Re: ?/?/00 - [KERA] Keravision's quiet John Doe suit (part 2 of 2)
Re: Lawsuits against libelous posters
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/12/00 1:44 pm
Msg: 45519 of 45653
<<ETurkey, you seem to have an agenda with regard to KERA, or else why do you regularly spread FUD on this board? >>
All I'm doing is trying to find out what the lawsuit is about. That hardly constitutes FUD. I would think anyone who was long the stock would want the same thing.
Is the suit about defamation? Intellectual property and trade secrets? Market manipulation?
Don't you want to know?
--ET
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45473 by kerabou
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Lawsuits against libelous posters
by: kerabou 9/12/00 3:05 pm
Msg: 45521 of 45653
ETurkey wrote:
<All I'm doing is trying to find out what the lawsuit is about. That hardly constitutes FUD.>
I'd like to know, too. But what constitutes FUD is when you insist that bringing the suits is wasting KERA's cash. Or when you suggest there's something suspicious about KERA pursuing the suits quietly.
You don't know any more about the situation than the rest of us, yet you put a negative, sinister spin on every comment you post here. Perfectly within your rights, but that's what prompted my question about your agenda. Unanswered question.
I see no reason to believe management and their counsel don't know what they're doing. KERA was being libeled by anonymous posters for financial gain. KERA is quietly taking care of the situation.
kerabou
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45519 by ETurkey
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Lawsuits against libelous posters
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/12/00 3:20 pm
Msg: 45524 of 45653
<<But what constitutes FUD is when you insist that bringing the suits is wasting KERA's cash. >>
Insist? I didn't say that. I said I don't know, and won't know, until I see the suit.
<<Or when you suggest there's something suspicious about KERA pursuing the suits quietly.>>
The last time KERA was quiet on my requests was when they wouldn't release procedure numbers. When they finally did, they were dismal. So yeah, when the company won't give out info, I get suspicious. If the case dealt with confidential R&D and had sealed filings, I could understand hesitance in talking, but no one has suggested that.
<<KERA was being libeled by anonymous posters for financial gain.>>
Maybe yes, maybe no. If that is what the case is about, I would like to see what they believe constitutes libel.
There are some companies out there who bring suits not because they were truly libelled, but rather, to chill free speech. You bring suit and the folks shut up, because now they have to pay legal fees, and it doesn't matter if the case is frivolous or not.
And that....is the reason we've been a hard-ass in the case I am defending...for those types of actions constitute a fundamental misuse of the Courts. And that is what has spurred my interest.
--ET
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Is Keravision Hiding Something???
by: radiola16 (52/M/Connecticut) 9/13/00 4:18 pm
Msg: 45613 of 45654
If they are wasting money on a frivolous lawsuit, that would call into question the competence of management. (I have never questioned the competence of management before, only questioned the market acceptability of the product).
I won't know if it is frivolous until I see it...so...if they don't cough up the Complaint, a public document, I will do it on my own.
But certainly, trying to hide the Complaint, as it appears they are trying to do by not making it public to interested individuals, does raise interesting questions.
--ETurkey
Perhaps there is another equally compelling scenario at work here..
Let's assume KVI is concerned that some of the slanderous
posts noted on various Internet stock boards may be the concerted
of employees of a competing technology, or even
doctors with a vested interest in not having Intacs
compete with their laser services.
Since Yahoo! won't release identities without a
court order, it is equally logical Kera has only taken the first
steps needed to identify who is making the posts,
and once that is done make a reasoned decision
whether they have harmed, and whether pursuing
an action for redress would produce some amount
of financial restitution.
Obviously, you must first identify the source of
the problem before determining what course of actions are needed.
Kera is correct in maintaining silence at this point. Indeed, their silence may serve to protect the rights of those idividuals in the end.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45522 by ETurkey
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Is Keravision Hiding Something???
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/14/00 10:24 am
Msg: 45643 of 45654
Radiola postulates that one possibility with the lawsuit is that comments are being made by employees of competitors or by doctors with an interest.
My response:
Surely there are many possibilities, and I can certainly understand suit if someone believes that there are unfair trade practices going on.
As I said, I don't know the details of the suit, and am eager to find out. My concern is, of course, if the suit is targeted merely at naysayers who have exercised their First Amendment rights, and are being silenced by a lawsuit. As a civil libertarian, that would be of concern to me. Depending on the content, it might reflect on management (or might not). But again, we have to wait and see.
Since management and their counsel have both failed to send me a copy of the Complaint, I will simply get it myself.
--ETurkey
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45613 by radiola16
messages.yahoo.com
=====
Is Keravision Hiding Something???
by: ETurkey (M/NYC) 9/12/00 3:09 pm
Msg: 45522 of 45653
Radiola writes:
<<As an attorney, it should be
easy for you to persue this matter and obtain a copy of the complaints through the normal channels.>>
Yep, I might. The attorney told me it was filed in Superior Court in Santa Clara County, so it only takes a few phone calls and a few bucks to get it.
Frankly, I started out on this subject with mere curiosity based on my representation of a cyber-libel defendant and my interest in civil liberties, but the silence from Keravision has now whetted my appetite.
If they are wasting money on a frivolous lawsuit, that would call into question the competence of management. (I have never questioned the competence of management before, only questioned the market acceptability of the product).
I won't know if it is frivolous until I see it...so...if they don't cough up the Complaint, a public document, I will do it on my own.
But certainly, trying to hide the Complaint, as it appears they are trying to do by not making it public to interested individuals, does raise interesting questions.
--ETurkey
Posted as a reply to: Msg 45465 by radiola16
messages.yahoo.com
===== |
