Infinium Labs vs. [H]ardOCP [Feb 19, 2004, 8:25 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Infinium Labs ready
to haul HardOCP into court on GameSpot (thanks Frans) has word that Infinium Labs, creators
of the upcoming Phantom PC game-on-demand console system, is prepared to take
legal action against hardware website
[H]ardOCP unless what Infinium describes as a defamatory article is removed
from the website within the next 10 days:
The potential suit stems from a September 2003 HardOCP article on Infinium and the Phantom, which singled out the company's chairman and CEO, Timothy M. Roberts, for special attention. The article pointed out that several companies on Roberts' resume had gone bankrupt, and it claimed to have firsthand reports that the Infinium offices were a "ghost town" at the time.
In a conference call to analysts and the press, Infinium president and COO Kevin Bachus said the article was "false and defamatory," and it "painted a portrait of a company intent on swindling the public...and that is unacceptable."
#15:
>>"There is no legal "journalistic right to privacy", there are only legal precedents which a judge can either ignore or accept.
If you want to protect your source, you can only plead the 5th and then state your reason for doing so."
Sorry but wrong on both counts.
The protection of the source (thank you, my brain stopped working) clause does not count in a case where libel and slander are proven, correct. However, Infinium first would have to prove without a doubt that the article was done solely with the purpose to libel the people at Infinium. As HardOCP reported on facts as they existed at the time of the article, as well as have refused to comment on the article despite requests BY HARDOCP for corrections so they could supplement their article (according to HardOCP -- see this:http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=9405301 ), Infinium is going to find it near impossible to prove this. And as they will not be able to do so, HardOCP has more than enough legal right behind them to protect their source(s)' confidentiality.
The fifth amendment protects against self-incrmination. Nothing more. This has nothing that would fall under that, because the HardOCP folks have done nothing that would be self-incriminating that would be presented in court. (It's not a murder trial, or anything of that nature.)
>>"There is no legal "journalistic right to privacy", there are only legal precedents which a judge can either ignore or accept.
If you want to protect your source, you can only plead the 5th and then state your reason for doing so."
Sorry but wrong on both counts.
The protection of the source (thank you, my brain stopped working) clause does not count in a case where libel and slander are proven, correct. However, Infinium first would have to prove without a doubt that the article was done solely with the purpose to libel the people at Infinium. As HardOCP reported on facts as they existed at the time of the article, as well as have refused to comment on the article despite requests BY HARDOCP for corrections so they could supplement their article (according to HardOCP -- see this:http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?id=9405301 ), Infinium is going to find it near impossible to prove this. And as they will not be able to do so, HardOCP has more than enough legal right behind them to protect their source(s)' confidentiality.
The fifth amendment protects against self-incrmination. Nothing more. This has nothing that would fall under that, because the HardOCP folks have done nothing that would be self-incriminating that would be presented in court. (It's not a murder trial, or anything of that nature.)
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2024 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2024 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 7 October 2024, 19:26.