Legal fund for Reviewers/Erin?

[amirm]

My surgery doctor doesn't ask me to tip him $100 into his insurance fund in case something goes wrong with my knee surgery so he's safe...

Not to dispute other bits in your post but my builder/GC charged me a percentage for liability insurance in every bill. He sold it to me as if anyone gets hurt on the job site, his insurance would cover that and not me.

There are also tons of Gofundme out there set up as defense pots. I have contributed to some.

That said, yes, I signed up for legal insurance on my own without even telling anyone. Unlike your low cost coverage, which likely only gives you access to a lawyer, mine has actual liability coverage costing nearly $400 a month! It is by far the largest expense the forum has.

 

[im_gumby]

His product may be real, but it is also real bad.

A charlatan falsely claims special expertise or attributes for commercial purposes.

Well I didn't say anything about the products. Its not like he's selling his speakers as a cure for cancer, baldness, and ED.

All I said was that your comment was a tad harsh.

Maybe I'm mellowing out in my old age, but trotting out the lawyers that's a Dick move.
Also very dumb on his part. Leave it at that. The rest is implied.

I mean maybe he truly believes that his speakers are all that. Maybe he also has a pair of 100K MIT cables connecting them to his amp.
I don't know. And I really don't care.

The point is that you kinda went too far... now did you actually buy a pair and are now too embarrassed to admit it?
I'm married and frankly anything that doesn't have WAF is too expensive. I can't afford paying for two divorce attorneys and lose 1/2 of everything as well as our dog.

So no, I'd never own any of his kit.

 

[im_gumby]

Not to dispute other bits in your post but my builder/GC charged me a percentage for liability insurance in every bill. He sold it to me as if anyone gets hurt on the job site, his insurance would cover that and not me.

There are also tons of Gofundme out there set up as defense pots. I have contributed to some.

That said, yes, I signed up for legal insurance on my own without even telling anyone. Unlike your low cost coverage, which likely only gives you access to a lawyer, mine has actual liability coverage costing nearly $400 a month! It is by far the largest expense the forum has.

Uhm the Hyatt Legal service? Its a MetLife product. (Or it used to be.) Not really legal insurance.

As to your GC charging you for a percentage of his liability insurance... kinda interesting.
For me, some of my clients demand 2M for liability insurance. Its kinda silly since I travel to their sites to sit at a desk and do my work. At most I could be liable if they accidentally tripped over my EDC work bag. So its ~$500 a year. I would assume the GC's SIC code would mean he would have to pay more for liability insurance.
Since its the contractors who employee the trade, they'd have the workers comp insurance among other things.

As to your $400 a month insurance... yikes!

 

[pablolie]

Not to dispute other bits in your post but my builder/GC charged me a percentage for liability insurance in every bill. He sold it to me as if anyone gets hurt on the job site, his insurance would cover that and not me.

There are also tons of Gofundme out there set up as defense pots. I have contributed to some.

That said, yes, I signed up for legal insurance on my own without even telling anyone. Unlike your low cost coverage, which likely only gives you access to a lawyer, mine has actual liability coverage costing nearly $400 a month! It is by far the largest expense the forum has.

Because... *you* are a pro in every way.

 

[BDWoody]

.Even VCs with billion dollar funds packed with top MBAs can suck at "discovery".

The more they suck at it, the more it will cost them, and the less likely they are to expose themselves to the discovery process.

For me and my company, when someone brings up lawyers or lawsuits, communication between them and anyone but my attorneys stops. I'll make them spend their money, not just threaten to take mine.

The following letter from BJC to Monster is one way to respond when someone tries to be that special kind of bully. Makes for a fun read (read the whole letter from the link):

"Once I have received the above materials and explanations from you, I will undertake to analyze this information and let you know whether we are willing to accede to any of the demands made in your letter. "
https://www.audioholics.com/news/blue-jeans-strikes-back#:~:text=Once I have received the above materials and explanations from you, I will undertake to analyze this information and let you know whether we are willing to accede to any of the demands made in your letter.

 

[pablolie]

The more they suck at it, the more it will cost them, and the less likely they are to expose themselves to the discovery process.

For me and my company, when someone brings up lawyers or lawsuits, communication between them and anyone but my attorneys stops. I'll make them spend their money, not just threaten to take mine.

The following letter from BJC to Monster is one way to respond when someone tries to be that special kind of bully. Makes for a fun read (read the whole letter from the link)

"Once I have received the above materials and explanations from you, I will undertake to analyze this information and let you know whether we are willing to accede to any of the demands made in your letter. "
https://www.audioholics.com/news/blue-jeans-strikes-back#:~:text=Once I have received the above materials and explanations from you, I will undertake to analyze this information and let you know whether we are willing to accede to any of the demands made in your letter.

