Yes, Gartner Is Free To Pick Which Companies Fit In Its Magic Quadrant

from the and-which-don't dept

Whatever you might think of Gartner's research and its silly "magic quadrant" system, I don't think anyone could reasonably question that it was just Gartner's opinion. Yet, a few months ago, we wrote about a company, ZL, that was so upset that Gartner put it in its niche quadrant, rather than the desired "magic quadrant," that it sued. We didn't expect the lawsuit to get very far (similar lawsuits over how Google ranks companies have been tossed pretty quickly). And, indeed, a judge appears to have found little worthwhile in ZL's lawsuit, quickly dismissing all of the arguments, and noting that Gartner is free to have its own damn opinion, no matter how much others (or the subjects of that opinion) might disagree:

"Finally, ZL argues that Gartner's representation that it provides 'highly discerning research that is objective, defensible, and credible to help [customers] do their job better' implies that its Reports contain objective assertions of fact. Gartner notes that this language appears not in the MQ Report but on its website and that the language describes Gartner's research services generally rather than the MQ Report in particular.... More to the point, the terms 'objective, defensible, and credible' do not imply the assertion of factual information. Gartner argues convincingly that even if its self-description did refer to the statements within the MQ Report, its 'sophisticated readers' -- corporate and government executives and professionals -- would not infer that Gartner's rankings were anything other than opinion."

Still, the judge gave ZL an opportunity to amend the complaint, and the statement from the company indicates that it's planning to try to come up with some other ridiculous argument against Gartner. Maybe it should just focus on satisfying what its customers want, and stop worrying about what some analyst at Gartner has to say.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tech Company Sues Gartner Because It Doesn't Like How Gartner Placed It In Its Magic Quadrant

from the hello-first-amendment dept

While I'm no fan of Gartner, and tend to think its analysis is pretty weak in many cases, a recent lawsuit filed by ZL Technologies, because ZL doesn't like how Gartner ranked it in Gartner's famous "magic quadrant" analysis, is pretty silly, and hopefully will get thrown out quickly. Gartner has every right to rank companies as it sees fit -- just as courts have noted that Google has every right to rank websites as it sees fit. Even if there are questions about the integrity of Gartner's rankings, I don't see how that's a legal issue at all. All it might do is call into question the value of relying on Gartner's ranking system. But that's a business issue, not a legal one. The court will hopefully toss this lawsuit out quickly on First Amendment grounds, and let Gartner go on pushing out magic quadrants, no matter how flawed they might be.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Don't Speak Your Mind In British Columbia -- Even At Home

from the travesty-of-justice dept

Just a warning if you live in British Columbia: you might not want to express your opinion out loud, ever. Even if you're at home. Jon R writes in with a somewhat horrifying story of a man in British Columbia who has been found guilty of defamation for a private conversation he was goaded into, at home, which was secretly recorded. Defamation laws (for libel and slander) were designed to stop the public presentment of false information, traditionally through some sort of media property. It certainly was never intended to be used for the random comments made privately at home.

In this case, a developer was annoyed that residents in one of the developments where he owned the water and sewage rights were complaining about the way he operated. So, he hired a private detective to pretend to be a potential homebuyer in the neighborhood. The detective knocked on the door of Jack and Judy Aasen and asked about the neighborhood. They, being friendly people, invited him in and had a nice discussion with him, pointing out that they liked the neighborhood very much, and the "only problem" was dealing with the guy who owned the utility, Brad Chapman, who was about to tear up their yard and cut back on their sewage service. The Aasens were upset that they had no choice to switch to another provider and that they had no say in stopping their lawn from being torn up. Jack jokingly referred to Chapman as "a prick" and said he "kind of makes the suggestion that he's got the mayor in his pocket." During this conversation with a guy they thought was just a friendly potential new neighbor, the detective was actually recording the whole thing.

Aasen and three others got charged with defamation for this, and the amazing thing is that the court agreed -- specifically on the comment about the mayor being in his pocket. Even that seems pretty questionable, though, since Aasen never said the mayor was actually in the guy's pocket, only that Chapman himself "kind of makes the suggestion" of that. To then charge the guy with defamation for that statement seems like a huge stretch. But, much more troublesome is this idea that you could go into someone's home, misrepresenting yourself, secretly record the conversation while coaxing the people you're talking to to say something negative about someone else... and get them found guilty of defamation for it.

83 Comments | Leave a Comment..

People Want Analysis Of The News, Rather Than Just Facts

from the probably-maybe dept

Last summer, Carlo wrote up a fantastic analysis of what's wrong with journalism, which highlights the false focus on objectivity. The point he makes is that there's nothing wrong with reporting the facts, but people get value from the interpretation, analysis and insight that people provide around the facts. That's what we've always tried to do around here at Techdirt. I, personally, chuckle whenever anyone complains about "bias" or a lack of objectivity here. We've never claimed to be reporters or journalists. We've never claimed to be objective. From the very beginning of this site's existence (I know, since I was there), it has always been about giving our opinion and analysis of the news. If we don't have an opinion on something, we probably are a lot less interested in writing about it. And, despite the anger by a small subset at our "non-journalism," we've found that most of our readers read us because they value that opinion and analysis. In fact, in the coming months, expect to see us dive even further into insight and analysis.

That's why it's interesting to see reporters coming to terms with new studies suggesting that opinions are exactly what younger people are looking for in their news. The editorial worries that this inevitably results in the lowest common denominator of angry commentators like those you see on the various cable news channels, but that need not be the case. The thing is, people don't value opinions for the sake of opinions -- they value opinions based on facts (which is often missing from cable news). That is, just because people want opinions, it doesn't mean that the facts go out the window. They want to know the facts, and then they want to see the interpretation of it. They mostly understand opinion for what it is, knowing that the analysis is based on the facts, and that leads to other interpretations and analysis.

In fact, despite the claims of an internet "echo chamber," one of the things that makes the internet such an interesting medium, is the idea that anyone can respond and discuss stuff. If someone disagrees with our interpretation of the facts, we want to know about it, and we want to discuss it. That's how we all learn and we all become smarter. So those in the news business shouldn't fret the value that people put on opinions these days. Those opinions still need a factual basis, and the ensuing discussion often highlights more important finer points that are missed if you're just staring at the objective facts all day. But that's only going to happen if traditional news organizations recognize the value of opinions -- and the ability for people to talkback and discuss those opinions (and the facts they're based on).

So far, though, that doesn't appear to be happening. Tim Lee points us to an LA Times editorial that gets plenty of facts wrong while trashing bloggers as being only interested in opinion. Yes, certainly, there are some folks out there who are only in it to make a point or be heard. But it's the combination of facts and opinion and analysis that has the chance to make these discussions that much more meaningful. It doesn't mean that you do one side without the other. It means, both are needed together.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..