It's easy to miss something when you're not directly involved in a case, even more so when you're also not a lawyer (me) but from what I understand:
Success for Ubiquiti here requires an ability to prove not only that statements he was making (as reported to him by a disgruntled Ubiquiti employee) were false, but that Krebs knew the claims were false. Ubiquiti seems to be arguing that, "because we said these claims were false, that proves he knew they were." That's a non sequitur IMHO.
>Krebs intentionally disregarded these facts
It's easy to miss something when you're not directly involved in a case, even more so when you're also not a lawyer (me) but from what I understand:
Success for Ubiquiti here requires an ability to prove not only that statements he was making (as reported to him by a disgruntled Ubiquiti employee) were false, but that Krebs knew the claims were false. Ubiquiti seems to be arguing that, "because we said these claims were false, that proves he knew they were." That's a non sequitur IMHO.