[cynicalreader]

My takeaway from this interesting discussion is a reminder that senior management in public companies cannot say whatever they want. They have an obligation to speak the "truth" to the best of their abilities. It is also a reminder of the value of the public relations departments to help senior management stay on message. When those words can affect the value of a stock, investors have a right to be concerned.

As long as RIM management has followed these simple principles, they don't have to worry about any legal cases against them.

[Blacklatino]

Even if any of the "potential" lawsuits had no merit, the stockholders and the press, not the consumers (us), could make it really rough for RIM prior to the "most important BB launch" in RIM's history. If it happens, the months will seem like years from the potential implosion which will probably include a few current/former employees along with the stockholders. By the time it pans out as bogus, the damage could be done.

[Thunderbuck]

Even if any of the "potential" lawsuits had no merit, the stockholders and the press, not the consumers (us), could make it really rough for RIM prior to the "most important BB launch" in RIM's history. If it happens, the months will seem like years from the potential implosion which will probably include a few current/former employees along with the stockholders. By the time it pans out as bogus, the damage could be done.

I can tell you, as a RIM shareholder, that if I see clear evidence of fraudulent behavior I will be happy to sign on to whichever class action gets certified first.

I will also say, though, that absent such evidence I do my investment no favors by distracting RIM from a crucial launch.

[Blacklatino]

I can tell you, as a RIM shareholder, that if I see clear evidence of fraudulent behavior I will be happy to sign on to whichever class action gets certified first.

I will also say, though, that absent such evidence I do my investment no favors by distracting RIM from a crucial launch.

I agree and let's hope not. Unfortunately, anything is possible. RIM has proven that. Four years ago, I doubt if someone had told the former CEOs that RIMs current condition (poor sales in the US, massive layoffs, closure of manufacturing facilities, etc..) would potentially happen if they didn't think outside the box and change with the times (and competition), they would probably laugh, and continue to dismiss it. So, here we are discussing potential lawsuits and (as stated) taking focus away from what is severely needed, additional PR work to regain credibility with consumers. IMO, recent PR events will be short - lived when the potential release is months away.

[dagerlach]

Wrong - at least in the US. Filing a suit without a clear basis in fact and law for recovery is not only an offense for which one can be disbarred, it is a violation of court rules for which an attorney can be held in contempt, fined civilly or have criminal charges leveled.

I have never understood this lawyer bashing. Remember cases are almost always brought before a jury. Juries are pretty damn good at seeing throught the BS . Yet so many refuse to accept that a jury sitting in court and hearing the actual testimony is in a better position to decide than someone watching the 6pm news. Let alone this is the only profession whereby the state either requires or strongly encourages at least 20 hours of service to the community in the form of Pro-Bono hours each year. Most of the attorneys I work with exceed 100 hours, many 200 hours helping those less fortunate.

Since when has this ever stopped frivolous litigation? While practitioners are disciplined, they are far-and-few between.

[1magine]

Since when has this ever stopped frivolous litigation? While practitioners are disciplined, they are far-and-few between.

First - An absolute minutia of the nearly one million cases filed in American courts each year are frivolous. You would be hard pressed to locate 10 cases in your state this year that were tossed out on the initial pleadings. Most frivolous cases are often in the form of a SLAP suit trying to force a valid Plaintiff to withdraw a case, a harassment suit to persuade a criminal victim from bringing charges, incarcerated individuals with little else to do, and those who are mentally unstable.

Problem is most people hear crazy a-s media snipits that get blown off into a media dialouge without ever knowing the facts of the case.

For instance here is a made up case - company M purchases a lucrative contract to open drvive through restaurants on state highways. Finds that customers (mostly truckers) complain that coffee gets cold too fast. They do some market testing and have their commercial machines set up to heat their coffee far past where any coffee machine available for retail use is allowed to. To protect customers hands, they use heavy styrofoam cups. Success!

Elderly women, drives through, gets black coffee. Woman tries to take lid off. In doing so and without realizing the coffee is now near boiling and overfilled the coffee spills on her. Woops. Elderly women gets 2nd and 3rd degree burns on legs. Requires multiple surgeries and grafts. Elderly women fails to walk again.

So here's the short story, prepared by expensive publicists and pushed on certain media stations that like to talk about such things. "WOMAN FILES MILLION DOLLAR FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT BECAUSE COFFEE IS TOO HOT". Never mind the lack of foresight of M to realize coffee that hot could really hurt someone, especially as the cup was so well insulated. The Jury found the woman to be 20% responsible as well for not taking more precautions. But to this day a case similar to this (my case is not based on any events real or otherwise) is considered an example of a frivolous suit.

