Return to Transcripts main page
First Move with Julia Chatterley
Netflix Posts Weaker-Than-Expected Growth; Warning Factions Blame Each Other as Ceasefire Fails; The AI Revolution: What's Next for ChatGPT- 4; Hoffman: AI Needs Cross-Checking Just Like Humans; FOX News to Pay $787.5M to Avert Dominion Trial; West African-Based Namdock Sees Growth in Ship Repair. Aired 9-9:45a ET
Aired April 19, 2023 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNNI HOST: A warm welcome to "First Move". Another super- sized show for you this Wednesday, we'll explore the future of FOX after its jumbo Dominion settlement fee.
Netflix subscription growth, not really investor's cup of tea, plus an optimistic view of the AI phenomenon ChatGPT. Coming up, LinkedIn Co-
Founder and Venture Capitalist Reid Hoffman tell us why he believes artificial intelligence will benefit humanity. He's also against a very
high profile now appeal to pause development.
His new must read book "In prompt you" amplifying our humanity through AI with even co-written with the latest iteration of the language model
ChatGPT-4. We wanted a ChatGPT ask for a royalty fee. I'm looking forward to that.
Now on global markets in the interim a negative read. U.S. stocks set to pull back in early trade Europe as you can see a touch softer too. New
inflation numbers in the United Kingdom show inflation still above 10 percent that's the highest rate across Western Europe.
Food prices in fact spiked by almost 20 percent -- and earnings new shares of Morgan Stanley heading lower too after reporting a weak Q1 investment
banking segment result but key regional bank Western Alliance surging premarket. Take a look at that up 22 percent saying deposits are recovering
a sign that the worst of the banking terminal may indeed be over we'll continue to watch those smaller banks.
A busy show you can certainly bank on that. Let's get right to our top story, the FOX Dominion aftermath. $787.5 million that's how much FOX News
agreed to pay Dominion voting systems to prevent Dominion's lawsuit from going to trial it's the largest known defamation settlement involving a
media company in U.S. history.
Marshall Cohen joins us now. Marshall, we can make this story about many things, American democracy, you name it, but actually at its core, it's a
business story. And what happened here was Dominion won big relative to its business and FOX decided to settle with a monster sum to avoid that trial.
MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: That's right, Julia, good morning here from Wilmington, Delaware! Dominion voting systems very few people actually
heard of them unless you were an election official or a local County Administrator before the 2020 election.
But they're world famous now for the historic settlement that they clinched right here in Wilmington, getting $787 million from FOX News, which of
course, is the cable giant. Dominion their valuation a few years ago was only around 80 million. So compare the numbers, they're worth about 80
million, they're going to be taking in almost 800 million.
Of course, some of that will go away with attorney's fees and other things like that, but a monster settlement. What they didn't get in the
settlement, however, was a public apology from FOX News, a public admission from FOX News that they live.
FOX, however, did issue a very what sounded like a very lawyer and careful statement after the settlement saying simply that they acknowledge the
court's previous rulings that some of the things they said on air were false. So they kind of gave a little bit on that surely not as much as
Dominion was hoping.
But now this case is over. Everyone's going to move on. But Julia Dominion has additional lawsuits against other people that promoted these lies about
the 2020 election. And FOX for its part is also facing another serious lawsuit from another voting technology company. So we're done here in
Delaware, but the big fight over 2020 accountability is not over.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, you're so right, because that Smartmatic suit is what $2.7 billion so this could end up being the thin end of the wedge some lawyers
around the country rubbing their hands together today. Marshall Great to have you with us thank you so much for that!
OK, let's move on weaker than hoped for subscriber growth and a delayed crackdown on password sharing. Two takeaways from first quarter earnings at
Netflix sending the stock down by as much as 8 percent in after-hours trade that was you can see that stock did rebound. That's where we're headed pre
Netflix rolling out its page sharing plans to limit password free riding in nations like Canada and Spain earlier this year, but the big prize is the
United States. Tim Nollen is Senior Media Tech Analyst at Macquarie and joins us now. Tim, great to have you with us! Key this quarter was I think
what we heard about the cheaper ad tear.
But also cracking down on that password sharing and those two things are interlinked what did you make of what we heard from Netflix?
TIM NOLLEN, SENIOR MEDIA TECH ANALYST, MACQUARIE: Yes, absolutely. And thanks for having me by the way. I do believe the password sharing plan is
really the most important bit of news to come out of the earnings.
