Big news

originally posted by VLM:
Characteristic roots, man.
Click to expand...

Oh. OK.

so what is your N space, is it the criteria by which you plan to poll tasters, i.e. this wine is good with the in-laws, this one with the wife alone, this one the wife is allowed to open when I am out of town, etc? You still need to give weights to these criteria, otherwise you ain't coming up with a number any better than the Wine Advocate
 
originally posted by .sasha:
originally posted by VLM:
Characteristic roots, man.
Click to expand...

Oh. OK.

so what is your N space, is it the criteria by which you plan to poll tasters, i.e. this wine is good with the in-laws, this one with the wife alone, this one the wife is allowed to open when I am out of town, etc? You still need to give weights to these criteria, otherwise you ain't coming up with a number any better than the Wine Advocate
Click to expand...

I don't think those would make good items. That's the tough part.

The weighting is pretty well worked out.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Hosemaster.
Click to expand...

Funny, but prolix. I prefer Ruth Bourdain's take on it today:

"Following his sale of Wine Advocate to Asian investors, wine critic Robert Parker will launch Noodle Advocate, featuring in-depth noodle criticism, “noodle notes” (“toothsome and hedonistic, with undercurrents of egg, toasted wheat, and underbrush”) and the first 100-point noodle scale. In keeping with his penchant for high alcohol wines, Parker will display a clear bias towards drunken noodles."
 
Our current Supreme Court justices do not recuse themselves over connections like these with cases on which they pass judgment, alas. I haven't sufficient outrage left over for this tempest in a teapot.
 
"COUNT V
(MISAPPROPRIATION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION)
106. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above and
below as though fully set forth herein at length.
107. During the time which Defendants were independent contractors for Plaintiff, they had
access to confidential and proprietary information including, inter alia, names, email addresses, and
other data relating to subscribers to Plaintiff’s publications.
108. Defendants had a duty to maintain such confidential and proprietary information in
confidence and to use it only for the limited purpose of benefitting Plaintiff, as set forth in the
Agreements.
109. Defendants had a duty not to use Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information for
their own benefit.
110. Among other things, Defendants improperly used Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary
subscriber information to solicit subscribers for their own website.
111. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff expects that Defendants will also use the
proprietary 50-100 point grading scale in their new business.
112. As a result, Defendants improperly acquired Plaintiff’s trade secrets in violation of
Maryland’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Md. Code, Comm. Law, § 11-1201, et seq."

Don't anybody be using that proprietary point system around here, please.
 
Of course, its proper application seems to be a trade secret, so maybe folks on the outside wouldn't know how, anyway.
 
Lurkers have written to ask me what the hell my last couple of posts mean. Is this just one more alienating example of Wd inside joke-ism?

So a brief explanation:

Parker is suing Galloni. Mostly about AG coughing up the Sonoma report, but also with a bunch of nuisance stuff. The latter includes the allegation that Galloni snuck away in the middle of the night with RP’s point scale in his pocket and plans to use it in his new business!!!

But in true RP style, he still wishes AG well.
 
the legendary (and equally proprietary) fatscale goes up to 111 points.

my people are willing to cut a.g. a deal, in return for the usual licensing kickbacks and some extra pork bellies.

fb.
 
The defamation claim is very nostalgic for me, if a bit sad. It reminds me of when Parker's publisher threatened to sue Callahan for wondering on alt.food.wine whether RP had actually tasted a wine that he reviewed (a long story we can get into sometime if people are curious). I wanted to raise a legal defense fund for Callahan, since I thought the notion that RP would actually want to go to trial on the question of fact of whether he really tasted the wines he reviews seemed to have little ultimate appeal, and that this just seemed to be a SLAPP suit.

Similarly, putting the WA's "independence and quality" at issue in the Galloni case is an interesting tactical choice. (One obvious defense for Galloni would be to show that the WA had neither independence nor quality and so couldn't be defamed, or so this non-lawyer understands from a distance.) In the unlikely event that this goes to trial, this particular Count promises rich entertainment.
 
Oops, sorry, misposted the defamation language:

There is also a very interesting defamation claim

COUNT XI
(DEFAMATION)
169. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above and
below as though fully set forth herein at length.
170. Plaintiff publishes a highly-regarded and world-renowned wine review publication.
171. Plaintiff’s reputation in the wine-review industry is unparalleled and is of the utmost
importance to its success.
172. Most important to Plaintiff’s reputation and success is that it is absolutely independent
from wineries, retailers, and distributors.
173. On or about February 12, 2013, Galloni made statement to the New York Times in which
he stated that Plaintiff did not have the required level of independence and/or quality.
174. These statements were false and were made with intent to damage the reputation of
Plaintiff to Defendants’ benefit and Plaintiff’s detriment.
175. Defendants’ statements constitute defamation and defamation per se.
176. Plaintiff will suffer injury as a result of such defamation as it will cause subscribers to
question the quality of its publications.
Case 1:13-cv-00827-RDB Document 1 Filed 03/18/13 Page 25 of 26
26
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top