It would only work to turn it backwards if you have the oblique angles like the 901.
The details are much more interesting
“After careful consideration of Seligson's testimony and of his demeanor at trial, the Court finds that Seligson's testimony on this point is not credible.”
The problem was that Mr. Seligson was also trying to commercialize his own speaker at the time with its own patent so there was conflict of interest.
The other issue was that in the panel listening, the listeners were asked if the Bose 901 sounded close to their reference direct radiating speaker as opposed to asking which speaker they preferred.
Bose was asking Consumer Reports to clarify/retract Selinger’s statements, the magazine didn’t and they went to court.
Read Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 1249, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
“A portion of the evidence produced at trial concerned the disconnection of one of the drivers in one of CU's Bose 901 loudspeakers. The plaintiff argues that the defendant tampered with the loudspeaker in order to alter subsequent test results. The Court shares the plaintiff's concern that the evidence in this case may have been tampered with at some time. Nevertheless, the Court is satisfied that CU's Bose 901 loudspeakers were in proper working condition at the critical time — when they were tested in 1969 and 1970. The impedance measurements taken in 1969 confirm that all the drivers were functioning at that time. If someone did tamper with the loudspeaker at a subsequent time it would, of course, be reprehensible, but it would not affect the Court's analysis of the evidence.”
Even Selinger when testifying would admit that it didn’t really move around, but in the end, being wrong or mistaken does not necessarily entail actual
malice and it was important to protect First Amendment rights.
This was not actually a unanimous Supreme Court decision. Dissenting were those who thought the facts did suggest malice. Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, and Byron White.
If this had happened today, you probably would have Bose posting something on their website to counter the claims made in Consumer Reports, Internet sleuths would have discovered that the author at Consumer Reports was also trying to commercialize his own speaker. Back then, we didn’t have this kind of discussion forum or avenues for direct to consumer communication.
So, while the right decision was to protect First Amendment rights, it also not as egregious for Bose to have filed the lawsuit since I think today, people would not appreciate a reviewer having such an obvious conflict of interest.