Now we knew this was going to come. We thought it would happen during the Q1. Netflix, of course, did not roll that out. And they announced on the
call last night that this will be rolling out during Q2, not just in the U.S., but in many, many countries. In fact, most countries globally, you
know, in an in a matter of days, weeks, certainly within the next couple of months.
The reason this is so important is Netflix has previously said that there are around 100 million users of Netflix around the world and 30 million in
the U.S. and Canada of that 100 million who are basically using the service for free, you know, sharing a password from the parents or from friends or
So now Netflix will be cracking down on that practice. And they will force those users to either ask the account owner in the household to add them as
a subscriber, or give them the option to add on to the advertising tier that Netflix launched about six months ago. In either case, you've got up
to 100 million users that will be now forced to pay for Netflix for the first time.
CHATTERLEY: Yes. And your point is that people are probably going to be embarrassed to go to the person that they're borrowing from and say, hey,
can you just pay a bit more, and I'll continue to borrow your password? The likelihood is they look at their options.
And they end up signing for themselves. I mean, you've done scenarios, that 30 million people decide, OK, I'm going to sign on 20 million, say, fine,
I'm going to sign on in 10 million, which I know is your sort of most likely probability.
Just walk us through those options and what it means in monetary terms because the money, actually and the cash flow production in this quarter
was important too. And I want to get to that as well.
NOLLEN: Sure, yes. So as a quick preamble to that keep in mind, Netflix stopped giving subscriber number of guidance as of last quarter. So the
supposed subscriber miss this quarter was just a miss versus what analysts like me were guessing.
But we didn't have any guidance to go on for that. What matters much more is revenue, and of course, revenue, translating into earnings. So what
Netflix has been doing is been rolling out an advertising tear, which is basically, you know, charging less for the subscription price.
But a very interesting piece of news last night from the earnings call was that Netflix is now making more money on ad tear subscribers, than they do
not on the basic plan, but on the standard plan. So think about it this way.
For 699, you're paying a subscription fee to Netflix, Netflix is making something north of $15.50 per subscriber, given the amount of money they're
making on the advertising on top of that subscription. So the way we view it, this is the first step toward trying to make more money out of out of
users by kind of a win-win, giving a user a lower price, making more money for Netflix.
The page sharing plan, the work that we've done is tried to assess how much more money Netflix can make from this? We think the page sharing plan is
basically a way to sort of kick users into doing one or the other. The ad tear we think could be more lucrative for Netflix.
But in the scenarios that we came up with, it's just to say, look, in the U.S. and Canada 30 million subscribers are using Netflix for free. What if
all of them were to take on either the paid sharing or the advertising tear? We estimate that's an extra $3.5 billion worth of Netflix on a full
year run rate basis.
Now, that's probably overly optimistic. And then it can work every single user. If they only convert a third of those users that are using Netflix
for free. We estimate that's about an extra $1 billion of revenue to Netflix again, in a full four year run rate scenario.
That's around 8 percent incremental revenue to Netflix. And that's only in the U.S. and Canada, if that all rolls out smoothly. So apply that
globally. You know, you're talking two or $3 billion incremental revenue to Netflix, I think at a minimum.
CHATTERLEY: Yes. I mean, I'm looking at some of these numbers, and it's looking more like a traditional media company sort of complaining about the
anemic 3.7 percent growth, but free crusher, to what $2.1 billion, and the buyback stock in the course are interesting. Tim will reconvene on this
because I'm out of time, but great to have you on and I'm great to get your insights. Thank you.
NOLLEN: Thank you.
CHATTERLEY: Tim Nollen there, Senior Media Tech Analyst at Macquarie. OK, let's move on to Sudan, both sides in a battle to control the country are
blaming each other for the failure of a ceasefire, which was broken soon after it was meant to begin on Tuesday.
Earlier today, smoke was seen billowing across the Capital Khartoum, millions of civilians are trapped in their homes at risk of running out of
water and food. Government has reportedly raided the homes of UN staff and other international groups.
The European Union's Ambassador who was assaulted in Khartoum is staying in the city. Larry Madowo is following developments for us. Larry, we're
painting a pretty bleak picture at this stage. And I think what we saw with the ceasefire is actually was expected by one of the guests on our show was
that no one really knows who's in control of, of their troops and of their forces. What's the latest today?
