2 ms·
I'm not disputing the trademark issue. I think 37s would have a pretty good case there. But 37s went beyond there to call them extortionists and other implica
by wheels 18y ago
I'm not disputing the trademark issue. I think 37s would have a pretty good case there. But 37s went beyond there to call them extortionists and other implications of illegal activity (not connected to trademark infringement), which is where they crossed the (legal) line.
- Semiapies 18y agoI think that if you carefully re-read Fried's original post, you'll note that he at no point accused them of actually engaging in any other illegal activities. His remarks were carefully worded; I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a lawyer had looked at it at some point. (This is why I've been left wondering at people who saw the post as a tossed-off rant. It was a detailed, edited, and thoughtful complaint.)
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- wheels 18y agoFrom the original, "As if the threatening language and false accusations weren't enough, now there’s extortion too!" How is that not claiming that they're engaging in extortion?
- Semiapies 18y agoThey can reasonably say they were referring to the casual meaning of the term and not accusing the GS guys of showing up at their office and making a coy speech about how "accidents" and "fires" can just happen.
- wheels 18y agoYou mean right after they compared them to a mafioso protection scheme? Amusingly, if you click on the wikipedia link above, and follow the reference to the bit on per se defamation, the example given is claiming that someone extorted money that did not.
- Semiapies 18y agoIf you really believe your assertion that Fried's post was legally defamatory instead of harsh criticism, why not find a lawyer and show him/her the text of that post? GS certainly don't seem to think they would have a case.