News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M by sgc on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @11:43AM (#18665365)
Partially, but also just to indicate what they perceive to be the real damage from his actions, so that in the future people can evaluate if their personal vendettas are worth the harm they cause. (Of course I see the irony given recent history at the company, but future deterrence is a large motivator for many lawsuits).
Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M by nitrogen on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @11:58AM (#18665487)
Isn't the use of a lawsuit to deter speaking out illegal (SLAPP)?
Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M by SpicyLemonZest on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @12:37PM (#18665870)
This is a federal case, and there's no federal anti-SLAPP law.

Even in states which have anti-SLAPP laws, they target frivolous lawsuits to deter speaking out. If you really do have a case, but part of your motivation for bringing it is to deter future misconduct, that's perfectly kosher.

Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M by gamblor956 on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @04:41PM (#18667996)
Anti-SLAPP law in California is not limited to frivolous lawsuits...

The whole point of the Anti-SLAPP statutes is to discourage companies from using lawsuits to "deter future misconduct." It provides, at a minimum, that the company pay all the defendant's legal costs and the complete dismissal of the company's case with prejudice (which usually means all of the related claims filed in the same lawsuit, though on rare occasions the company may be allowed to split off those claims into a separate case).

Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M by SpicyLemonZest on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @05:02PM (#18668129)
As long as the plaintiff can establish "there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim", the anti-SLAPP statue doesn't apply. It doesn't matter at that point why they filed the lawsuit.
Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M by gamblor956 on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @05:38PM (#18668351)
Right, the plaintiff needs to show prima facie evidence of all elements of their claims in order to defeat an Anti-SLAPP motion.

Unless Tesla has been concealing some facts in its court filings, they don't have prima facie evidence of all elements of their claims. Anti-SLAPP motions can precede the discovery phase, i.e., before Tesla can acquire that evidence. Moreover, unlike TV, such evidence must be presented in court filings. Ambush disclosures aren't a thing in real life.

Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M by vinceguidry on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @12:06PM (#18665575)
Anti-SLAPP laws generally allow for quick dismissal of lawsuits that fit the criteria. They don't lay out any criminal penalties for doing so. Also, not every state has an anti-SLAPP statute.
Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M by hirundo on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @04:06PM (#18667765)
As Stormy Daniels recently discovered the non criminal penalties can be significant.
Re:Tesla sues its alleged saboteur for $167M by throwaway98434 on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @01:53PM (#18666631)
No. SLAPP statutes protect against frivolous lawsuits. If someone is sued over sharing an opinion, SLAPP might provide a quick way to demonstrate that the opinion is protected speech and that the suit is unwinnable. Generally, SLAPP aims to easily dismiss suits without merit.

This is not a frivolous lawsuit and is not without merit.