Hacker News Reader

Comment by avip | Hacker News Reader

They would not have blatantly lied about it in an official statement. That could not have passed legal.

You don't need to blatantly lie to author a rebuttal that doesn't actual rebut the claims against you.

You accuse me of selling pink and purple unicorns to gangsters. I reply that "I have no knowledge of any contracts or agreements relating to the sale of unicorns, horses or horse-related animals from my firm, regardless of the colour, breed or condition of the animals. I categorically also deny having any business dealings with any entity which has been charged on racketeering or any other gang related offenses.

The reality being that I 'rent' pink and purple unicorns to Don Corleone for absurd amounts, then don't revendicate when payments stop.

My rebuttal looks sweeping. I put in language to make it look like the scope of my denial is wide ranging and complete. In fact, I intentionally disclaim things you didn't claim to make it look like the moat of propriety surrounding me is vast.

But it isn't. I did what was claimed. And I didn't lie in my rebuttal.

The problem with your arguments throughout this thread is simple: if a rebuttal is clearly engineered to be deceptive, the courts will not regard it as a valid defense in any subsequent lawsuits from shareholders and customers. That's why rebuttals and denials are normally so vague.

Courts have surprisingly little tolerance for companies who think they're being more clever than their customers, their shareholders, or, for that matter, the judge.

I'd love if that were the reality, but it isn't. A judge will scrutinize a party they believe is acting in bad faith (this is a term of art, but I'm using it in the lay sense here), but you won't show that a party is acting in bad faith because they were linguistically precise during a statement of defense.

You'll show they're acting in bad faith if documentary evidence shows they're baddies.

The theory behind our court system is one thing. The reality is another.

     "No one from Apple ever reached out to the FBI about 
     anything like this," Apple writes. "We have never heard 
     from the FBI about an investigation of this kind."

With language like this, it's the very definition of bad faith if they're lying. These are specific assurances that directly contradict the Bloomberg reporters in specific ways, and the companies know that people are likely to rely on them to their detriment.

Aren't they required to do so in the context of a NSL?

No, they are not required to provide materially false information in direct violation of SarbOx, the SEC, and several other federal agencies and statutes - not to mention the various EU laws surrounding such activity.

If they were under an NSL they would simply not comment on this at all. That would be pretty normal for Apple, so people would probably take it in stride.

No. THere's plenty of case law establishing that you cannot be compelled to outright lie.

Most of Apple's "creative image" is one gigantic lie. Why would they suddenly have scruples now?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com