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We're supposed to be in the final three hours of this 24 hour humanitarian truce. But we can say the ceasefire
failed, because it didn't really take off in the first few minutes after 6 pm local when the guns should have fallen silent, and the bombing and the
bombardment that was still attacks and gunfights.
So this was predicted because like you mentioned, there are people who think these two generals don't have control over their forces. This
powerful paramilitary force, the rapid support forces that's fighting the Sudanese army they're estimated to number about 100,000, all across the
And CNN has learned that the leader of that paramilitary force, General Muhammad Hamdan Dagalo or Hemetti has been commanding his forces very close
to the General Command Headquarters. That's where the army is based. And he's witnessed some of these most fierce fighting in recent days.
I interviewed him on Sunday; he did not want to be on camera on video because he didn't want to reveal any clues that might pinpoint his exact
location. But this has degenerated into the nightmare scenario for so many people who are terrified in their homes, some of them receiving stray
projectiles and gunfire hunkering down running out of food and water.
The hospitals are inundated by the wounded. Half of the hospitals in Khartoum are out of action. According to the agency, "Doctors without
Borders" they've been shared, they've been bombarded. And sometimes the staff cannot make it there because it's not safe.
And yet so far 270 people are dead, but that's most likely an undercount. When the guns fall silent in the full account is done, that number could
rise. Here's one voice from Sudan who spoke to CNN terrified.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROZAN AHMED, SUDANESE ACTIVIST: I can't put into words how mentally devastating this is. Our only ask as innocent civilians that are caught in
this crossfire is for the RSF and the SAF to stop. Stop the war. Stop the violence. Find the grace to dialogue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADOWO: That British Sudanese Author Rozan Ahmed told us that yesterday when there should have been a ceasefire, a missile hit her neighbor's house
and it burned to the ground. So many people are in that situation. They can't get out. They can't move. And they're caught in the crossfire in this
power struggle, Julia between these two generals.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, heartbreaking for those involved in our thoughts with Rozan and everyone there. Larry, great to have you with us thank you! OK,
we're going to take a break here on "First Move" we'll be back after this.
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back! To an at least artificially intelligent if not AI driven "First Move". But as I joked yesterday, it may be coming soon. Just
this week, this picture on the creative open category at the Sony World Photography Awards the winning artist refused his award because the image
was made utilizing artificial intelligence.
And a song using AI generated vocals, replicating the voices of Drake and the weekend was just poured from several streaming platforms raising
questions, among others about copyright laws. So we're at a time of heightened confusion and calls from some industry leaders to pause AI
The question really is what's best for our society at large? And how do we learn and utilize this technology better? Well, our next guest knows a
thing or two about AI. He's even co-written a book with ChatGPT-4 impromptu amplifying our humanity through AI.
Reid Hoffman asked the question, among many others, what are the ways we can use GPT-4 to make progress in the world? Author, Venture Capitalists,
Podcaster, Co-Founder of LinkedIn, I could keep leaving Reid Hoffman joins us now. Reid, always a pleasure to have you on the show!
And first and foremost, I can't call it a book and neither do you. Because you said if you called it a book, it would be outdated by the time it was
published. So it's a travel log. First and foremost, what do you want people to read this book and walk away thinking?
REID HOFFMAN, CO-FOUNDER, LINKEDIN: Well, I want people to understand because you know, the general dialogue is so much concern, which it's
important to be attentive to those concerns, to see what the opportunities are, to see how they can be amplified that as opposed to artificial
Think of it as amplification intelligence. And I thought that one of the ways to do that was to show how I would be amplified, writing a book, like
it wasn't just, you know, talking to other people, it was, you know, like reading my own book, but it was actually in fact, doing it.
And, you know, think about having a smart phone doctor or tutor, you know, assistant in your pocket that helps you whether it's life, things, work
things, et cetera. And the thing about that wonderful opportunity for how we become more human because we become more human through our technology.
CHATTERLEY: My observation from reading the book, and it blew my mind is that it's very clear that there is a huge difference between ChatGPT-3.5,
that we're consuming at the moment and using and getting confused by and seeing hallucinations and what you were doing with ChatGPT-4?
I mean, there was and it was able to recognize when you were asking for a joke. You asked for the fix sentence in the Gettysburg Address and it was
doing that and the difference is huge, which is both exciting from a technology perspective. But I think also it would address a lot of the
concerns that people have today, if it's utilized properly.
