I suspect that Tinder came from the Hot-or-Not Mashup Camp contest entry years ago .. Can anyone confirm that ?
Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
11–20 of 144 posts
Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
#12Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase: "The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them." Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous". Is there a legal reason why t…
You should continue reading the statement. While they use a commonly used phrase, there is some colorful language there.
Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
#13That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement: > his merry band of plaintiffs > but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make
How do judges usually react to colorful language like that?
They usually think nothing of it.
Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
#14Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase: "The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them." Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous". Is there a legal reason why t…
It really just means they believe the allegations are untrue and that they think the evidence will demonstrate they're untrue or there won't be enough evidence to prove them.
The reason this is often stated or quoted is that a defendant has to make a statement to this effect when replying to the complaint. However, at the time of the initial reply, no discovery will have occurred and therefore no evidence will be officially available to either prove or disprove the allegations. Accordingly, all you can really say at that time is "we disagree and believe the allegations in the complaint are not true and/or can't be proven."
Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
#15Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase: "The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them." Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous". Is there a legal reason why t…
It's a stock phrase that avoids committing to any theory of the case. (It's overused nature adds to its utility as a generic denial.) "Meritless" is also a bit of jargon that means "the alleged facts don't add up to a legal claim." It captures in one word what would otherwise be a complex phrase: "the allegations are false, and even if they are not, they fail to make up the elements of the asserted claims, and even if they did make up a legal claim, there is an applicable defense."
Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
#16That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement: > his merry band of plaintiffs > but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make
How do judges usually react to colorful language like that?
These quotes are from a PR response statement to the lawsuit, not any official court filing by Match.
Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
#17Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase: "The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them." Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous". Is there a legal reason why t…
Because when people hear a word they like, they like to try and use it every chance they get. They want to show off their large vocabulary. I remember thinking something similar when the election cycle rolls around and every pundit and news anchor is talking about how an issue "resonates" with voters. An otherwise rarely used word that becomes used to describe something specific becomes almost like a brand name.
Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
#18That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement: > his merry band of plaintiffs > but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make
Honestly, this makes me lose any respect I might have had for them - while the lawsuit seems odd, resorting to ad hominem attacks is extremely unprofessional, and especially so in a PR statement. Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements.
Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
#19Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase: "The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them." Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous". Is there a legal reason why t…
Why do anything else but maximize initial position in the case?
Said position being "they" have no case and let us all be damn clear on that.
Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B
#20Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase: "The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them." Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous". Is there a legal reason why t…
Because when people hear a word they like, they like to try and use it every chance they get. They want to show off their large vocabulary. I remember thinking something similar when the election cycle rolls around and every pundit and news anchor is talking about how an issue "resonates" with voters. An otherwise rarely used word that becomes used to describe something specific becomes almost like a brand name.
See Jeff Sessions recusing himself from Russian collusion for more of these words.