I just checked the website of Yau just now, for more developments on the argument with the New Yorker. It seems that since Hamilton’s strong letter, there have been several more, from various luminaries in the field. You can find them all on the site.
-cvj
Even posting anonymously, most people do not want to make a fool of themselves in front of everyone. Pretending to be a judge, wow, that is some act indeed.
To Aaron,
Thanks for the link. It’s an interesting read.
To Investment Spanker,
Few has the courage to pretend being a judge, you did exactly just that. Congratulations.
that will have to be decided by the jury
No, it can be decided by a judge who can throw the whole case out if he finds that all STY’s allegations, even if true, wouldn’t amount to libel. It’s only the jury’s job to decide the case based on any facts which are in dispute. It’s the judge’s job to make sure there’s a valid cause of action if all the plaintiff’s alleged facts are stipulated. And there simply isn’t a valid case, even if all STY’s alleged facts are stipulated.
STY hasn’t made a single claim of specific factual inaccuracy in the New Yorker article — other than claiming that he did not really assign percentages of credit at Strings. And for reason’s I’ve gone over before he’s unlikely to win a case based on that. (To recap: (a) Unless Yau produces the audio of the Strings talk, no one is likely to believe the news reports made up the percentages out of whole cloth, and (b) even if it turns out the news reports did make up the percentages out of whole cloth, the New Yorker isn’t liable for their mistake.)
So unless STY radically upgrades his allegations of factual inaccuracy in the New Yorker article (and no, “they say I’m an asshole but I’m really a great guy” isn’t a factual dispute) and finds a mistake which is original to the New Yorker article rather than some other source, then it’s almost certain a judge would throw the case out before it gets to a jury — and maybe sanction STY’s lawyers for even wasting the court’s time with such a weak case to begin with.
There’s more on Yau by Dennis Overbye in the Tuesday Science Times of the NYT.
Frankly, I doubt there will ever be a case. But, IANAL as they say, so I probably should have refrained from speaking on the merits. Still, I can’t imagine such a case proceeding as being anything but bad for mathematics.
Aaron Bergman said:
“The odds, shall we say, aren’t so good.â€
Well, that will have to be decided by the jury. But one thing that I know, as my lawyer told me, is that no reputable lawyer will take a case that the evidence indicates “The odds aren’t so good.†And this Mr. Cooper is not your ordinary lawyer if you ask around.
Outcome, schmoutcome (and sockpuppetry, too). The point is the trial. Truth is an absolute defense in libel trials and such trials almost inevitably end up as a trial of the plaintiff. Imagine all sorts of distinguished mathematicians placed under oath being asked questions related to the article. I don’t think anyone wants that.
As for the outcome, however, the New Yorker has a very strong reputation for fact-checking; they publish, among others, Sy Hersch’s stuff which is about as controversial as things get. Matters of opinion are not grounds for a libel suit. It has to be an issue of factual error, and, if Yau is considered a public figure, you have to prove some sort of malice. Even if Yau is considered a private figure, you have to prove negligence.
The odds, shall we say, aren’t so good.
It seems that Yau’s lawyers are in no hurry building their case. I have heard that these are some very capable lawyers and they have a distinguished winning record. If the case is brought to court against Condé Nast Publications, the parent company of the New Yorker, in Boston, very unlikely they will not win. Nowadays, it is not easy to find a jury that is sympathetic to a conglomerate.
I remember reading one letter from a lady professor in support of Dr. Yau but has since been taken off the website. Wonder what happened …
I got kind of confused. A reporter wrote something bad/dishonorable about you, but it’s up to you to prove that the reporter is wrong, and not the other way round. Whatever happen to verification? Mind you this is not blogging where the standard of duty may be much less (but recent court rulings may have seemed otherwise too).
I agree with the two previous posters that despite whatever offense was taken, from a legal perspective, this case is a loser.
In addition to the points made above, there is the issue of damages. Very difficult to demonstrate in this case. The demand for an apology/retraction is a specific performance remedy. And there is then the issue of the language of the apology/retraction. For example what if the New Yorker said: “Dr. Yau we are sorry you were offended by our article.” Is that an apology? You see where this could go…
e.
Yau’s complaints all have to do with interpretation and wording — there simply isn’t a defamation case there.
Not in a US court, anyway.
Under US law, STY would have to prove some factual inaccuracy in the article. You can’t base a libel or slander case on arguing about whether or not it’s too tendentious to describe a disagreement over relative proportions of credit as a ‘battle’.
The only factual detail STY disputes is whether or not he assigned percentages of credit for the Poincare conjecture in his talk at strings 2006.
He has no case against the New Yorker based on this, however, since You’s asignment of percentages was reported by several sources long before the New Yorker article, including at least one major wire service. It’s hard to believe they’re all lying.
But even if those reports are wrong and Yau didn’t assign percentages, the New Yorker relied in good faith on what it thought were legitimate sources. That does not provide evidence of malice which you would need to prove a defamation case.
If STY really did not assign percentages, it was a major mistake not to dispute the reports that he did which came out at the time. It’s possible, of course, that the reason he didn’t dispute the reports is because they were true.
Either way, all the Strings talks were preserved as recorded audio. If STY really didn’t say what he’s reported to have said, let him produce the audio recording and prove it.
Standard practice is for audio of Strings talks to be posted on the web soon after they occur — days or weeks at the absolute latest. It’s now been months and the talks have not been posted. Yau is chair of the Organizing Committee for Strings 2006.
Clifford, if you think Yau’s case is so strong, you should ask him why the content of the talks — particularly his own — has not been made public.
There are a number of discussions on the New Yorker forums, too. I don’t have a side in this, but I think it’s generally true that suing for libel in an America is almost never a good idea (especially in a case like this). There might be more hope in a British court, but I think they’re less inclined to accept venue shopping these days.