Veritas company logo

The profile is currenly unclaimed by the seller. All information is provided by CB Insights.

veritas.com

Founded Year

1983

Stage

Take Private | Alive

Valuation

$0000 

About Veritas

Veritas is a software company that covers all platforms with backup and recovery, business continuity, software-defined storage, and information governance.

Veritas Headquarter Location

2625 Augustine Drive

Santa Clara, California, 95054,

United States

866-837-4827

Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Expert Collections containing Veritas

Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.

Veritas is included in 1 Expert Collection, including Conference Exhibitors.

C

Conference Exhibitors

5,302 items

Veritas Patents

Veritas has filed 579 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Data management
  • Diagrams
  • Computer memory
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

7/29/2019

5/17/2022

Data management, Computer memory, Computer data storage, Virtual reality, Saskatchewan provincial highways

Grant

Application Date

7/29/2019

Grant Date

5/17/2022

Title

Related Topics

Data management, Computer memory, Computer data storage, Virtual reality, Saskatchewan provincial highways

Status

Grant

Latest Veritas News

First UPEPA Order Issued In Project Veritas Case

May 27, 2022

I cover Wealth Preservation in its legal permutations May 27, 2022, Got it! Getty Images Project Veritas is a not-for-profit group has been occasionally characterized, rightly or wrongly, for making extremely misleading right wing documentaries and other videos. One of their publications was a video report entitled "Ilhan Omar Connected Cash-for-Ballots Voter Fraud Scheme Corrupts Elections" (referred to hereafter as the "Video Report"). This video sought to expose a person allegedly engaged in ballot harvesting and other activity in violation of Minnesota's election laws. The Video Report was quickly debunked by a Blog Post on the website of The Election Integrity Partnership ("EIP"), which seeks to point out the truth about voter fraud, or the actual lack thereof, and to generally dispel what views as political propaganda. The EIP is a partnership between two employees of Stanford University and the Center for an Informed Public of the University of Washington. The EIP's blog post questioned Project Veritas' integrity and its sources, and warned that " it should be expected that more misleading videos of this type will be pushed in a similar fashion in the "coming days." On the same day that Project Veritas published its Video Report, the New York Times published a story about former President Trump's business and tax history. Project Veritas claimed that the Times article basically upstaged the Video Report, and that the Times and the EIP colluded to disparage the Video Report by way of a subsequent Times' article which also called into question both the Video Report and Project Veritas generally. Shortly thereafter, Project Veritas sued the New York Times and two of its writers for defamation, and its complaint was able to survive the Times' Anti-SLAPP motion. This litigation is apparently still ongoing at the time of this writing. About a year after it sued the New York Times, Project Veritas brought another complaint for defamation, this time against Stanford and the University of Washington in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Stanford and UW filed a special motion to strike under Washington's Uniform Public Express Protection Act ("UPEPA"), as well as a standard Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. All this resulted the opinion that is the subject of this article and which will now be discussed. MORE FOR YOU Project Veritas' first argument was that the Washington UPEPA should not apply to proceedings in federal court, but the U.S. District Court easily swatted this away by noting that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had already held Anti-SLAPP laws, such as the UPEPA, to be applicable in federal diversity actions within that federal circuit (although some other federal circuits do not permit such Anti-SLAPP motions). As against the University of Washington, Project Veritas also argued that the Washington UPEPA would not apply, insofar as the UPEPA excludes from its protections "a governmental unit or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting or purporting to act in an official capacity." For its part, UW attempted to argue that public policy should lean towards including governmental units in the UPEPA protections against harassing litigation, but the court didn't buy this and instead held to the effect that "the statute says what the statute says", and determined that UW was not afforded UPEPA's protections (although, of course, UW could still assert its defenses in its motion to dismiss). Moving on, the court first examined Project Veritas' claim for defamation per se, which requires proof of all of four elements, being a false statement, publication of the statement, fault, and damages. Truth is, of course, an absolute defense to any defamation claim, and a statement need not be completely true so long as the gist of the statement is true. Likewise, an opinion (however misguided) is not actionable for defamation unless it makes factual statements that are demonstrably untrue. Here, the court found that EIP's blog post was in the nature of opinion and did not make any factual statements which were blatantly false. The New York Times' republication of EIP's statements was similarly not actionable. The bottom line was that Stanford's UPEPA motion would be sustained, and the University of Washington's motion to dismiss would also be granted. Project Veritas' case was thus dismissed without leave to amend, and presumably now the matter will go up to the Ninth Circuit for review. ANALYSIS I recently wrote about the Washington UPEPA in my article UPEPA’s Commercial Speech Exception Examined For The First Time In Boshears (April 29, 2022). While Boshears was the first opinion to consider the UPEPA, this Project Veritas case is the first opinion to issue an order directly under the UPEPA, here in favor of Stanford University. Otherwise, this case is unremarkable from the viewpoint of defamation law since the issues presented here have been resolved in numerous other cases over the years. What is interesting is that the so-called "governmental unit" exception to UPEPA's scope was not extended to the University of Washington. On this point, the court is correct that "the statute says what the statute says," but as a member of the UPEPA drafting committee, I can tell you that this situation was not contemplated in drafting that exception. What that exception was meant to do was to keep a governmental entity from availing itself of the UPEPA's special motion in cases where the governmental entity is a defendant in a lawsuit arising from some statement made by the governmental unit in the fulfilment of its governmental function (rightly or wrongly). The exception was not meant to apply to situations like the one here, where purely journalistic comments are made by somebody merely sponsored by a governmental unit are the subject of a defamation lawsuit. Still, the "statute says what the statute says," and a fix of this issue (if one is even desirous) will need to be made by state legislatures or in a future revision of the UPEPA. Nobody, including the drafting committee, ever claimed that the UPEPA was perfect or could anticipate the myriad issues that might arise after enactment. This is perhaps and example of that, but it is also an example of how the law evolves — situations like this arise, and statutes are later amended or not in response to the situation. Another issue that comes up in this case is the applicability of UPEPA (and other Anti-SLAPP laws) in the federal courts. As mentioned, the Ninth Circuit allows UPEPA motions in diversity cases arising from a state with such laws, but other circuits have nixed them. My position has been, and still is, that the circuits which disallow Anti-SLAPP motions have it wrong. Their position is that Anti-SLAPP laws are purely procedural, and federal procedure applies in federal cases, end of story. However, what Anti-SLAPP laws do at a very fundamental level is to provide defendants with a substantive right to be free from litigation at an early stage, not much different than if a state passed a statute that prevented defamation causes of action from being asserted in the first place in particular cases. Thus, while couched as a procedure, Anti-SLAPP laws are actually substantive in effect, and federal courts sitting in diversity are required to apply state substantive law. But, who knows, maybe this case will make it up to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the split amongst the circuit. Notably, federal Anti-SLAPP legislation has been introduced from time-to-time, but then gets lost in that dysfunctional institution known as Congress. To be clear, I have no iron in this fire or, really, even much passing interest in how this litigation comes out. This case is only interesting to me because, again, it is the first order issued by any court under the UPEPA. As the old saw goes, you have to start somewhere. For the UPEPA, this is that start. CITE AS

