sbayne398 posts04-16-2021 12:09pmdletch2
- The whole basis is that Gene's actions were intentionally done to
influence SR's business relationships. It's a different area of the law
from a libel claim.
Which again, is just like every time an activist group contacts companies and tries to get them to pull advertising or otherwise stop their business relationship with another entity. How often do you see those activist groups getting sued? The answer is never, except when they use false claims. Tell me one company that does not attempt to influence their customers relationships with their competitors? Heck, if it was as simple as that, virtual all competitive advertising would be banned. Remember the old Apple/Microsoft ads? However, there is a fine line, and whether it was crossed, would be for the courts. We are not going to resolve that here. Personally, I see actions on both their parts that could get them into legal trouble. That is why it is always best to behave as a professional. |
dletch2 - When Gene contacted SR’s dealers and distributors directly that is when it became actionable. Nothing to do with advertising, being an "activist" or arguing on chat boards. |
This reminds me of the time Hasbro called out Mattel to measure their toys, except that was big league, this one very minor. |
Right, this is pretty minor as far as the dollar amounts involved. Intentional interference claims are fairly common amongst larger corporations wherein hundreds of millions of dollars are at issue. |
prof2,732 posts04-15-2021 12:30amIf
you were provided with a full spec sheet of any/all products, would you
be able to translate those specs into something meaningful? Something
you could interpret and explain to someone else that “these should sound
like this because of that..”
If a product is claimed to
have altered an audio signal to an audible degree, there should be
measurable differences in the audio signal with and without the product
in use. It makes sense then to ask a claimant to show measurable
differences in an audio signal, for frequency response, distortion,
whatever, to a degree that suggests it’s audibility. It would be even
better if it was established as audible under blinded conditions.
What you have stated should be evident Prof, but unfortunately, 20 plus years of a misinformation campaign coupled with a target audience without the background for defence, nor willingness has created inertia that is hard to change.
It is easier to make a false claim about one side, i.e. claiming they are using measurements to define preference, or to make a scientifically unfounded claim, i.e. claims about our not fully understanding sound, when we are talking about an electrical signal, whether it will become sound or not.
If you claim a power cable or interconnect reduces the noise floor, that is something easily verified. An accurate conclusion can be drawn on audibility. A similar claim could be made about distortion and speaker cables. If you claim that RF interference generates noise in digital connections, it is really quite easy to both prove this and show how your cable fixes the problem. We are not even talking about whether the effect is audible or not, we are talking proving simple technical claims. I have a very hard time accepting that proving cable maker technical claims will hurt their business. If anything, it should open up new markets. Now imagine if you proved with listening tests that not only can you detect the changes, but they are audible?
I use SR purely as an example here, but don't people find it strange that SR, in all their videos, only has one set of speakers, one set (however complex) of electronics? If cables make a difference, certainly there are aspects of interaction between components that must be taken into account? Even end users accept this. Shouldn't SR have a whole range of speakers and electronics that they need to test with to either tune for that electronics / speaker, or at least to provide the best average improvement? I do find this one of the more telling aspects.
|