HOFFMAN: Yes, because the thing to think about it as a co-pilot, think about it, it's something I mean, yes, you need to learn it, but learn it.
And you can learn it the way you learn a computer, you learn a word processor, you learn how to drive a car, it amplifies.
Like driving a car as an amplifier of human ability, and you can now go much farther, you can now go to places you couldn't otherwise reach. That's
the kind of thing now cognitively now mentally now, writing now, creating images, even if, you know, I think she think you can create an image of an
art competition with it. You know, I think all of that is actually now amplifying giving us superpowers as human beings.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, as a tool to your point. I mean, we can use the artist example. But you also use and speak to two really phenomenal teachers that
instantly recognize the power of this. And rather than just automatically say, look using ChatGPT is cheating. They said how can we utilize this? How
can we learn more about this and help it ultimately to make us smarter and boost human progress, elevate our teaching and learning?
HOFFMAN: Just like when the printing press was created, people worried that our cognition would devolve because we wouldn't have memory? It's no, no
our cognition adapts to what's good. And what we want to do, for example, with students is teach them even better essays.
How do you go? Well, I use ChatGPT to help me write an essay, but I write a much better essay as a way of doing it. It rises, it kind of causes the tie
dries and helps you really adjust and dig into the things that are the thinking parts of it the consideration parts of it. The things that, you
know, we seek to be when we become educated.
CHATTERLEY: There's one point on this, which I think is really important. And you're talking about the pros and cons of New York banning the use of
ChatGPT for school children. And you say to ChatGPT for so net-net, based on the data that you're analyzing, do you think it's provides a sort of a
greater good than perhaps the drawbacks, or the negatives?
And ChatGPT foresees that's an accurate reflection of its perspective. It sounds very human and sort of frightening a little bit. And then you
challenge it and say, what do you mean by that? And it says, look, I'm just gathering data points. And that's my analysis.
You describe it as a very sophisticated prediction machine. And it's that fine line, I think, that we need to understand between what appears to be
human intelligence or an intelligent response versus smart, predictive analysis.
HOFFMAN: Well, this is just the kinds of things we've had to learn over time. Like, for example, back in the 80s, people said, oh, chess playing
was the highest form of human intelligence. Oh, look, these computers can play chess much better than human beings.
Well, OK, we go great that's an interesting thing. By the way, today, more people are watching human beings compete with each other playing chess,
than having history, because we're still interested that we don't watch computers playing chess with each other.
And I think that that, you know, kind of thing of how do we essentially adapt using new tools, like it used to be really important to be able to
ride a horse. Now most people don't ride horses or don't ride wagons, they either, you know, drive cars or riding cars or riding trains?
You know, that kind of amplification human being now, as you know, Steve Jobs described the computer as the bicycle for the mind. Now we're, we're
learning, you know, through ChatGPT the motorcycle of the mind.
CHATTERLEY: But some of it is kind of mind bending. I think let's be clear, particularly at a time of great misinformation and disinformation there is,
I think there's a danger here of the hallucinations. And actually, you break it down, cleverly, I think into sort of four pieces.
And I'm just going to pull out two. One, that's the utter nonsense part that we can all recognize, and many of people have done this with ChatGPT.
And you can able and are able to identify that. And then the sort of plausible that incorrect, where the gray area comes?
Are we in a position where as confusing and as concerning, perhaps as the hallucinations are for ChatGPT-3.5, that problem is perhaps fixed when we
get to a far more sophisticated level in ChatGPT-4?
HOFFMAN: Just like we've been improving search engines, the hallucination problem will improve. It may never ever 100 percent fix, but it will -- it
will get to, you know, human beings make mistakes, too. And search engines make mistakes.
And so it'll get to a place where it's like, look, it's actually a very useful and reliable source. And sometimes you'll still have to cross check,
just when you talk to another human being. And another human being says, well, I think X is true.
And you're like, well, wait a minute, let's go get one or two or three more other sources just to cross check, and make sure that's the case. You'll
never get to zero on that, because it's a great assistant. But you have to not be deluded by the fact that it's so linguistically capable, right?
It's one of the proxies that we frequently use for truth is, can you speak really compellingly? Well, you know, these AI Chatbots can now speak really
compellingly. And so you just have to kind of upgrade your interaction with a tool to kind of go hmm, I think I should cross check that one.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, human judgment will always be required. In the book, I think you describe it as learn to recognize good enough knowledge and
utilize it, which jumped out at me as well.
