The company therefore sometimes “takes commodity products and makes them better,” which is what has caused the confusion with the Tenda router. However, “being electrically identical does not make them identical,” he told us, explaining that Mediabridge made significant changes to the router’s software and hardware before sending it to market. As a relatively small company, Mediabridge doesn’t have the resources to design and manufacture every product it sells. Smith about this and he explained that the routers are electrically identical, which is what the FCC is primarily concerned with. Update 2: A representative from SmallNetBuilder informed us that the Medialink MWN-WAPR300N router has an FCC ID of V7TW368R, which references the Tenda W368R. We asked Mr. We’ve reached out to them for clarification). ( Update: as pointed out in the comments, there is also a review of the Mediabridge router at SmallNetBuilder which claims to have linked the router’s FCC ID to that of the equivalent Tenda router, but the review does not provide references. An FCC document has surfaced that links one of the company’s Medialink routers to Tenda, but that document references the MWN-WAPR150N, the predecessor to the WAPR300N. There is no official documentation that we have been able to locate that definitively links the WAPR300N to Tenda. Smith told us that the router at issue (MWN-WAPR300N) is not a rebranded Tenda product: “They’re just not the same,” he said without further explanation. To briefly address the rebrand claim, Mr. Smith tells us that both are unequivocally false, although he readily admits that his firm was less concerned with the claim that the router was a rebranded version of a cheaper product from a Chinese company called Tenda than with the accusations that his company paid for favorable reviews. Examples of “privileged” statements include witnesses testifying in court or during depositions, and lawmakers acting in an official capacity.Īs for the statements’ veracity, Mr. To narrow the elements down, we’ll state right off the bat that TD’s statements were unprivileged “unprivileged” statements are those that fall outside of the narrow circumstances in which the law has recognized that a person’s statements, even if otherwise libelous, are more important than the protection of a plaintiff’s rights. Smith about his company’s interpretation of libel and rationale for instructing the company’s lawyer to contact TD. In a telephone conversation this weekend, we asked Mr. For the purposes of this article, the spokesperson will be identified as Mr. We spoke with a company spokesperson who asked to remain anonymous for now due to the barrage of offensive communication Mediabridge and its employees continue to receive. Sullivan for more), and it’s not clear how a court would label Mediabridge in this situation. Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. It’s only when defamation concerns public officials or public figures that the higher standard of “actual malice” must be shown (see the 1964 U.S. In coverage of this story at other websites and on message boards, many have also suggested that Mediabridge would have to show that TD knew his statements were false in order to prove libel, but that’s not necessarily true when dealing with private individuals or entities. While defamation laws can vary by jurisdiction, in general, a plaintiff seeking to prevail on a defamation claim must prove that the defendant’s statement was (1) false, (2) injurious, and (3) unprivileged.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |