Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Your Rights Online

Juniper Sues Message Board Posters 257

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the best-way-to-correct-public-opinion dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Juniper is suing up to 10 message board posters on Light Reading's telecom news Web site." From the article: "Only two anonymous message board users are identified in the complaint. One goes by the name "infranet_rulz" and the other by "exJuniper981." Juniper admits in the complaint that it doesn't yet know the names of any of the folks it's suing, but it will update its complaint with the courts as it gets details." LightReading has also provided a link to the court papers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Juniper Sues Message Board Posters More

Juniper Sues Message Board Posters

Comments Filter:

  • Lawsuit Topic (Score:5, Informative)

    by rjstanford ( 69735 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:35PM (#14312315) Homepage Journal
    From TFA:

    These persons, referred to as "Does 1-10" in the court complaint (as in "John Doe," or anonymous), are being accused by Juniper of posting harmful statements about the company and its executives on Light Reading's message boards

    Just so you don't think that they're being sued for, oh, installing mod-chips in their routers or something. Basically they seem to be accused of providing inaccurate information in an attempt to influence the price of the stock (directly or indirectly).
    • Is there a difference in legality from changing the price of a stock directly or indirectly? What about the validity of the comments made about said company? Could you say that a company sucked if they indeed did, even if you stood to profit from that? I'm unfamiliar with how it all works.

      -Jesse
      • IANALSTOAOEKOTS (I Am Not A Lawyer, Stock Trader Or Anyone Else Knowledgable On The Subject), but I would assume it depends. I would assume a comment by a typical Joe Average would fall into the slander vs. first amendment category, even if they planned to buy ten stocks after the price dropped by a tenth of a cent. On the other hand, if this were done for the express purpose and expectation of making Juniper vulnerable to a hostile takeover, then I imagine the courts would treat it very differently. The "w
      • I think you can unless you learned that it sucked from inside information. If you learned about the suckage because you are privy to inside information then no.

  • What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by giorgiofr ( 887762 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:35PM (#14312317)
    These guys are free to sue anybody they want. The posters might need to defend themselves or not. I still don't see how this post is INTERESTING, though.
    We are the first ones to complain that "doing something very normal with a computer suddenly makes it something new and innovating" when it comes to patents; yet we're reporting on a libel case because the sentences that are being discussed were posted on a website instead of anywhere else.
    The of course one might wonder if this is not a ploy to drive visitors to a website, seeing as the original poster is the owner of the forum where the sentences were posted.
    The only interesting point that can be made is: is there still a meaning to a *libel* offense? Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free? Bear in mind, this would apply to anyone and everybody - and that includes you and your company when your ex-girlfriend decides you're a prick and takes her revenge on you. Of course it also includes that company that keeps ripping off his customers shipping defective hard drives and whatnot. Any thoughts?*

    * The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.
    • "Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free?"...
      * The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.

      I think your request won't be honored (this is slashdot, after all), but even less so since objectiveness is lacking in your post as well...

      Not to troll, but asking for the loonies to stay away is like putting out a huge non-zapping bugzapper for them.
    • Limit libel to natural persons.
    • The only interesting point that can be made is: is there still a meaning to a *libel* offense? Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free?

      If this is happening the US, Juniper will lose. Period. End of story. US libel laws are easily one of the weakest you can find in the developed world. In order to get to win a libel case, not only do you have to prove what they said was completely untrue, but you also have to prove that they knew it wasn't true and that they did for malicious int
    • One should certainly be free to say whatever they want; however, they should also realize that they will be held accountable for any harm[1] which that speech brings about. For example, if I started claiming that you were a child rapist, you might end up on the wrong end of an investigation and/or lawsuit. The statement I made was false. And the direct result of that false statement was that you ended up going through a lot of trouble. I have harmed you. I should be responsible for some sort of restitu

  • What sucks is... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Afecks ( 899057 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:38PM (#14312344)
    ...all Juniper has to do is prove that these people actually made these comments. Then the burden of proof is on the posters to prove that their statements are true. So remember kids, if you are going to defame someone, do it anonymously with Tor [eff.org].

    • Re:What sucks is... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by damsa ( 840364 )
      Juniper also has the burden to show that these statements caused harm, and economic damages. At least in my jurisdiction. Also, the defendants would have a defense that their comments were made without negligence. IANAL yadda yadda.
      • Dont'r forget, the Defense also gets to do discovery

        That means they can ask for all kinds of fun documents from Juniper to support their defense.