CHATTERLEY: The place I'm heading here by asking you all of these questions, though, is to that point, you're not in favor of a pause in AI
development. But would it surely not be smarter in some way? And can you at least understand the logic to wait until we're at a point where the
technology itself is that much more advanced that some of these issues fall away and if not, why not?
HOFFMAN: It's partially like how you get it developed. You develop it by engagement, like the way that we've made it so much of a better human
amplification tool is by having it engage with human beings learn from them and learn and essentially how to be a better tool a better assistant.
And technology we adapt to it and we adopt we adapt it as we're building it. The six month pause basically doesn't -- wouldn't give us anything even
if you could wave the wand what's that OK we wait six months and then we get back to developing it.
I mean, it's yes, you can think about a little bit, but you can't -- you can't think about like all the things that go wrong -- when you build a car
you didn't think, oh, seatbelts, oh, airbags, oh, window washers, oh, you did it by developing it, learning it and paying attention and asking the
right questions. That's the thing you need to do.
So the six month pause basically doesn't really buy you anything. And so and then the other question about this, of course, is, we're in the process
of reinventing, you know, kind of the industry is like, how can we amplify doctors? How can we amplify teachers? How can we amplify lawyers?
You know, how can we amplify small business owners? And in pausing means that other people who are not pausing will then go and build those things
for the people who are paying attention who are asking the ethical questions, who are who are saying, you know, how do I make sure that this
is broad range only available to, you know, to all communities and to the broader world, and not just to, you know, kind of rich elites or anything
Those people who are asking those ethical questions, those are the people that OK, I'll pause, and then the other people will go and build it. And so
you say no, no, no we need to keep building it. But the good news is, you know, the open AI folks with Sam Altman and Mira, Marathi and Greg Brockman
and crew, the Microsoft folks, Satya Nadella and his holding, they're asking these questions. And so it's, no, no, let's be smart about how we're
doing it. But let's keep going.
CHATTERLEY: Yes, I mean they are asking the questions, but they're also in an effective AI arms race at the same time. And I guess the one counter
that I would make to the point that you made, and I agree with you about the technologies like an airbag, for example.
I mean, airbag, if it blows up to you, but boldly could break your neck or break your nose in a sort of best case scenario. And there are regulators
involved and the technology on this. And the utilization of this is going so fast that I just wonder what the role of regulators of governments of
private industry is at this moment?
Reid what's your advice for those that and for me, too, I can see the human benefits, I can see the educational benefits, the job benefits of the power
of this technology, I just harnessing it for me is the big question. Maybe we should ask ChatGPT-4. OK Reid, what's your answer to that? And what
would ChatGPT-4 answer?
HOFFMAN: Well, I have asked GPT-4 but it's, you know, it can -- it can make a compelling argument in both directions. It's part of the reason why it's
a great educational tool. And I think that the central thing in terms of looking at this and say, well, regulation, can be very good on big harms.
But the way that we adopt technology, just like I was using the car thing is by getting that out there and seeing it versus imagining all the things
in the future. Like if I had said, hey, I'm going to create a two ton hunk of metal that you might die in that you might run over someone else in, you
know, it's like, oh, we should pause before we do it and we should really talk about it before make it.
You just -- you'll just never get it on the road. So the thing that you need to do is say, well, let's, get on the road, let's drive carefully.
Let's be paying a lot of attention. And let's be iterating to it. And it doesn't mean that there isn't a role for regulation. But the role of
regulation is to say, hey, let's be studying it.
And then let's really get crisp about which outcomes we want to avoid, which are important and which outcomes we want to get. And that's the right
place for the dialogue. So for example, when you said, well, we're looking at this AI stuff, well, which things would -- we wouldn't want to say?
Well, let's really make sure we avoid this, let's make sure that we avoid having tools that could increase cyber hacking or phishing. Let's try to
steer on misinformation the right way. Now that we have a whole political issue about because what counts is misinformation, we have an intense set
of disagreements in our society about and that's one of the problems we need to solve.
But like, let's define those things. And then in defining those things, in that dialogue, that could lead to regulation. And by the way, people always
say regulation is what not to do. There's like down regulation, there's also kind of up regulation about like, what things to do.
