re: Poll: Juniper Lawsuit Still a Bad Move So here's a question for Liam:
If the statements broke confidentiality agreements, which in my opinion is why JNPR is steamed up, and they allege ten times John Doe libel to get discovery to uncover the names of ten LR posters, knowing its not libelous but at least partially factual, so they drop that suit and persue a breach of contract against one or more former insiders, who gets in trouble for abusing the court?
And one for Scott:
And will we get all the juicy insider details JNPR wants hidden?
Of course, this is all simple conjecture and curiosity on my part.
re: Poll: Juniper Lawsuit Still a Bad MoveMaybe the suspect evil doers should have just used some witty cartoons that ripped off the Farside to express their opinions. Surely this would not be liable.
re: Poll: Juniper Lawsuit Still a Bad MoveIt seems that JNPR is going about this all wrong. It should start advertising more on the LR web site, so as to get the LR to give them the names.
Better yet, more JNPR emp[loyees should start posting here, but in a positive way for JNPR.
Imagine the economy of capital.
LR has censored posts in the past... Why is not doing so for JNPR?
re: Poll: Juniper Lawsuit Still a Bad Move"If the statements broke confidentiality agreements, which in my opinion is why JNPR is steamed up, and they allege ten times John Doe libel to get discovery to uncover the names of ten LR posters, knowing its not libelous but at least partially factual, so they drop that suit and persue a breach of contract against one or more former insiders, who gets in trouble for abusing the court?"
As long as there is some basis for the Libel charge, which there can be even if the statements are partially true, then the discovery of the poster's identity is valid and not an abuse of process. If during discovery, the plaintiff uncovers evidence to substantiate another cause of action, and chooses to drop the libel in favor of pursuing the other cause, that would not be normally be considered abusive; as long as the original libel charge had some basis.
re: Poll: Juniper Lawsuit Still a Bad MoveThe cartoon idea is great. A more expedient way is to contact Scott Adams, and get a series of strips on the subject matter.
re: Poll: Juniper Lawsuit Still a Bad MoveThere is some room to argue that the selection of responses in this (or most any) survey was limited, so reading the results is made more difficult.
However, much more important (to me, at least, as a bystander), is the due process involved and the applicability of existing standards. I'm not a lawyer, but let's consider the situation anyway.
Even if these comments (which I think amount to "letters to the editor" in a newspaper, and not "editorial content") were false (and I have no idea if they are or aren't), wouldn't the courts require first that the "harmed" party request a retraction? Wouldn't publishing a comment of their own in the same thread meet the requirement?
It seems to me that Juniper's lawyers are putting a bit too much emphasis on the anonymity of the commenters in this instance, but rather should be focused first on alleviating any supposed wrong by simply getting a correction published in the same "publication".
Even if a newspaper reports incorrectly on a company, the paper publishes a "correction" and the world moves on. How is this really different?
re: Poll: Juniper Lawsuit Still a Bad MoveSpeaking of marketing, I wonder how much Redback had to pay Light Reading to be a sponsor at their conference? It was clearly a good investment, although it is unclear whether Redback will be. Moo-lah-lah.
re: Poll: Juniper Lawsuit Still a Bad MoveSeems to also reek of agenda. Can't wait to see who the posters are. I assume CMP Media figures none of its staff is involved so they allow them to encourage. What If large LR advertisers are among posters.? Well, guess that is not against any law, well, or is it. ?
So here's a question for Liam:
If the statements broke confidentiality agreements, which in my opinion is why JNPR is steamed up, and they allege ten times John Doe libel to get discovery to uncover the names of ten LR posters, knowing its not libelous but at least partially factual, so they drop that suit and persue a breach of contract against one or more former insiders, who gets in trouble for abusing the court?
And one for Scott:
And will we get all the juicy insider details JNPR wants hidden?
Of course, this is all simple conjecture and curiosity on my part.
-Why