10 ms·
Official spokesman: "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization" Wow.
by MicahWedemeyer 17y ago
Official spokesman: "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization"
Wow.
- kristiandupont 17y agoAnd now, that's way more official than he would have liked.
- TrevorJ 17y agoJust the kind of people I want to involve in the most financially weighty purchases of my life (I a home). Yeah, thanks but no thanks. I'd avoid these people like the plague.
- mrduncan 17y agoMichael added that the company has a "good reputation it wants to preserve." - Not for long if you are making statements like that. It's tough to imagine how they could have handled it in a worse way.
- swombat 17y agoMaybe if they kicked off with something more meaty, like "We like to sacrifice newborn babies." But then I guess no one would have believed them. No, I guess you're right, that statement was pretty much perfect.
- donw 17y ago"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of company. Unless there are babies that we can roast on spikes, in which case, the order is: Sheish-kababy, sue, ask questions."
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- edw519 17y ago"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization" Believe it or not, it is a business model. I know quite a few slimeballs that will sue anyone big with money because they know that they often prefer to settle just to get rid of them. (I call them slimeballs because it's the only way they know how to make money. They sometimes run for years with negative margins, but those settlements keep them alive.)
- cyunker 17y agoIf I remember correctly, according to the book Inside Intel (Tim Jackson), the lawyers in Intel's legal dept were reviewed by how many lawsuits they initiated per quarter. Not necessarily by how many they won, but how many they initiated. The goal, of course, to slow down any potential competitors.
- jonknee 17y agoAnd yet this was the reverse--someone big with money suing someone small without it.
- adharmad 17y agoIn this case, it is hard to think of it as a business model. They are blowing money on lawyers, getting bad press and suing someone who may not have 50K to pay back (if they win the case in courts). How do they justify spending so much money?
- 17y ago
- jonknee 17y agoThat may go down as one of the worst public statements made by a company. Certainly a "teachable moment" for the PR books.
- dbz 17y agoWell to be honest, I think it was just said at the wrong time. I could picture apple doing the same thing and everyone saying "I saw that one coming". The thing is that the company is making a bid deal over nothing, it's kind of like a fly bumping into me and I declare war on the species by launching flaming balls of deet into the public. -> Basically it's a huge overkill. It seems like the company is making the mistake of applying the perfectly acceptable business model to something that would not damage the company. Like in my ridiculous example, the fly bumping into me does not harm me, but my "counter-attack" is just ridiculous for the situation.
- jonknee 17y agoIf Apple announced it was a "sue first" company after filing against someone who complained about one of their products there would be even more outrage. Smart companies don't sue their frustrated customers, they improve their products.
- dbz 17y agoWell, I was talking about a more large scale situation, not a "tweeter" who has 22 followers. I was also referring to an insult to the company, slander, not just to one of their products. I simply don't see a company like Apply handling the "lies" by doing nothing. However, I could be wrong, It's quite possible that Apple would just wink at the person and walk away.
- jonknee 17y agoNot commenting is Apple's standard operating procedure. They got the lawyers after ThinkSecret, but that was to close a trade secrets hole. Much different than a random internet rant.
- vegashacker 17y agoWhen I read that quote, I was like, "Okay, okay. This is some kind of joke." Check the date. Nope, not April 1st. Check the URL. Not the Onion. Really? A spokesperson said that??
- nostrademons 17y agoI think it's really funny when combined with the next sentence: 'Michael added that the company has a “good reputation it wants to preserve.”' Not anymore!
- jseifer 17y agoThe article commentary on that is priceless also: "Horizon may be breaking new ground in public relations with its response."
- donw 17y agoWell, they're certainly digging themselves deep enough to need a backhoe.
- jacquesm 17y agoThe Streisand effect has not been published broadly enough it seems. If you are that nervous about the rest of the world thinking you are renting out mouldy appartments I'm sure being seen as litigious bastards is only a minor inconvenience.
- krobertson 17y agoPerhaps they can break new legal ground and sue themselves. Their actions have done far more damage than a single post on Twitter.
- igorhvr 17y agoIt would not be new legal ground. Here is a company that did just that: (suing themselves) http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/al-lewis-wells-fargo-bank-sues/ http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/al-lewis-wells-farg...
- rglovejoy 17y agoDid he ever work at SCO?
- dtf 17y agoAccording to their hastily uploaded press release, the comment was "tongue in cheek": http://www.horizonrealtygroup.com/UserFiles/file/PressRelease.pdf http://www.horizonrealtygroup.com/UserFiles/file/PressReleas... Not the kind of thing to make light of when you're the bad guy!
- noonespecial 17y agoThat's not even the best part. They immediately followed it with: Michael added that the company has a “good reputation it wants to preserve.” Reputation -> FAIL
- joe_the_user 17y agoLOL, "I would first like to take this opportunity to apologize for tongue in check comments that were made previously made regarding our approach to litigations" http://www.horizonrealtygroup.com/UserFiles/file/PressRelease.pdf http://www.horizonrealtygroup.com/UserFiles/file/PressReleas...
- tjogin 17y agoYeah, how's that working out for them?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]