present tense

uhhhh....'

"I lose money"or "I'm losing money"?

I've just spent the last few minutes searching around on the 'net for more info about how journalists use parantheses and brackets in quotations, and found one journalist's blog that was particularly interesting, where he cautioned against excess use of parantheses in quotations partly for the very reason we see here. Reading that made me realize that the Reuters reporter could have achieved his/her same intent without confusion by writing something like this: "Asked about the logic of not cutting prices, Stringer said he would "lose money on every PlayStation I make", adding "how's that for logic".

Wrong, it makes perfect sense for Stringer to answer the question that way: The reporter asked him what the logic was for not cutting the price, and Stringer said the logic was that they are already losing money on each PS3 sold.  Obviously if they are losing money on each unit sold now, they would lose even more money if they dropped the price. Stringer doesn't need to say that because it's obvious, hence "how's that for logic."

*calls all of your teachers to see what the hell kind of grammar lessons you've been given* :p