Nope. That's not my experience. That's why shorts personalize their attacks against individuals who work for the corporation and rarely academics or even a broad selection of academic researchers who are credible and represent one or more major academic institutions, absent allegations of fraud which, if frivolous would expose them to potentially large numbers of millions in various civil claims.
Companies have no real incentive to pursue them. But once they are the target of academics, doctors and researchers, and are fully discredited, and exposed, they become the focus of regulatory action. They face a no win situation in one case, which is why they don't pursue it typically as a corporate strategy, versus another where, quite honestly, small companies typically try to minimize the damage, as a strategy and don't have a real incentive to pursue traders who, when attacking companies directly seem to face very few penalties.
No, if they get in the sights of these large, powerful academic institutions and their assets, they will face unending hurt and suffering, and if it goes to to their sponsors, company brands, billions in value, will be discredited, boards will be dismissed, executives will lose their golden parachutes and never work again. Absent credibility, there is only so far they can take that, and puny, uncredible voices make for puny effect. If they are going to uncredibly go against academia and target academic researchers for corporate ends and profit, they would have to up their game, reveal themselves - coming out of the shadows and take a drubbing. In this context, they are puny and they know it. Hence the shadows.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
