Thin Line Between Critique and Courtrooms: A Dialogue on the Recent Audiophile Drama

There seems to be comity between the parties.

There's back and forth after this pinned posting, so I don't really know where things stand, now. But this seems to be pull-back from litigation.

For more, see this discussion:

Pinned by Youthman

@TektonDesign

6 hours ago

Would the Troubadour review be live today if it didn’t contain any provable mistakes? Yes- absolutely! Here are the facts... I am protecting my brand and I have no problem with a review [good or bad] so long as it doesn’t contain any mistakes. The review contained a couple of measurement mistakes based on a couple of simple oversights. In all fairness to Erin, the Troubadour is a unique loudspeaker that would throw the best acoustical measurement experts a bit of a curve ball - the speaker is even unique to the point of being allowed a US patent. The measurement oversights have been talked about between Erin and I and Erin has agreed to remeasure the speaker. I respectfully asked Erin to pull his review temporarily and we’re working together to ensure the measurements he publishes are accurate. I believe we’ve got everything figured out and expect his review to be published again soon.

SLAPP suits have always been popular with those people/businesses that could not rebut criticism with legitimate claims or evidence.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (also known as SLAPP suits or intimidation lawsuits),^[1] or strategic litigation against public participation,^[2] are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.^[3]

In a typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.^[4] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. SLAPPs bring about freedom of speech concerns due to their chilling effect and are often difficult to filter out and penalize because the plaintiffs attempt to obfuscate their intent to censor, intimidate, or silence their critics.

whats the debate?

reviews take unflattering measurements, and some companies threaten to sue. 

i have no idea if the findings of the reviewer were legit or the complaints (not the threats) of the speaker comapny wre legit. 

i did recently watch a video where gr research danny reviewed and measured a set of magnepan minis WITHOUT THE BASS DRIVER. of course the bass was weak. youre reviewering these speakers without the bass driver. 

 

" I believe we’ve got everything figured out and expect his review to be published again soon."

@tektondesign ,

Will you explain why you didn’t do that in the first place instead of threatening to sue him? Forgot that little tidbit. Now you’re playing the understanding good guy after the "fact". 😂

Looks like nothing more than damage control after your litigation threat bought you a truckload of bad publicity.

"I respectfully asked Erin to pull his review temporarily..."

Yeah, by threatening to sue him. A lot of respect there...