And I think that's the important thing that we get them do, like when we started creating hospitals we didn't say, let's regulate them first. It is
let's go into the practice and see what happens. And then we go, ah, well, let's see, let's regulate use of anesthetic this way, as opposed to let's
try to predict how anesthetic is going to work, which we're not particularly good at doing without getting the experience of doing it.
CHATTERLEY: Yes. I think at the crux of this is that the technology is not the problem. It's how we use it, and how we utilize it and we can be way,
way smarter. I already -- by reading your book about how we utilize this technology than we are today and we'll get there. Reid, I'd love to
continue chatting more but I have run out of time. Come back please to talk more.
CHATTERLEY: Reid Hoffman, thank you. Co-Founder of LinkedIn there and Author of the book "Impromptu amplifying our humanity through AI".
I think you already know it's worth reading, I think. OK, coming up here on "First Move".
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Money is accountability and we got that today from FOX. But we're not done yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHATTERLEY: A jumbo $787 million check landing in Dominions lap details on the massive settlement next.
CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move", I'm back to one of our top stories today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTIN NELSON, ATTORNEY FOR DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS: The truth matters, lies have consequences. Today's settlement of $787,500,000 represents
vindication and accountability. We must share a commitment to--
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHATTERLEY: Dominion voting systems and its legal team proclaiming victory after a last minute settlement with FOX News and its defamation lawsuit.
The big patent is about half of the $1.6 billion that dominion was asking for and roughly eight times its revenue in 2021.
FOX not required issuing an apology. But in the statement, the company acknowledged that certain claims that it broadcast about different Dominion
appear to be false. Joining us now Ken Turkel he's the Attorney who represented some high profile figures, including Sarah Palin and Hulk Hogan
in defamation cases.
Ken, fantastic to have you on the show! I think plenty of people would have liked this to go to trial for the purposes of democracy. But in the end,
this was a libel trial. It was about business and dominion's lawyers surely would have been negligent not to take this money.
KEN TURKEL, TRIAL ATTORNEY: It wasn't particularly surprising to me it does metrics. I think people lose sight of the fact that you can lose trials. I
don't care what it seems like when people follow it through the news until you're in there intimately tied with the facts and the law and dealing with
That is, if anything Certain a jury is uncertain and I don't care how much of a master you are certainly lawyers that case tremendously are some of
the greatest in the nation but you still have uncertainty. So if you're going to achieve your client's goal, get closure, get essentially what you
want out of the case.
It is reckless, they would have been just, there's no chance you don't take that. It those numbers with what I've kind of heard it's a soft apology,
but not a formal one, right? -- I wasn't -- surprised.
CHATTERLEY: Would you have liked to have seen that?
TURKEL: What's that apology?
CHATTERLEY: Yes. Could they have fought for --?
TURKEL: The non-monetary aspects of speech cases are interesting when you have a broadcast case, where you don't have what we had, let's say in
Palin, where it's written, and they published, you know, or traction of written statement, everything's static, right? It's frozen there.
I don't know how much weight and apology going on the year because they're really just talking to their own people who probably didn't care anyway to
begin with, or an audience. But, you know, you want to get the non-monetary things. You know, I thought up until yesterday, at the very least, that to
dominion, this was a business survival case.
They couldn't go into electoral cycle after electoral cycle, worrying about their product being attacked like that falsely. So--
CHATTERLEY: That's a great point that they could have made a trial that this is a level death result for them, because they simply can't go into
another election with the credibility questions surrounding them. Let's talk about FOX aside now, because this is not the only case that FOX is
They're now bracing for what is Bob biggest suit smart mathematics? I think they're going for $2.7 billion, like we don't have to work out or
understand how they came to that $2.7 billion but those lawyers surely rubbing their hands together today, because the probability of a settlement
surely just went up.
TURKEL: You would think so. The Smartmatic case is lagging behind. There was an interlocutory to intermediate level appeal, because their New York
State court where you can appeal motions immediately. They won the most they the plaintiff won the motion to Smith, I'm pretty sure FOX took that
So they're really just getting into discovery. But keep in mind, Julia, this when we plead a complaint, what we're required to plead in a lawsuit
is a jurisdiction amount damages over $100,000 or whatever the jurisdictional amount isn't given jurisdiction when you hear they're going
after 2.7, 1.6.
