10 ms·

I'm no lawyer, but throwing Oracle Employee in there without it having anything to do with them sounds actionable. Even if it isn't, isn't Oracle famously uber

• jahsome 3y ago
  They didn't explicitly or even implicitly state Oracle has any connection to the activity, only that the dude is/was employed by Oracle. That part is presumably true and therefore not actionable. If, however, Oracle could prove the only reason that info was included was out of "malice", they'd have a case but that's typically an extremely high bar to clear.
• eschneider 3y ago
  I think they’d have to show this puts Oracle in a more negative light and that would be hard.
  • ocdtrekkie 3y ago
    Can't go down from where they already are, pretty much.
  • hamburglar 3y ago
    Heck, this might even be an iprovement! Usually the headline is about Oracle doing some terrible cutthroat business maneuver and here we have an oracle employee being helpful! /s
• bastardoperator 3y ago
  The reason this won't happen is because Oracle would get dunked on in court. Also not a lawyer, but I think it would be near impossible to argue that facts are malicious. I agree, it's not entirely relevant to mention it, but we're reading the article and talking about it, so mission accomplished from the publishers perspective I guess.