In Reply to: Re: True, but... posted by Wendell Narrod on March 5, 2007 at 11:24:46:
> everything you say is true. But the person filing the lawsuit needs
> money to do that. In my experience, most reviewers don't have that
> kind of scratch. I would think that a lawsuit with no chance of
> prevailing would be unlikely.
Having been sued a number of times, Wendell, I regret that you are
too innocent. The plaintiff's suit may be without merit, but there
are plenty of lawayers who will file the suit and front the upfront
costs, taking a hefty percentage of any settlement in return. Their
goal is not to _win_ a frivolous lawsuit for their client. Instead,
they gamble that faced with the choice between spending a large 6-
figure sum on a successful defense against the suit or a small
5-figure sum on a with-prejudice settlement, many defendants will
choose the latter as being the better of two bad things.
> My real point is that it serves no purpose to talk of an unnamed
> person from an unnamed magazine stealing or otherwise acting
> unethically. It spreads the suspicion too broadly.
I don't disagree. But I did think it necessary, given the wide
circulation being given this matter, to point out that it did _not_
involve Stereophile or a Stereophile writer.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: True, but... - John Atkinson 03/5/0711:36:16 03/5/07 (3)
- \\\given the wide circulation being given this matter///......... - three_sox 17:03:15 03/5/07 (2)
- Re: \\\given the wide circulation being given this matter///......... - John Atkinson 03:52:16 03/6/07 (1)
- Re: \\\given the wide circulation being given this matter///......... - three_sox 04:06:47 03/6/07 (0)