That is the plaintiff's best idea of damages at a stage in the case where they really haven't developed their damages through --, right. They haven't
taken the discovery on the experts. The forensic accountants hadn't been deposed. So when we say they're going for a number, my personal practices,
I'd never do that I don't need the shock value.
CHATTERLEY: We plead jurisdiction that we litigate case, a lot of lawyers like to put the number out there. I don't really know what that number
means right now, right?
TURKEL: Does it mean they have an accountant who's computed lost profits, lost revenue at that amount? I don't know. Maybe--
CHATTERLEY: You'd have to have some justification. Or to your point, maybe the intention is never to get trial and just settle for a whopping great
number actually, on that point?
TURKEL: Yes. I don't think you guess, but it's the early stages of a case when you're analyzing business damages, you are going to err on the side of
inclusivity, right? Having the most you can, and then if you have to ratchet it back based on the evidence or so forth, you do. So no, I don't
think it's a guess I would never say that. OK, but, you know, it's early you don't know--
CHATTERLEY: If I were a lawyer, it errs on the side of big, quite frankly. Can I have about -- laugh, I'm a journalist. -- going to go with that. Ken,
TURKEL: We do have to prove it eventually, right? So--
CHATTERLEY: Yes, -- that to. Very quickly, because I have about 30 seconds left. Are you surprised that we know that the monetary amount, because in
settlement cases quite often you never actually hear that it? Is that important?
TURKEL: You know, yes, I think it is and I will tell you this I do a quite a lot of this work. And a lot of it goes to trial, you know, and some of it
doesn't go to trial, but usually in most business type cases, business litigation, non-injury litigation, we're going to do confidential
settlements, right? Everybody wants to just keep it shut we suppose between us speech and reputation cases. I find it very different, Julia.
TURKEL: More often than not, we won't have settlements that are confidential because we want the message out.
TURKEL: --turn message, right?
CHATTERLEY: Loud and clear. I'm being told to shut up. Ken, that's a frequent thing.
CHATTERLEY: Great to chat to you.
TURKEL: Me too.
CHATTERLEY: Turkel have a good day, done. OK, moving on to today's "Connecting Africa" and the business of keeping sailing vessels shipshape.
It's a supertanker sized industry. I can tell you that just asked a West African based firm, Namdock. Eleni Giokos has the details.
ALBERTUS KARIKO, CEO OF NAMDOCK: In short, we fix ships or we repair ships, right? That is the short answer. As the shipyard we provide various
services to the vessel owners they call our port. So we've got three floating docks, the floating docks gets submerged in the water, and then we
raised the vessels out of the water.
ELENI GIOKOS, CNN HOST (voice over): The three floating docks can together lift as much as 30,000 tons, making it one of the largest and most advanced
shipyards in Africa.
KARIKO: We had vessels from all over the world call our ports for service, the Netherlands, Greece, Brazil, France, to name a few. We work on
mechanical propulsion, electrical, carpentry, and piping and valves. These are the services that we sell.
GIOKOS (voice over): The Namdock's team has extensive experience maintaining and repairing a wide range of vessels from cargo ships and
tankers to offshore support vessels and drilling rigs.
KARIKO: Oil and gas is the new buzzword. It's a very exciting time for us. We have people that are well trained to not just only work onshore, but
also to be able to work offshore that require special skills. There are a lot of opportunities where customers are demanding our services.
GIOKOS (voice over): The recent discoveries of extensive oil and gas reserves often Namibian Coast suggests there's the likelihood of
significant growth in the coming years,
KARIKO: We are at a doorstep of really contributing to the GDP of our country, especially from a shipyard perspective.
GIOKOS (voice over): And Chief Executive Officer Albertus Kariko is confident that the coming years will see an increase in maritime traffic.
KARIKO: The Port of Walvis Bay is strategically located to really benefit from the maritime traffic that we will see in the next 3 to 5 years
probably 10 years. We will not be a "bus stop", we will be a port where people load and offload cargo.
And while they are waiting, we as a shipyard repair facility; we're really maximized on those opportunities to make sure that we can service all the
vessels that are calling Port of Walvis Bay. It is necessary for a port to have a shipyard facility. Our vessels do not need to call ports in South
Africa or anywhere else in the world because we provide those skills.
GIOKOS (voice over): For Namdock, for Walvis Bay and for the nation of Namibia, the future seems bright and full of opportunities there for the
CHATTERLEY: What a beautiful sunset. That's it for the show. "Marketplace Europe" is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.