3 ms·

You don't need to blatantly lie to author a rebuttal that doesn't actual rebut the claims against you. You accuse me of selling pink and purple unicorns to gan

by ABCLAW 8y ago

You don't need to blatantly lie to author a rebuttal that doesn't actual rebut the claims against you. You accuse me of selling pink and purple unicorns to gangsters. I reply that "I have no knowledge of any contracts or agreements relating to the sale of unicorns, horses or horse-related animals from my firm, regardless of the colour, breed or condition of the animals. I categorically also deny having any business dealings with any entity which has been charged on racketeering or any other gang related offenses. The reality being that I 'rent' pink and purple unicorns to Don Corleone for absurd amounts, then don't revendicate when payments stop. My rebuttal looks sweeping. I put in language to make it look like the scope of my denial is wide ranging and complete. In fact, I intentionally disclaim things you didn't claim to make it look like the moat of propriety surrounding me is vast. But it isn't. I did what was claimed. And I didn't lie in my rebuttal.

CamperBob2 8y ago
The problem with your arguments throughout this thread is simple: if a rebuttal is clearly engineered to be deceptive, the courts will not regard it as a valid defense in any subsequent lawsuits from shareholders and customers. That's why rebuttals and denials are normally so vague. Courts have surprisingly little tolerance for companies who think they're being more clever than their customers, their shareholders, or, for that matter, the judge.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  I'd love if that were the reality, but it isn't. A judge will scrutinize a party they believe is acting in bad faith (this is a term of art, but I'm using it in the lay sense here), but you won't show that a party is acting in bad faith because they were linguistically precise during a statement of defense. You'll show they're acting in bad faith if documentary evidence shows they're baddies. The theory behind our court system is one thing. The reality is another.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    "No one from Apple ever reached out to the FBI about anything like this," Apple writes. "We have never heard from the FBI about an investigation of this kind." With language like this, it's the very definition of bad faith if they're lying. These are specific assurances that directly contradict the Bloomberg reporters in specific ways, and the companies know that people are likely to rely on them to their detriment.

by ABCLAW 8y ago

CamperBob2 8y ago

The problem with your arguments throughout this thread is simple: if a rebuttal is clearly engineered to be deceptive, the courts will not regard it as a valid defense in any subsequent lawsuits from shareholders and customers. That's why rebuttals and denials are normally so vague. Courts have surprisingly little tolerance for companies who think they're being more clever than their customers, their shareholders, or, for that matter, the judge.

ABCLAW 8y ago
I'd love if that were the reality, but it isn't. A judge will scrutinize a party they believe is acting in bad faith (this is a term of art, but I'm using it in the lay sense here), but you won't show that a party is acting in bad faith because they were linguistically precise during a statement of defense. You'll show they're acting in bad faith if documentary evidence shows they're baddies. The theory behind our court system is one thing. The reality is another.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  "No one from Apple ever reached out to the FBI about anything like this," Apple writes. "We have never heard from the FBI about an investigation of this kind." With language like this, it's the very definition of bad faith if they're lying. These are specific assurances that directly contradict the Bloomberg reporters in specific ways, and the companies know that people are likely to rely on them to their detriment.