To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bose v. Consumers Union
Argued November 8, 1983
Decided April 30, 1984
Full case nameBose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
Citations466 U.S. 485 (more)
104 S. Ct. 1949; 80 L. Ed. 2d 502
Case history
PriorJudgment for plaintiff, 508 F. Supp. 1249 (D. Mass. 1981); reversed, 692 F.2d 189 (1st Cir. 1982); cert. granted, 461 U.S. 904 (1983).
Holding
Product disparagement cases that involve First Amendment claims are governed by the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell
ConcurrenceBurger
DissentWhite
DissentRehnquist, joined by O'Connor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984), was a product disparagement case ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held, on a 6–3 vote, in favor of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, ruling that proof of "actual malice" was necessary in product disparagement cases raising First Amendment issues, as set out by the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The Court ruled that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had correctly concluded that Bose had not presented proof of actual malice.

The magazine Consumer Reports had published in 1970 a review of an unusual[clarification needed] loudspeaker system manufactured by Bose Corporation, called the Bose 901. The review expressed skepticism of the system's quality and recommended that consumers delay purchase until they had investigated for themselves whether the loudspeaker system's unusual attributes would suit them. Bose objected to numerous statements in the article, including the sentences, "Worse, individual instruments heard through the Bose system seemed to grow to gigantic proportions and tended to wander about the room. For instance, a violin appeared to be 10 feet (3.0 m) wide and a piano stretched from wall to wall." Bose demanded a retraction when they learned that Consumer Reports changed what the original reviewer wrote about the speakers in his pre-publication draft, which the magazine refused to do.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    555
    166 816
    1 199
    474 379
    1 153 011
  • Battlefield Pennsylvania: The Great Railroad Strike of 1877
  • What REALLY Happens When You Take Medicine?
  • List of company name etymologies | Wikipedia audio article
  • Mexicans Were Skinny On Corn For 1000's Of Years - What Went Wrong? Doctor Explains
  • The Car Market Bubble Is Collapsing

Transcription

Lower court history

The Massachusetts district court had heard testimony from an author of the article that the instruments heard through the 901's speakers tended to wander "along the wall," rather than "about the room," as had been stated in the article; and found that this constituted a publication of a false statement with the knowledge that it was false. It had found Consumers Union liable for damages.

On appeal, Bose had argued that the district court's findings of fact could not be set aside by the appeals court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 52(a) unless the findings were "clearly erroneous." The appeals court, however, had agreed with Consumers Union that under the precedent set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the appeals court had to review the entire matter de novo in order to determine whether the false fact was published with "actual malice." As Bose had not presented sufficient evidence of actual malice, the appeals court ruled, the judgment was required to be overturned.

See also

References

  • Castro, Janice; Samghabadi, Raji; Constable, Anne (May 14, 1984). "The Supreme Court rules in favor of Consumers Union". Time. Vol. 123, no. 20. p. 74.
  • "A Sound Affirmation of Free Speech". The New York Times. May 2, 1984. Retrieved September 27, 2012.

External links

This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 01:51
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.