Veritas Web Traffic

Rank
Page Views per User (PVPU)
Page Views per Million (PVPM)
Reach per Million (RPM)
CBI Logo

Veritas Rank

  • When was Veritas founded?

    Veritas was founded in 1983.

  • Where is Veritas's headquarters?

    Veritas's headquarters is located at 2625 Augustine Drive, Santa Clara.

  • What is Veritas's latest funding round?

    Veritas's latest funding round is Take Private.

  • Who are the investors of Veritas?

    Investors of Veritas include The Carlyle Group, GIC, Symantec and Bessemer Venture Partners.

  • Who are Veritas's competitors?

    Competitors of Veritas include Theta Lake and 1 more.

You May Also Like

Aware Logo
Aware

Aware offers a risk management and analytics suite to address compliance, retention, archiving, litigation holds, eDiscovery, data governance, and human behavior risk within enterprise collaboration networks such as Slack, Microsoft Teams, Yammer, and Workplace by Facebook. It also offers deep qualitative insights, such as proprietary sentiment and conversation health NLP. Aware's sentiment NLP is 3x as accurate in the enterprise compared to other models.

Veeam Software Logo
Veeam Software

Veeam Software is an information technology company that develops backup, disaster recovery and data management software for virtual, physical and cloud-based workloads.On January 9, 2020, Veeam Software was acquired by Insight Partners at a valuation between $5000-5548.37M.

Proofpoint Logo
Proofpoint

Proofpoint offers an integrated suite of on-demand data protection solutions, including threat protection, regulatory compliance, archiving and governance, and secure communication. Proofpoint's solutions are built on a flexible, cloud-based platform and leverage a number of technologies, including big data analytics, machine learning, deep content inspection, secure storage, and advanced encryption, to address today's threat landscape.On August 31st, 2021, Proofpoint was acquired by Thoma Bravo at a valuation of $12.3B.

Vembu Technologies Logo
Vembu Technologies

Vembu Technologies is a company that provides remote, online and offsite data backup.

Speechmatics Logo
Speechmatics

Speechmatics develoops Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR), available in private or public clouds and securely on-premises. The technology can be used for real-time or pre-recorded audio and video files, pushing the boundaries of speech recognition innovation and supporting a number of languages and dialects.

Theta Lake Logo
Theta Lake

Theta Lake is an AI-based digital communication supervision and compliance platform, helping regulated organizations streamline supervision, review, and retention of audio and video content. Theta Lake provides a purpose-built product suite for automatic policy detection of corporate compliance, conduct, and regulatory risks (both audio and visual), AI-assisted supervision workflow, and compliant archiving for digital communication.

Discover the right solution for your team

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

Request a demo

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.