First of all, there's a big difference between merely losing a civil case and having been proved to have lied. It just means the jury did not find sufficient ev

First of all, there's a big difference between merely losing a civil case and having been proved to have lied. It just means the jury did not find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. There are a lot of possible reasons for that. If you want to make the case that she was actually lying, you need to point out specific evidence for that. The fact that the firm not only didn't counter-sue, but also offered to settle with her in exchange for dropping her appeal, tells me that the evidence that she lied is not very strong. Everyone agrees that they took a reputation hit over this. If they had clear evidence that she committed perjury, wouldn't they be eager to clear their name exhaustively? But second of all, I don't see nearly the kind of buy-in in Pao's case as in Fowlers. Pao sued. Fowler wrote an extensive indictment of Uber's company culture. IANAL, but it seems from what I've seen that it's hard to sue someone for defamation over a lawsuit. A scathing blog post is another story. In addition, there's inherent ambiguity in merely losing a lawsuit. Fowler's move is far more dangerous to her reputation.