Hey ever hear the one about the hot tub companies that were sued for tens of millions becuase their filters were too strong. Research it, and pray you have a strong stoumach.

To be frivolous, a case must not state a combination of facts, that when applied to the law, could, in any reasonable judgment result in a verdict in favor of the filing party.

By their very nature, frivolous lawsuits do not result in judgments in favor of the Plaintiff. Because a jury of your fellow citizens must hear the facts and reach a conclusion. It may be easy to fool one or two people out of 12, but not all 12 (Federal) or 9 or 10 (most states), and then have the trial judge not set the verdict aside. -And then in many states there is a seperate trial for damages - with a seperate jury!

When it comes to IP litigation, my18 years of experience observing the profession is that if there is a suit that is more harrassment based, it is almost always coming from a fortune 500 v. another fortune 500. That said, the most talked about cases as being frivolous come when a tiny firm or individual files against an Apple or RIMM, or Johnson and Johnson. If you again spend some time - perhaps on Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw to review transcripts, you will see more often than not a pattern how innovation is often come by with many companies - and it is often not in their own labs. Which is very different than what PR firms routinely release to the media.

Here's another made up case - McDougals is a very famous American restaurant worldwide. There is a Mr. McDougal living in Scotland, who runs a pub/restaurant called McDougals long before the restaurant opened. The restaurant sues him to force him to change the name of his pub/restaurant. The initial PR - "Man tries to steal McDougal's name and business."

Another - A FL paramedic comes up with an idea for delivering topical medicine by cobining it with an oversized band-aid. Makes a few mock-ups files for a patent, and shops the idea around. ALl the big guys meet with her, but then say no. A year later her product is on store shelves all over the US rebranded, and the companies she visited applied for competing new patents. Product is named innovation of the year. FL -paramedic still pursuing case.

Frivolous law suits? Its an excuse to pass laws that lower punitive damages from companies that use actuarial tables to determine how much losses they can sustain when they miss or ignore engineers that tell them their products can be harmful, or engage in other bad acts. Anyone who truly has faith in their country, must have faith in their citizenry to make decent, well thought out decisions when they sit on juries - otherwise why bother with having any law at all?

[anon5129477]

I would prefer they communicate with some intelligence and honesty as opposed to TOP SECRET silence like HP did to webOS. Saying nothing at all is a lie and misrepresentation too.

[Thunderbuck]

I would prefer they communicate with some intelligence and honesty as opposed to TOP SECRET silence like HP did to webOS. Saying nothing at all is a lie and misrepresentation too.

HP's decision to deep-six WebOS came very VERY quickly (they'd spent a bundle on a high profile ad campaign that continued to run for a couple of days because they couldn't get the ads pulled), so I'm not sure that counts as "top secret".

And RIM has been pretty forthcoming about BB10. What would you like to know that they haven't already disclosed? I'm willing to bet that any answer you could give to that question would be a legitimate trade secret.

[Canuck671]

guess what?

Popeyes chicken is the greatest in the world IMO, but their last sale was sold out before I got there. There was nothing sent to me or the media saying we have sold out, and our daily shipment was delayed. Guess I can sue.

[amazinglygraceless]

guess what?

Popeyes chicken is the greatest in the world IMO, but their last sale was sold out before I got there. There was nothing sent to me or the media saying we have sold out, and our daily shipment was delayed. Guess I can sue.

Guess again. A store running out of inventory / product that can and will be
replaced is an inconvenience and does not even rise to the level of what
is being highlighted in this article.

[avt123]

Guess again. A store running out of inventory / product that can and will be
replaced is an inconvenience and does not even rise to the level of what
is being highlighted in this article.

Haha. Some people...

There is nothing misleading about Popeyes selling out of chicken. The things that are happening are RIM, well...

[jwn66]

Hahahahaha, oh wow

[bungaboy]

Wasn't Tort Reform an issue with the US Government? Too many frivolous law suits?

[amazinglygraceless]

Wasn't Tort Reform an issue with the US Government? Too many frivolous law suits?

Not exactly. Every jurisdiction in the US already has mechanisms in place for
dealing with frivolous litigation.

