Hacker News Reader

They didn't explicitly or even implicitly state Oracle has any connection to the activity, only that the dude is/was employed by Oracle. That part is presumably true and therefore not actionable.

If, however, Oracle could prove the only reason that info was included was out of "malice", they'd have a case but that's typically an extremely high bar to clear.

The reason this won't happen is because Oracle would get dunked on in court. Also not a lawyer, but I think it would be near impossible to argue that facts are malicious. I agree, it's not entirely relevant to mention it, but we're reading the article and talking about it, so mission accomplished from the publishers perspective I guess.

I think they’d have to show this puts Oracle in a more negative light and that would be hard.

Can't go down from where they already are, pretty much.

Heck, this might even be an iprovement! Usually the headline is about Oracle doing some terrible cutthroat business maneuver and here we have an oracle employee being helpful! /s