Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
Well I didn't really correct the statement in response to their legal team. I retracted the statement a long time before I heard from BT or Phorm. I retracted the statement as an act of good faith until the issue could be clarified and that was a decision I made without any legal prodding.
It may seem like splitting hairs but makes a big difference with regards to whether or not I could be accused of defamation. If you recall the sequence of events, I posted my original opinion stating it needed to be clarified, then after more thought and discussion I added an update in big red bold font offering an alternative interpretation but still stating the situation needed clarifying and then I retracted the part entirely mid morning yesterday and replaced it with a paragraph inviting Kent a right to reply to clarify the issue.
Alexander Hanff
|
fair point, but as soon as they visit the link that is clear anyway, i did post another comment over on BT forums as well which is probably more in line the actual situation
********
Re: BT Webwise Discussion Thread
Posted: Jun 6, 2008 9:29 AM in response to: Mark H Reply
i see over on cable forum that alex got a communication from PHORM's /BT's solicitors requesting he retract various statements re the leaked document.
alex had actually done this yesterday prior to this and openly requested BT / PHORM clarify some points, if my reading of the comments (
http://nodpi.org/?p=11 ) are correct they clarified one point that phorm had placed the charity adverts, but failed to clarify if the charities they placed these adverts on behalf of had been made aware of either the placement of the adverts or their purpose as being a default if no targeted advert was available and several others
alex also appears to have complied with the legal request by asking others to remove the comments indicated which most if not all seem to have done
if you are synical you could draw any of the conclusions below over the legal action on alex or if you believe BT / Phorm that they are legally doing the ad serving you may draw another conclusions altogether
1: BT / Phorm want to silence him (anyway they can)
2: BT / Phorm have more to hide (come on BT / Phorm lets have more CLEAR information on the trial and exactly how the system works, there is still the issue of the diagnostic logs held by the adserver for 14 days)
3: lack of PR team response from BT / Phorm on the forums etc, means they consider they have lost the PR battle now they are using the heavy hand of the law to try and win as they have bigger legal budgets and better a legal team than alex
i think a large number of people will probably take one of the synical options
me, i am not saying in case BT send the heavy's round to me, but i do tend to have a synical view of the motives of big business
peter
********