That's an interesting take, because it's not "going after Krebs", it's setting the stage to recover from damages from an employee who manipulated and bullied th

That's an interesting take, because it's not "going after Krebs", it's setting the stage to recover from damages from an employee who manipulated and bullied their way into access and power by taking advantage of the trust of Ubiquiti's current and potential customers in Krebs. They're not suing to censor a researcher or to create a chilling effect on reporting about security or their company. They have to sue to show the court, their customers, and their investors exactly how Sharp manipulated public opinion to damage the company so he could "save it", how Sharp used Krebs' authority as a security reporter to damage the reputation and trust in their brand to apply that pressure and force leadership to act in the way he wanted, and to be able to claim appropriate damages by rightfully discrediting a false and inaccurate report. Krebs either has to weaken his own brand and admit he was played or stick to his guns that he faithfully reported. Either way, this lawsuit ensures he's got to correct the report.