Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

Posted Dec 23, 2017 20:46 UTC (Sat) by xtifr (guest, #143)
In reply to: Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register) by mageta
Parent article: Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

I think they're obligated to say that while they regroup and ponder. And I'm sure they'll be pouring over all of Bruce's public postings in the hopes of finding *something* which they can paint as being more than just opinion. Which would mean it's technically correct to say it's not the end...of the work the lawyers will be doing.

But if they just come back to court with more of the same, it's going to get a lot harder to pretend it's not a SLAPP suit.

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

Posted Dec 23, 2017 21:21 UTC (Sat) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

Nitpick: details are "pored over", not "poured over".

http://grammarist.com/spelling/pore-over-pour-over/

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

Posted Dec 28, 2017 21:42 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

They don't need just "not opinion". The standard is going to be material fact and has to be convincing enough that a reasonable person would infer it to be the truth and not opinion or hyperbole (which will be hard considering the first sentence had the words "in my opinion" in it). There was no way in hell grsecurity was going to meet the defamation requirement, they were very lucky the judge didn't let the anti-slapp motion execute because then they'd be on the hook for Bruce's legal fee's. I hope Bruce appeals that ruling so he gets the legal fees out of them. I don't think the judge had cause to moot the anti-slap motion while dismissing the suit based on the same criteria. But I'm not the one paying the legal bill, that will be up to Bruce to decide.