Just coming to say that - he's not the best at keeping things secret lol.
But let's assume for a minute that what you're saying has some merit. Maybe Valve does have grounds to sue. And maybe they're interested in suing. In that case, is this lousy attempt at being coy helpful? It's clear from his bio that he's only worked at one such company. So it's abundantly clear to everyone who he's working for.
In reality, this pattern ("worked for a large software-advertising company with a double O in it's name") is fucking annoying. It's designed to make the reader curious and more likely to read the rest of what's written. It's similar to clickbait in that sense. And I wish to God it would stop. I'd request people to please just name names, or keep it yourself.
This isn't about civil disputes anyways. No employer wants to see a prospective new hire trash talking their previous company. Doesn't matter if it's deserved or not, it's seen as a liability.
[1] You know what, one employer definitely did that, apparently bribed my lawyer to get them to drop the case, got that vibe from the lawyer. Yeah, I thought I could argue with you at the very beginning, but no longer.
[2] Extradition from a country of which you are a citizen requires a real trial, like that takes years, America will let me go to prison without trial but Chile will not let America do that without any kind of extradition trial at all. A lawyer congratulated me on this defensive maneuver.
It isn't fair, but that's how it is. Don't poke the bear anymore than you have to. All you have to do is personally anger one executive and they can go after you.
yes, exactly. Esp. if he is the only one talking about it this way publicly. If it's truly awful, employees will vote with their wallets and quit.
And if valve wins the law suit, what reward would they have gained, other than stopping him from saying what he has already said (which cannot be taken back). There might be punitive damages to be paid, but it's not like the corporation is going to make money from doing so.
And in fact, making a law suit would legitimize the claims!
They most likely won't, you are correct. But it just simply doesn't seem to be worth the trouble on the off-chance that they will decide to do it.
The whole thing is just a situation where you risk a lot (even if the chance of that risk materializing is very small), but you aren't really gaining anything by taking the risk. What's the point of taking the risk of naming the company, if you can tell the entire story just as fine without naming them and reducing the risk to zero?
That’s my point. He’s not reducing shit. We all know exactly who he’s talking about. All he’s done is curiosity baited us into reading this.
I would certainly have a different opinion about someone saying negative things about me in anonymous generic terms that people paying attention could figure out, vs using my name and posting direct criticism. As would most people I think.