That's the perfect reponse. It shows you are confident, willing to defend your point, yet also open to dialogue. They'll proceed more cautiously then. My experience is the same.

If you run and cry for help right away, your trigger a predator instinct on the other side by showcasing lack of confidence in whatever you published. As a supposed professional you better be prepared for such situations.

 

[Emlin]

That's the perfect reponse. It shows you are confident, willing to defend your point, yet also open to dialogue. They'll proceed more cautiously then. My experience is the same.

If you run and cry for help right away, your trigger a predator instinct on the other side by showcasing lack of confidence in whatever you published. As a supposed professional you better be prepared for such situations.

Or you are maybe a bit naive when it comes to dealing with sharks, and just want to publish honest reviews and sleep easy.

And I think you should be able to be that way without threats to your wellbeing and livelihood from said sharks.

Honest reviews should stand, and there should be no right of action against them.

 

[im_gumby]

That's the perfect reponse. It shows you are confident, willing to defend your point, yet also open to dialogue. They'll proceed more cautiously then. My experience is the same.

If you run and cry for help right away, your trigger a predator instinct on the other side by showcasing lack of confidence in whatever you published. As a supposed professional you better be prepared for such situations.

Uhm what do you mean cry and run for help?

@BDWoody is correct in that the minute they say lawyer/lawsuit etc ... you shut up and get a lawyer to protect you.
I'm going to assume that the BJC letter to Monster was written by a lawyer or w a lawyer's input.

Going public is a good strategy too, at least in some circumstances, although it too could backfire.

In the case of Erin, or Cameron (Golden Sound) ... going public for them was a good strategy.

 

[pablolie]

Or you are maybe a bit naive when it comes to dealing with sharks, and just want to publish honest reviews and sleep easy.

And I think you should be able to be that way without threats to your wellbeing and livelihood from said sharks.

I have zero naivety, that's why I wrote what I wrote.

And to protect yourself from said sharks credibly making you feel they threat your wellbeing and livelihood... you better educate and prepare yourself, and not come begging for help after the fact. The latter is amateur hour, and if that's what you are, don't wade into the deep waters.

No one's ever said this is a safe world for big time experimentation in public, or did I miss that memo? I am not saying it is fair, but it is downright insultingly ignorant to think you can publish anything you want involving third parties.

 

[pablolie]

...
In the case of .., or .. ... going public for them was a good strategy.

So you say. I will never ever read or follow them again. They acted like amateurs, and that's my firm opinion I am entitled to. I don't dispute they are educated, but they proved most certainly unready for the deep waters they decided to dip their toes in. Note that I will not perpetuate this with names or attributions. But if you can't stand behind your work by yourself, no one else should be bothered to check it.

 

[Emlin]

I have zero naivety, that's why I wrote what I wrote.

And to protect yourself from said sharks credibly making you feel they threat your wellbeing and livelihood... you better aducate and prepare yourself, and not come begging for help after the fact. The latter is amateur hour, and if that's what you are, don't wade into the deep waters.

No one's ever said this is a safe world for big time experimentation in public, or did I miss that memo? I am not saying it is fair, but it is ignorant to feel you can publish anything you want involving third parties.

I was referring to a person in that situation, not to you..

But, referring to you, you just seem to act like the big guy while the freedom to publish honest reviews is at stake. I don't think you see the bigger picture, just how macho you are personally.

 

[BDWoody]

I'm going to assume that the BJC letter to Monster was written by a lawyer or w a lawyer's input.

He happened to be a lawyer himself, which he mentions in the letter. It isn't a typical lawyer letter. It's clearly personal, but very professional.

 

[pablolie]

I was referring to a person in that situation, not to you..

But, referring to you, you just seem to act like the big guy while the freedom to publish honest reviews is at stake. I don't think you see the bigger picture, just how macho you are personally.

Now this is getting ad hominen on your side for no real reason.

I have just presented a voice of reason perspective on what the legal aspects of publishing any competitive technical review is like (and every tecnical review is). I have also very clearly voiced my utter despise of the litigatious nature that the US has harbored.

All I am saying is don't pretend to be a pro in any field if you're utterly and naively unprepared for legal liability, and whether you think it's fair doesn't matter a d*mn.

There's zero macho stuff in avoiding fights, especially the ones you're unprepared for.

I have posted scathingly negative reviews on Amazon. No one's ever threatened to sue me, oddly. In fact, the outcomes tended to be positive, trying to settle things. It's all about how you present yourself, where you publish, etc etc. If my review had been an article in the New York Times about sous vide systems, I am sure things would have gone down differently.

And sorry if you think this means I oppose freedom of press etc, that's never been my point nor is it at contention here.

 

[Sal1950]

Some members here - @im_gumby and myself included - aren't particularly enamored of calling people thieves and frauds unless there's some clear evidence of that.

