3 ms·

Careful taking lawsuit claims seriously. Especially then the claim drops from doing X to "attempting X" by paragraph 2 and by paragraph 6 is just being "willing

Careful taking lawsuit claims seriously. Especially then the claim drops from doing X to "attempting X" by paragraph 2 and by paragraph 6 is just being "willing" to attempt X.

resoluteteeth 5y ago
The actual complaint is linked in the article if you don't like Are Technica's writing.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I'm just saying, title doesn't match content doesn't match actual complaint...
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    It might be better if you contact Ars Technica's editors instead of sound off about it on HN.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      You think they're more likely to listen given I've already been flagged by HN circle jerk?
    - gruez 5y ago
      What type of response is this? "if there are any inaccuracies send them to the editor rather than make a comment"? Adding a comment to inform other readers seems like the correct thing to do and happens fairly often on other comment sections.
elliekelly 5y ago
All of the phrasing you take issue with is directly from the linked complaint. The complaint flatly alleges Google “bought off Samsung” (as quoted in the headline) and that Google was both willing to attempt to buy off Samsung and did indeed attempt to do so. They are the logical order of events, no? I can’t have bought someone off without first having attempted to buy them off and before that having been willing to buy them off.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  The point I think OP was making is that you can say anything with a reasonable evidentiary basis in a complaint. (And some lawyers don't bother with the evidentiary basis part—see the post-election lawsuits that are being sanctioned for just that.) It's not about whether the language is in the article or the legal document; the legal document itself is merely a lawyer saying something that is in their client's interest.

3 ms·

Careful taking lawsuit claims seriously. Especially then the claim drops from doing X to "attempting X" by paragraph 2 and by paragraph 6 is just being "willing

by LatteLazy 5y ago

Careful taking lawsuit claims seriously. Especially then the claim drops from doing X to "attempting X" by paragraph 2 and by paragraph 6 is just being "willing" to attempt X.

resoluteteeth 5y ago
The actual complaint is linked in the article if you don't like Are Technica's writing.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I'm just saying, title doesn't match content doesn't match actual complaint...
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    It might be better if you contact Ars Technica's editors instead of sound off about it on HN.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      You think they're more likely to listen given I've already been flagged by HN circle jerk?
    - gruez 5y ago
      What type of response is this? "if there are any inaccuracies send them to the editor rather than make a comment"? Adding a comment to inform other readers seems like the correct thing to do and happens fairly often on other comment sections.
elliekelly 5y ago
All of the phrasing you take issue with is directly from the linked complaint. The complaint flatly alleges Google “bought off Samsung” (as quoted in the headline) and that Google was both willing to attempt to buy off Samsung and did indeed attempt to do so. They are the logical order of events, no? I can’t have bought someone off without first having attempted to buy them off and before that having been willing to buy them off.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  The point I think OP was making is that you can say anything with a reasonable evidentiary basis in a complaint. (And some lawyers don't bother with the evidentiary basis part—see the post-election lawsuits that are being sanctioned for just that.) It's not about whether the language is in the article or the legal document; the legal document itself is merely a lawyer saying something that is in their client's interest.