        • Re:What sucks is... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by damsa ( 840364 )
          Well, the problem is if Juniper was unethical and bribing lawyers, who's to say they would particpate in a fair discovery process. But I am glad at least for now here in America truth is an absolute defense.
    • Wrong, Juniper has to prove the statements are false. The burdern of proof is on them, not on the people they are suing.

      Also, the truth is an absolute defense. Thus, I could call your mother a filthy whore if she doesn't bath and has sex with everyone (not that I'm suggesting that's the case).
      • actually you could call anyone's mother a filthy whore without fear, 'filthy whore' is a profane statement and would not be considered a statement of fact. if you said she was a prostitute without good hygeine you would be in trouble... unless, of course, it was true.

  • Juniper is evil (Score:2, Funny)

    by c0d3r ( 156687 )
    Juniper is evil.. I wrote code for their legal team.. they will work you to the ground...

  • Juniper IS VERY uneithical (Score:5, Funny)

    by realcoolguy425 ( 587426 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:40PM (#14312361)
    This post has been brought to you by 33 different proxy connections, and of course I'm sending this thru someone else's open wifi, while using someone else's computer, while wearing a tinfoil hat. YEP I'm Safe.


    crap i think i logged in by mistake...

    • HAHA you guys are funny modding me +5... now everyone is going to read that post :(

      so someone needs to tell me how to stay out of court... So far i've only come up with one idea...

      sudo apt-get install sun-j2re1.5 :( I hate when i have stuff sitting ready to paste that i don't want to... anyway I can only hope that sudo apt-get install sun-j2re1.5 will save me a legal case.... ok it won't

      So Anyway... my real idea is...

      Nick for Sale

      I'll offer it for free and pay $5 to the winner who must claim they

  • Bees are on the what, now? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Phanatic1a ( 413374 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:42PM (#14312377)
    Is a meaningful summary too much to ask? The links are slashdotted already, so all I see is a summary that carries as much meaning as "Some organization is suing some guys."

    Great, I'll get right on caring about that.

  • Great Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mattwarden ( 699984 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:45PM (#14312401)
    Hey, excellent article summary! I'm glad you included the aliases of two of the people named in the suit. You know what might also be pertinent? WHY THEY ARE BEING SUED.

    • Re:Great Summary (Score:5, Informative)

      by L7_ ( 645377 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:57PM (#14312481)
      Some users posted on the lightreading.com website forums that Juniper's CEO was bribing lawyers to hide firings of 4 top officials in the company (including a senior HR manager). Juniper is now suing the posters of such information.

    • Re:Great Summary (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RPI Geek ( 640282 )
      I agree. While it's not hard to RTFA, it certainly makes the summaries much more readable.

      At the risk of being told to turn in my geek license, I'll also add that it would have been nice to add a 3-word description of what the fsck Juniper is; or maybe even put a hyperlink to their website. Do they do security? Hardware? Data mining? Human trafficking? What?

  • But... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann@slashdot.gmail@com> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:45PM (#14312403) Homepage Journal
    don't anonymous comments are supposed NOT to have any validity? I mean, we have Anonymous Coward, and anything said by an AC is generally classified as "troll" or "flamebait". Why bother to sue them?

    I mean, for crying out loud, it's like if you go to a bar and say something bad about a company, and it turns out the CIA has the bar all wired and the police is out to get you because something you said while you were drunk. That's what anonimity is about.

    If anonimity is broken, then what use is posting as AC?

    Certainly these data retention laws defy free speech in the net.

    • Re:But... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 )
      Wait, are you saying that not everything I read on the internet is true?

    • Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Castar ( 67188 )
      I've been thinking about this a lot lately, as I've been checking out Freenet. Theoretically it would be a great place for people to step forward with information about government conspiracies and so forth, but the problem is that since they're anonymous, they have no credentials. They could be senior government officials letting the truth out, or they could just be internet whackjobs.

      On the other hand, if you go to a reporter Deep Throat-style, you have to worry about the reporter being arrested and reve

  • Double-edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:47PM (#14312413)
    So, if people make anonymous posting praising Juniper as a company, can those same people be sued for artifically inflating the stock price? And why do libel laws apply to corportions and not just human beings, enyway?

