Yes.
Here's the thing: It doesn't matter.
Let me back up a bit.
To start with, corporate defamation is ... complicated to begin with.
There is no liability for defaming a large class of people.
If i say "all people wearing blue are pedophiles", i can't be sued by anyone wearing blue because i defamed them :). This is because defamation is, at the core, about injury to reputation of individual people. It's really hard to meaningfully injure the reputation of individual people with general statements (it's not impossible mind you, but for the average joe it's pretty hard).
So first you have to be able to identify what is defamed, exactly.
Second, corporations have no reputations in any easily definable personal sense (and remember, defamation is about injury to reputation).
Why do I go into all of this? Because it's at the core of what standard you would have to meet to be liable for defaming a corporation.
Generally three ways to prove defamation of a overall:
Prove the person knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or
Prove the person acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or
Prove the person acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it.
The first almost never happens.
The second almost never happens.
The third is what gets most people.
The third is also, it turns out, not available if the defamation was of a public figures.
In fact, for public figures, you have to prove one of the first two by clear and convincing evidence (which is higher than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is preponderance of the evidence).
So if ubiquiti, the corporate plaintiff, is held to be a public figure (or some other variant, like a limit purpose public figure, etc), as long as krebs was only negligent (an idiot) rather than malicious (deliberately ignoring the truth of falsity), it still wouldn't be defamation.
Ubiquiti is almost certain to be held to be some sort of public figure - they even sort of out themselves on this by pointing out they file 10-q's with the SEC and expect all their interactions to be with the public.
If i say "all people wearing blue are pedophiles", i can't be sued by anyone wearing blue because i defamed them :). This is because defamation is, at the core, about injury to reputation of individual people. It's really hard to meaningfully injure the reputation of individual people with general statements (it's not impossible mind you, but for the average joe it's pretty hard).
So first you have to be able to identify what is defamed, exactly. Second, corporations have no reputations in any easily definable personal sense (and remember, defamation is about injury to reputation).
Why do I go into all of this? Because it's at the core of what standard you would have to meet to be liable for defaming a corporation.
Generally three ways to prove defamation of a overall: Prove the person knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or Prove the person acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or Prove the person acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it.
The first almost never happens. The second almost never happens. The third is what gets most people.
The third is also, it turns out, not available if the defamation was of a public figures. In fact, for public figures, you have to prove one of the first two by clear and convincing evidence (which is higher than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is preponderance of the evidence).
So if ubiquiti, the corporate plaintiff, is held to be a public figure (or some other variant, like a limit purpose public figure, etc), as long as krebs was only negligent (an idiot) rather than malicious (deliberately ignoring the truth of falsity), it still wouldn't be defamation.
Ubiquiti is almost certain to be held to be some sort of public figure - they even sort of out themselves on this by pointing out they file 10-q's with the SEC and expect all their interactions to be with the public.