Please tell me you're not the CEO of ZL by the same name?
I'm not fond of Gartner Mr. Leong, but let's not distort reality with your poor reasoning skills. The following is the complete context of Gartner's argument.
From Section II of Gartner's response to ZL's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss:
"It is undisputed that an expression of pure opinion is protected by the First Amendment
and may not form the basis for a civil law suit. See Partington, 56 F.3d at 1153. A pure opinion is one that does not imply facts capable of being proved true or false. Id. at 1153 n.10. To determine whether a statement constitutes non-actionable opinion rather than an implied assertion of objective fact, the Ninth Circuit applies a three-part analysis considering (1) whether the general tenor of the entire work negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact, (2) whether the specific content and context of the statements, including the use of figurative or hyperbolic language, negate the impression of an assertion of fact, and (3) whether the statement in question is susceptible of being proved true or false. Id. at 1153-60; see also Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (same). Applying each somewhat overlapping element of this analysis to the Magic Quadrant reports demonstrates that Gartner?s alleged statements are non-actionable opinion."
Gartner's attorneys continue in subsections A, B and C with a very well-reasoned response.
All other BS and phallus-waving (from both sides) aside...ZL hasn't a legal leg to stand on. People may not like to hear that, and it's not going to earn me any brownie points, but that's reality.
Discussion on:
Message 6 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