  • Depends on if it's true or not (Score:5, Informative)

    by queenb**ch ( 446380 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:48PM (#14312417) Homepage Journal
    For those of you who don't want to chase the link - here's what some of the comments are that have Juniper's undies in a twist -

    The company's complaint cites an April 20 message that stated, "the man at the helm seems to be paying (off) attorneys all over the bay area to cover up the scandal which resulted in the terminations of many at the top including the VP of HR. 1) Board of director 2) CFO 3) GM 4) VP of engineering 5) VP of HR and more."

    Another message cited in the complaint came a day later. According to the complaint, it said the "top management" at Juniper bribes attorneys, and that "the man at the top should join his buddy Bernie [Ebers (sic)]... "

    Another message singled out in the complaint says: "This is a very unethical company."

    Of course, Juniper critics can be found at other Internet message boards that aren't, as yet, mentioned in Juniper's complaint. "Arrogance coupled with timidity is a deadly combination in business. So, in short JNPR's problem is Kriens," said one Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO - message board) message board post taking aim at Juniper's CEO Scott Kriens.

    Frankly, I don't see where any of these are prosecutable. One is allowed to comment on what one sees in the world, IMHO. Surely if you've had to flush your top managment and start over, there is likely some thing to some of these posts. I personally find it interesting that Juniper has chosen to lend credence to these statements by suing. Since they're suing, my assumption is that it's all true. Ooops, better not say that or Juniper will include me too!

    2 cents,

    Queen B
    • The problem is, these aren't being passed off as opinion. You can have your opinion but this:

      the man at the helm seems to be paying (off) attorneys all over the bay area to cover up the scandal which resulted in the terminations of many at the top including the VP of HR. 1) Board of director 2) CFO 3) GM 4) VP of engineering 5) VP of HR and more.

      Comes off as fact not opinion. If you are going to level bribery and corruption charges at a business you better be sure you're telling the truth. A libel suit is e
      • the man at the helm seems to be paying (off) attorneys...

        Seems to be. That describes a perception, which is opinion. In my opinion

        • "Seems to be" is a stronger statement than "it is my opinion that". "Seems to be" would indicate that there is evidence which leads to this conclusion and that it's strong evidence.
          • According to Mirriam-Webster:
            Main Entry: seem
            1 : to appear to the observation or understanding
            2 : to give the impression of being

            So, if something "seems to be" something to me, that would mean that according to what I see/know, it would appear to be that way, or at least gives implication of being so. It *is* stronger than opinion, but can still be based on opinion formed from observation.

            For example, I could say that "The sky seems to be dyed blue.", and would
    • Libe is a civil offense in the USA, and burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Since it's a civil case, there aren't prosecutors involved. Actual malice and some affirmative defenses have the clear and convincing standard in certain jurisdictions.
    • Ooops, better not say that or Juniper will include me too!

      Ah, well as long as you only talk ill of middle management and other lowly types you shouldn't have anything to worry about.
    • Free speech my ass.

      If you knowingly make bogus claims designed to hurt someone else, then you should face the consequences. It's no different from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, phoning in a bomb threat, or falsey accusing someone of being a witch (which is silly today but would of gotten you killed centuries ago).

      Free speech does not mean you're free to be an idiot if it hurts others.
      • You're right.

        However, if you believe there is a fire in said crowded theater, then you have not acted with malicious intent. Likewise, if the information is true, and there is a fire, it doesn't matter if you were trying to spread panic purposefully.

        If the people making those claims about Juniper believe they have creedence, they can even say them to be malicious, because they believe the claims to be true. It would not be considered libel in that case.

        As many other people have posted, it is very difficul

  • Uh oh (Score:3, Funny)

    by GmAz ( 916505 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:50PM (#14312434) Journal
    Hope microsoft doens't read slashdot, they might try to sue each of us individually.

  • Just the beginning. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Today it's juniper..

    Tommorow it's balsam fur. :(

  • The M$ twist (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CDOS_CDOS run ( 669823 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:53PM (#14312450)
    Think of the money M$ could make on /. alone given this precedent!!!

  • Another crummy lawsuit ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the real darkskye ( 723822 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:55PM (#14312466) Homepage
    comming out of Santa Clara, when will the madness end?
  • Online digital rights have always been difficult to inforce. Recently berekely university had a conference on the topic www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/drm/resource s .html to try and help people better understand the stiuation. France is exploring existing technologies on how to ensure digital rights French digital rights verbatum [w3.org] - Hopefully it will help those needing digital rights, but also, what about the little guy who is getting accused of digital rights violations and is doing no such thing exce

  • Defamation and libel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:58PM (#14312484)

    Apparently what they are being sued for isn't important enough to mention in the headline or summary!

