Company Sues Gartner Again For Not Putting It In The Magic Quadrant

from the you're-going-to-need-some-magic... dept

No matter what you think of Gartner's research (and we've been quite clear that we don't think much of it), the lawsuit brought by ZL Tech against Gartner earlier this year for not putting it in Gartner's infamous "magic quadrant" was a non-starter from the beginning, and it was no surprise that it was quickly tossed, as the judge noted that Gartner is free to have its own opinion. ZL should have taken the hint. Instead, it's amended the complaint and tried again. You can see the full complaint here or read it below: It's basically more of the same. ZL is still claiming that Gartner has no right to its opinion, saying that because Gartner bases its opinion on "a body of facts" through "a rigorous process" it's no longer an opinion. That's flat out ridiculous. All opinions are based on a body of facts, and even if you have a rigorous process by which you figure out how to sort your opinions, it's still an opinion.

ZL also talks about Gartner's well-known conflicts of interest, a topic that is widely discussed and certainly has done great harm to Gartner's credibility in many circles, while still not being illegal. Basically ZL just comes across as a company angry that Gartner didn't rank it high enough, which -- in my opinion (please don't sue) -- raises plenty of questions about why you'd want to work with a company so thin-skinned and sensitive to someone else's opinion.

Filed Under: magic quadrant, opinion
Companies: gartner, zl

Yes, Gartner Is Free To Pick Which Companies Fit In Its Magic Quadrant

from the and-which-don't dept

Whatever you might think of Gartner's research and its silly "magic quadrant" system, I don't think anyone could reasonably question that it was just Gartner's opinion. Yet, a few months ago, we wrote about a company, ZL, that was so upset that Gartner put it in its niche quadrant, rather than the desired "magic quadrant," that it sued. We didn't expect the lawsuit to get very far (similar lawsuits over how Google ranks companies have been tossed pretty quickly). And, indeed, a judge appears to have found little worthwhile in ZL's lawsuit, quickly dismissing all of the arguments, and noting that Gartner is free to have its own damn opinion, no matter how much others (or the subjects of that opinion) might disagree:

"Finally, ZL argues that Gartner's representation that it provides 'highly discerning research that is objective, defensible, and credible to help [customers] do their job better' implies that its Reports contain objective assertions of fact. Gartner notes that this language appears not in the MQ Report but on its website and that the language describes Gartner's research services generally rather than the MQ Report in particular.... More to the point, the terms 'objective, defensible, and credible' do not imply the assertion of factual information. Gartner argues convincingly that even if its self-description did refer to the statements within the MQ Report, its 'sophisticated readers' -- corporate and government executives and professionals -- would not infer that Gartner's rankings were anything other than opinion."

Still, the judge gave ZL an opportunity to amend the complaint, and the statement from the company indicates that it's planning to try to come up with some other ridiculous argument against Gartner. Maybe it should just focus on satisfying what its customers want, and stop worrying about what some analyst at Gartner has to say.

Filed Under: magic quadrant, opinion
Companies: gartner, zl

Tech Company Sues Gartner Because It Doesn't Like How Gartner Placed It In Its Magic Quadrant

from the hello-first-amendment dept

While I'm no fan of Gartner, and tend to think its analysis is pretty weak in many cases, a recent lawsuit filed by ZL Technologies, because ZL doesn't like how Gartner ranked it in Gartner's famous "magic quadrant" analysis, is pretty silly, and hopefully will get thrown out quickly. Gartner has every right to rank companies as it sees fit -- just as courts have noted that Google has every right to rank websites as it sees fit. Even if there are questions about the integrity of Gartner's rankings, I don't see how that's a legal issue at all. All it might do is call into question the value of relying on Gartner's ranking system. But that's a business issue, not a legal one. The court will hopefully toss this lawsuit out quickly on First Amendment grounds, and let Gartner go on pushing out magic quadrants, no matter how flawed they might be.

Filed Under: analysts, free speech, magic quadrant, opinion
Companies: gartner, zl

Gartner Finally Realizes That Social Networking At Work Isn't Evil

from the could-have-found-that-elsewwhere-earlier... dept

It wasn't that long ago that Gartner was spreading FUD about the use of social networking tools at work, saying it didn't think the technology would be beneficial within corporations. It seems that Gartner has a new tune. Just a week or so after we pointed out how silly it was to block social networks at work, Gartner has come out and said the same thing, pointing out that such blocks don't really work, and most people now use such tools for important forms of communication, which would be harmed by IT decisions to cut them off. Of course, some of us have been saying that for years. Good thing companies are paying billions to Gartner for its advice, right?

Filed Under: social networking
Companies: gartner

Gartner Tells Reporter: You're Not Allowed To Mention Gartner Research Without Our Permission

from the copyright-gone-insane dept

Rich Kulawiec alerts us to the news that Gartner (which absolutely should know better) sent a legal nastygram to a Network World blogger, Larry Chaffin, for the mortal sin of mentioning Gartner without Gartner's permission. Specifically, Gartner is claiming full control over its research reports, and saying that a reporter cannot quote them. Gartner is almost certainly wrong about this. If the information is newsworthy (and it sounds like it was), then a reporter absolutely has the right to post it. Also, Gartner seems confused about how all of this works. It first claims that posting such info was a violation of its own policy... but it's a policy that Chaffin had not agreed to. Perhaps Gartner had a claim against the vendor who gave Chaffin the report, but that doesn't preclude posting the information. On top of that (of course) Gartner is pulling a bit of copyfraud, by claiming that copyright gives it many more rights than it really does:

Gartner's published research is proprietary intellectual property of Gartner, Inc., and is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. Your company's mention of our research in your material does not comply with our Copyright and Quote Policy (available at the link below) and so this is an infringement of our copyrights. I ask that you take immediate and effective steps to remove this blog posting and also any other unauthorized mention of Gartner's research in any other venue which you control.

There's just one (big) problem with that. Copyright law doesn't really give a hoot what Gartner's own "Quote Policy" is. Copyright law has built in exceptions that can't just be written away like that.

Chaffin actually did take down the posts after being threatened, claiming that in doing so he's showing how meaningless Gartner is. He also promises never to post about any Gartner reports ever again in the future -- but did talk up Gartner's ridiculous policies and demands (amusingly referring to the company as Gar-ner).

Beyond just being of questionable legality, Gartner's actions also seem incredibly short-sighted (especially for a firm that's supposed to be known for being forward looking). Everyone knows the real value in a Gartner report is not in any actual analysis, but in the PR it might generate for companies that find their way into the infamous (and silly) "magic quadrant." By forcing reporters not to talk about who's in that magic quadrant, Gartner has just made its reports significantly less valuable. Now that's foresight.

Filed Under: chilling effects, copyfraud, copyright, research, takedowns
Companies: gartner