sbayne402 posts04-16-2021 1:32pmdletch2
- "is it reasonable to contact these people?" or "trying to divert
business your way" is not the legal standard or issue here. This is
about INTENT to interfere with a business relationship/contract. SR has
business relationships/contracts with its dealers and distributors.
I am going to guess you are not a lawyer? |
You are talking about consumer advocacy. I am talking about groups that target one company to influence them to end their business relationship with another company. It happens all the time. We read about it almost daily. In those cases, the loss of business is real and very easily measured, yet legal ramifications are rare.
|
sbayne397 posts04-16-2021 10:09amGene
contacted Synergistic Research’s dealers and distributors making claims
about Ted and his products. Thats when he stepped over the line and is
why he is being sued. It’s called Intentional Interference with a
Business Relationship.
It must be obvious that this is not as simple as stating, "Intentional Interference ....". For one, there likely will be a requirement to prove that the allegations are false. Otherwise every time some group tried to influence customers away from company for their business practices, they would be guilty of this, and sued. You will find it pretty hard to sue for simply communicating true information. So the question would come up, was what was communicated to these companies factual or not. On the other hand, by Ted posting publicly, insinuating that his target was going to illegally use the GoFundMe funds, he would also be open for legal recourse. To me, neither acted very professionally in this matter. |
sbayne400 posts04-16-2021 12:29pmRight,
this is pretty minor as far as the dollar amounts involved. Intentional
interference claims are fairly common amongst larger corporations
wherein hundreds of millions of dollars are at issue.
These are often contractual interference and when really big, end up as anti-trust. Things like coerced exclusivity, interfering in supply chains, etc. Business interference usually comes from a communicated falsehood, i.e. spreading lies about a competitor. The aspect of privilege could come into play. I.e. was it reasonable to contact these people? Typically that is a matter of if you are a competitor, you have leeway to divert business your way, but within limits. We aren't going to solve this here. |
I read one of the AGoners say he "snuck around and swapped this or
swapped that to PROVE" how people were so gullible. THAT NEVER happened,
EVER. NO one would let anyone near their gear for that.. NO ONE, pure
and simple a BIG FAT LIE. BTW that guy quit posting, too. No, but in my limited experience, he did post a video with recordings where he claimed a clear "audible" difference with HFTs and without. Guess where he placed one of the HFTs? Right next to the microphone. Not a foot away, I mean right next to it. Perhaps that was ignorance, but obviously that is going to impact what the microphone records. Someone analyzed it and showed a clear level difference from it. Been to a demo once, and definite coaching on hearing changes, but I won't fault him, as that is common at audio shows, and county fair product sales. |
sbayne400 posts04-16-2021 12:21pmdletch2
- When Gene contacted SR’s dealers and distributors directly that is
when it became actionable. Nothing to do with advertising, being an
"activist" or arguing on chat boards.
Activist groups directly contact companies every single day to influence them away from doing business with other companies. It happens all the time. They don't get sued because they are communicating factual information. |
prof2,732 posts04-15-2021 12:30amIf
you were provided with a full spec sheet of any/all products, would you
be able to translate those specs into something meaningful? Something
you could interpret and explain to someone else that “these should sound
like this because of that..”
If a product is claimed to
have altered an audio signal to an audible degree, there should be
measurable differences in the audio signal with and without the product
in use. It makes sense then to ask a claimant to show measurable
differences in an audio signal, for frequency response, distortion,
whatever, to a degree that suggests it’s audibility. It would be even
better if it was established as audible under blinded conditions.
What you have stated should be evident Prof, but unfortunately, 20 plus years of a misinformation campaign coupled with a target audience without the background for defence, nor willingness has created inertia that is hard to change.
It is easier to make a false claim about one side, i.e. claiming they are using measurements to define preference, or to make a scientifically unfounded claim, i.e. claims about our not fully understanding sound, when we are talking about an electrical signal, whether it will become sound or not.
If you claim a power cable or interconnect reduces the noise floor, that is something easily verified. An accurate conclusion can be drawn on audibility. A similar claim could be made about distortion and speaker cables. If you claim that RF interference generates noise in digital connections, it is really quite easy to both prove this and show how your cable fixes the problem. We are not even talking about whether the effect is audible or not, we are talking proving simple technical claims. I have a very hard time accepting that proving cable maker technical claims will hurt their business. If anything, it should open up new markets. Now imagine if you proved with listening tests that not only can you detect the changes, but they are audible?
I use SR purely as an example here, but don't people find it strange that SR, in all their videos, only has one set of speakers, one set (however complex) of electronics? If cables make a difference, certainly there are aspects of interaction between components that must be taken into account? Even end users accept this. Shouldn't SR have a whole range of speakers and electronics that they need to test with to either tune for that electronics / speaker, or at least to provide the best average improvement? I do find this one of the more telling aspects.
|
sbayne398 posts04-16-2021 12:09pmdletch2
- The whole basis is that Gene's actions were intentionally done to
influence SR's business relationships. It's a different area of the law
from a libel claim.
Which again, is just like every time an activist group contacts companies and tries to get them to pull advertising or otherwise stop their business relationship with another entity. How often do you see those activist groups getting sued? The answer is never, except when they use false claims. Tell me one company that does not attempt to influence their customers relationships with their competitors? Heck, if it was as simple as that, virtual all competitive advertising would be banned. Remember the old Apple/Microsoft ads? However, there is a fine line, and whether it was crossed, would be for the courts. We are not going to resolve that here. Personally, I see actions on both their parts that could get them into legal trouble. That is why it is always best to behave as a professional. |
sbayne401 posts04-16-2021 12:50pmdletch2
- Legally, you are not understanding what has occurred. Trying to
dissuade a CONSUMER from buying a product is much different legally from
contacting a companies’ DEALERS AND DISTRIBUTORS with the INTENT of
inflicting economic damage on that company. A similar claim is
Intentional Interference with a Business Contract. If Gene has competent
legal counsel I'm sure he will find out the difference soon.
No, I am understanding, but you are talking about influencing consumers. That is not what these advocacy groups do. They target major corporations to influence them to end their business relationships with other corporations. I.e. like contacting companies to stop advertising with Fox News for example. As well, he would have to be able to show damages. He has shot himself in the foot on that one, because he has said repeatedly that all the naysayers don't hurt him one bit, and has put that in writing on social media. Going to be hard to walk that back. Ted will also not be able to claim his personal Facebook account is independent of his company because of his position and the clear tying of his personal account to his company. It appears that Ted may have initiated this war as well, which could play into a legal ruling. |
Curious how many newbies this thread is producing I signed up just before all this went down, however, I have had a run in with Theodore before, and so have experienced first hand the attempted twisting of the truth, childish remarks, etc. Gene was not very professional either in this exchange. |