    They are being sued for defamation and libel. Apparently the message board posters have been claiming that Juniper have been bribing lawyers and spying on employees.

    The difference between slander and libel is that one is published and the other is conversation, is it not? So which does a message board count as - a publication or a conversation?

  • I fail to see how making a negative or derogatory comment on a message board is any different than the statement made in conversation. If these people are posting, then these thoughts are making themselves heard around the watercooler, in the restaurant at lunch, and at the bar after work. If JNPR knew what was going on, they'd realize that a great deal of internet commentaries are just personal opinion, and frequently not given much credence if at at all. The last time I checked, stating your opinion was

  • good article (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What this really seems to be about is whether Juniper can make Light Reading give up its posters' names.

    TFA says that Light Reading's TOS suggests they will cooperate with criminal investigations, but doesn't say anything about civil proceedings...

  • Are Investors That Capricious? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guuge ( 719028 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @05:22PM (#14312694)
    On the other hand, Mike Lynn, a partner at Lynn Tillotson & Pinker says the threat the companies feel from message board posters is real. "As individuals involved in commercial speech become so powerful that they can move stocks and affect the value of companies, you'll see more of these lawsuits," he says.

    When your investors place more trust in "infranet_rulz" than in you then you've got much bigger problems than some punk bad-mouthing you on the internet.
  • A typical General Sun-Tzu tactic.

    Identify your enemy by any means necessary.

    It'll cost Juniper a chink in their armor, but then they will be better equip and be on better grounds to deal with these 'maurading' posters.

    I just hope it doesn't entail financial ruins to the posters once this occurs (or worst, a bat-carrying thug).

  • Libel (Score:2)

    by Castar ( 67188 )
    I heard that Juniper's CEO was involved in the Kennedy assassination...

  • I'm not sure Juniper will win, but this looks like a clean suit.

    1. Juniper's suing the actual posters, anonymous though they might be at the moment, not the message board they posted on. Juniper might have to subpoena the message board to get identities, but they're targeting the correct targets.
    2. Juniper's identifying specific posts and statements that they claim constitute libel. This isn't some amorphous "they said bad things about us" allegation, it gives the posters clear notice exactly what they're bein

  • don't just speculate on the law (Score:4, Informative)

    by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer@NOsPam.alum.mit.edu> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @06:26PM (#14313145) Homepage

    This has to be one of the least informed Slashdot discussions I've ever seen. With a very few exceptions, people who obviously know nothing about the law are spouting off about what they think it is or would like it to be. Here are a few facts about US libel law.

    First, only statements of FACT are actionable. You can publish all the negative opinions you like and you're okay.

    Second, truth is an absolute defense to libel. This is not true in every country, but it is true in the United States.

    Third, there is a difference between public figures and everybody else. In order to win, a public figure must show that the libel was not only false but malicious, that is, that the libeler knew or ought to have known that the statement was false and nonetheless made it for the purpose of damaging the reputation of the person libelled. The idea is that the freedom of public discourse requires that people be able to make reckless statements about matters of public interest without fear of being sued. On the other hand, if the person libelled is not a public figure, he or she can win without proving malice.

    Fourth, the false factual statement must be one that would cause the average person to feel injured. Thus, for example, if you mistakenly publish that John Smith drank tea, not knowing that he is a Mormon and that for him this is an accusation that he has violated the rules of his religion, you're probably off the hook.

    Fifth, certain types of statements are considered to be intrinsically defamatory. These include allegations of criminal conduct and, interestingly, the allegation that a woman is unchaste.

    Sixth, contrary to one poster's assertion, hedging a statement by saying "I think that X" or even "It is reported that X", does not necessarily get you off the hook. From a purely linguistic point you would think that it would, since you are not asserting the truth of the allegation, but libel law doesn't work that way.

    I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I have studied the law of defamation to some extent. A wee bit of googling would turn up the same information.

  • Heh - those guys have an office downstairs in the building I work in. Guess I better not talk too loudly when I'm walking past....

Slashdot Top Deals

You can not win the game, and you are not allowed to stop playing. -- The Third Law Of Thermodynamics

Close