In related news, the resuscitation of this case opens the door to Francis Malofiy's continued pursuit of professional self-immolation. Should be fun to watch!
On the theory that a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, sure, I'll accept the research you cite from the Mercatus thinktank. I even agree with it, and a large part of my living is tied up in dealing with such litigation. But bear in mind the same source you cite also supports a lot of the incumbent-favoring deregulation or skewed regulation that results in things like non-competitive and therefore crappy broadband access, and so forth. Note further that Mercatus is a Koch-brothers funded think tank AT George Mason U., and is not an organ of that public university.
It used to be part of the code of ethics for attorneys that you could not threaten an opposing party with criminal charges to gain an advantage. That general prohibition has been eroded - in particular, where the threatened criminal charge is directly related to the same situation giving rise to the civil claim. If you threaten a business owner with exposure to charges for price fixing in order to get the upper hand in an ADA claim, you're out of bounds; but threatening with law enforcement action related to bias against disabled persons would seem to be technicall acceptable, albeit unsavory in the Steele-Hansmeier implementation.
Actually, you can sue someone for exercising their first amendment rights. The first amendment insulates you - to a degree - from government abridging your free speech rights. While it's a very difficult hurdle to overcome, private persons and entities can and do successfully sue folks for shooting off their mouths. Defamation and libel cases work out for plaintiffs all the time. The real underlying issues will - in general terms, since I haven't researched the law - revolve around (a) whether the restriction on discussing the product or Roca is lawful; (b) if it is, whether Roca can prove pissedcustomer.com and its parent was aware of and sought to interfere with existing contractual relationships between Roca and its suckers, er, customers; (c) if so, whether Roca was damaged by that knowing interference. In my view (a) is a dead bang loser for Roca, but assuming the gag requirement is valid, they have big problems with (b) and (c). Looking forward to Ken White's more penetrating analysis, to be sure.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ian.
In related news, the resuscitation of this case opens the door to Francis Malofiy's continued pursuit of professional self-immolation. Should be fun to watch!
Mercatus, sure, why not
On the theory that a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, sure, I'll accept the research you cite from the Mercatus thinktank. I even agree with it, and a large part of my living is tied up in dealing with such litigation. But bear in mind the same source you cite also supports a lot of the incumbent-favoring deregulation or skewed regulation that results in things like non-competitive and therefore crappy broadband access, and so forth. Note further that Mercatus is a Koch-brothers funded think tank AT George Mason U., and is not an organ of that public university.
Re:
It used to be part of the code of ethics for attorneys that you could not threaten an opposing party with criminal charges to gain an advantage. That general prohibition has been eroded - in particular, where the threatened criminal charge is directly related to the same situation giving rise to the civil claim. If you threaten a business owner with exposure to charges for price fixing in order to get the upper hand in an ADA claim, you're out of bounds; but threatening with law enforcement action related to bias against disabled persons would seem to be technicall acceptable, albeit unsavory in the Steele-Hansmeier implementation.
Re:
Actually, you can sue someone for exercising their first amendment rights. The first amendment insulates you - to a degree - from government abridging your free speech rights. While it's a very difficult hurdle to overcome, private persons and entities can and do successfully sue folks for shooting off their mouths. Defamation and libel cases work out for plaintiffs all the time. The real underlying issues will - in general terms, since I haven't researched the law - revolve around (a) whether the restriction on discussing the product or Roca is lawful; (b) if it is, whether Roca can prove pissedcustomer.com and its parent was aware of and sought to interfere with existing contractual relationships between Roca and its suckers, er, customers; (c) if so, whether Roca was damaged by that knowing interference. In my view (a) is a dead bang loser for Roca, but assuming the gag requirement is valid, they have big problems with (b) and (c). Looking forward to Ken White's more penetrating analysis, to be sure.