Tort reform (as I understand it) is more an issue of limiting the award for damages,
that is the amount necessary to restore the injured party to the state they were
in prior to suffering the injury (commonly known as "making a person whole".)

There are a few in this thread that are more legally versed than I that can
flesh this out much better.

[bungaboy]

Not exactly. Every jurisdiction in the US already has mechanisms in place for
dealing with frivolous litigation.

Tort reform (as I understand it) is more an issue of limiting the award for damages,
that is the amount necessary to restore the injured party to the state they were
in prior to suffering the injury (commonly known as "making a person whole".)

There are a few in this thread that are more legally versed than I that can
flesh this out much better.

Ahhh yes . . . . the old spill the hot coffee in your lap as you put on your makeup with one hand, on the cell phone with the other while you drive with your knees type stuff and sue Mickey D's because their coffee is too hot. LoL

[bungaboy]

I knew I heard something about tort reform recently.

In 2010, President Barack Obama gave a speech addressing the issue of tort reform: "(t)he class action system was never intended to be a casino for lawyers to obtain jackpot attorney's fees. The class action system was created with the best of intentions- to protect consumers by allowing individuals with small, similar claims to be joined in one lawsuit. But unfortunately, it has been turned on its head, taking money from those it was meant to protect- consumers and shareholders- and making lawyers filthy rich."

[JasW]

Wasn't Tort Reform an issue with the US Government? Too many frivolous law suits?

Ahhh yes . . . . the old spill the hot coffee in your lap as you put on your makeup with one hand, on the cell phone with the other while you drive with your knees type stuff and sue Mickey D's because their coffee is too hot. LoL

You might want to read 1magine's post above because your post shows how people up and make sh-t up to make an utterly baseless point about the legal system.

I knew I heard something about tort reform recently.

That's class action reform, a whole different animal. Probably more apropos to this thread, though.

[bungaboy]

You might want to read 1magine's post above because your post shows how people up and make sh-t up to make an utterly baseless point about the legal system.



That's class action reform, a whole different animal. Probably more apropos to this thread, though.

Who is making sh-t up?

I am glad you call it a legal system. It is certainly not a justice system.

I am flattered that you quote me 3 times in one post.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2 (I try Android once in a while)

[Branta]

You might want to read 1magine's post above because your post shows how people up and make sh-t up to make an utterly baseless point about the legal system.

It may have more basis in fact than some of the cases made up by the legal profession. There's a reason lawyers (as a class) are viewed with such contempt by the majority of the population.

[JasW]

Who is making sh-t up?

I am glad you call it a legal system. It is certainly not a justice system.

I am flattered that you quote me 3 times in one post.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2 (I try Android once in a while)

It may have more basis in fact than some of the cases made up by the legal profession. There's a reason lawyers (as a class) are viewed with such contempt by the majority of the population.

Maybe it's because both of you are outside of the U.S., but again -- read paragraphs 3-5 of 1magine's post above. You know what case he is talking about? Yup, the McDonald's spilled coffee case. It was not a frivolous suit -- the woman was grievously injured. The gentleman from Nova Scotia then took that very same case and added things that never happened -- i.e., made sh-t up -- to make it seem like it was a frivolous suit, despite 1magine having already indicated that people baselessly cite it as the example of a frivolous lawsuit.

As 1magine also indicated, the number of cases that are "made up by the legal profession" -- I presume you mean genuinely frivolous -- is absolutely miniscule. Actually, most frivolous lawsuits are not even brought by attorneys -- they are brought by crackpot pro se plaintiffs.

[silversun10]

still no lawsuit, this thread was always a total waste, yeah we are going to ask Apple whether RIM should get sued, very smart, not

[amazinglygraceless]

still no lawsuit, this thread was always a total waste, yeah we are going to ask Apple whether RIM should get sued, very smart, not

The article stated COULD not WILL. The ensuing discussion was on the possibility NOT the inevitability of a suit.

Not sure what your Apple point was since Apple was not in any way the focus of this article.

[bungaboy]

still no lawsuit, this thread was always a total waste, yeah we are going to ask Apple whether RIM should get sued, very smart, not

Stock price manipulation.

[TheScionicMan]

Are you saying the window to file a lawsuit has closed? I don't think it has. You may be making premature proclamations...

[silversun10]

Are you saying the window to file a lawsuit has closed? I don't think it has. You may be making premature proclamations...

the ones being premature, are the ones talking about a lawsuit, as it will NEVER happen, not for a run of the mill delay.......