Sometimes you just have to call a spade, a spade.

For those not understanding of the phrase,
"The phrase "call a spade a spade" originates from a classical Greek saying, "call a fig a fig and a trough a trough," which was translated into Latin by Erasmus of Rotterdam, replacing the original imagery with "spade," essentially meaning to speak frankly and directly about something, without sugarcoating it; "spade" here refers to the gardening tool, not the playing card suit.

A writing style I've oft been accused of. LOL

It's difficult to prove a charlatan false when many people buy/believe their stuff, though. And it's become very mainstream.

And they refuse to submit to scientific controls.

People have sued over far more frivolous, stupid stuff.

I didn't know McDonald's coffee was hot.

 

[im_gumby]

He happened to be a lawyer himself, which he mentions in the letter. It isn't a typical lawyer letter. It's clearly personal, but very professional.

Yeah I saw that lower on...after I posted. Yeah very professional but still lawyerly.
He knew IP law. (Trademarks and Patents)

I mean in one of my past lives I've had to write emails to in house counsel detailing the facts of a situation knowing that it would be retained if things progressed towards a lawsuit. Definitely not a 'tech bro' email.

@pablolie ,
I don't know that I would say that either Erin or Cameron were acting like amateurs.
They are not lawyers, nor business executives. They are what they are. Passionate people who publicly review products.
When they were confronted, they went to the court of public opinion where they presented their case. They reviewed the complaint in detail and refuted the allegations by presenting factual evidence to back up their claims.

They were being professional.
In these cases going public was a professional decision.
Its a calculated risk.

 

[ahofer]

Well I didn't say anything about the products.

Well, you did, it’s right there in what I quoted. You said they were “real”, which seems true, although I’m happy to say I’ve never owned one. But we’ve only established that they exist from that, not anything about the maker’s expertise or the quality of the product - which is clearly called into question by measurements and follow-up freely available on this site.

We shall agree to disagree. I generally *don’t* like calling names, but I make an exception for people who conduct themselves like Eric Alexander. An unwillingness to allow proper scrutiny of his product and frivolous lawsuit threats are an indication of warped business ethics and lack of underlying substance IMO.

The magic word is "discovery."

Indeed it is. This is one of the reasons his original threat was moronic and self-destructive, and why any more such threats would be doubling down. And comedy gold.

BTW, ‘damages’ is another important word. As is “reasonable”.

 

[rdenney]

...he has no intent to commit fraud or deceive his buyers about what they're getting....

In legal terms, there is a difference between motive and intent. We cannot know motives, but, legally, intent can be determined by the actions a person takes that clearly have only one likely outcome. And the actions taken here were to attempt to legally intimidate an independent reviewer (whose intent is clearly not to defame the product being reviewed--facts are never defamatory--and who never said anything negative about the company or its principal) into avoiding and removing any statements (of fact) which could be interpreted negatively about the product. He repeated this threat a number of times and in a number of venues, including this one, so there should not be any doubt about that, or about his intent. That's true no matter what his true motives, which we cannot know.

Without the difference between motive and intent, we justify shrugging off all manner of bad behavior for which the perpetrator should be accountable.

Does that make Eric Alexander a charlatan? He has behaved like one, so at the very least we can describe his behavior that way.

Rick "patentable features demand loyalty from the patent holder even if the patent's claims of efficacy measure as being false" Denney

 

[SIY]

BTW, ‘damages’ is another important word. As is “reasonable”.

Yes, the American Rule admits exceptions for frivolous and bad faith litigation.

 

[rdenney]

But not credible. He's got to pay a lawyer and court fees, then will be subject to discovery and risks of SLAPP and countersuits. If he were that stupid, his lawyer would explain this to him. He's likely not that stupid, just stupid enough to try that useless bullying tactic.

Remember that with litigation, often the process is the penalty. Proving SLAPP and filing countersuits costs even more money than the simple defense, and it depends on an imperfect system to mete out justice, which makes it a risky strategy.

Rick "Amir is not intimidated because he has resources in reserve" Denney

 

[teched58]

FYI, recently a member offered a Tekton speaker for review (one with multiple tweeters from what I recall). I agreed to test it but then something happened and the offer went away. I remain open and ready to test more Tekton products.

As far as effect on my reviews, there has been none. Nor have I seen membership being more cautious. I can't speak for other reviewers as I don't follow them closely.

I would add to this that we can't know how many people are pulling their punches -- either not posting something on a forum or not writing a review that they might've gone ahead with prior to this -- because they figure it's not worth it. I know I certainly post less than I used to.

Maybe some of it is for the good; i.e., people thinking twice before posting a meaningless, negative comment. But I have to think that we're also missing out on some interesting and vigorous discussions. So in some sense Eric did win a little bit of space around his measurement-free moat.