Slashdot Mirror

Great. Now that I know IDG==WILEY, I won't buy Wiley books either. If they respond further to Nester's letter all he has to do is point them at this website, Ulysses for Dummies, and tell them to buzz off. That site has been up for 4 years. Judges tend to see through this kind of bullshit and hammer lawyers doing this kind of inconsistent crap.

Corporate Standover Tactics for Dummies

This is still my favorite "dummies" book.

Hmm, how quickly we all forget


--------

From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Subject: IDG's relationship to me and others
To: IDrewelow@idgbooks.com
Date: 07 May 2000 15:24:29 -0500

[ An open letter. Anyone has permission to redistribute this letter, verbatim, for no fee. ]

Dear Isabelle:

I am an author that has just completed my first book with IDG, the Linux Programming Bible. I had been very pleased with the way IDG handled the book, process, and legal matters -- until now.

It came to my attention today that you personally, and IDG in general, are sending threatening letters to many members of the Free Software community (of which I am a part) that happen to use the phrase "for dummies" in casual conversation, e-mail, or the title of a webpage.

I must vehemently object to this harassment of my colleagues. These things pose zero risk and no possibility of confusion with your series. If they were printed and sold in bookstores with a yellow cover, I'd easily support your claim.

I feel that this attempt at censoring people that are just trying to do good in the world is despicable and feel that I will have to re-evaluate my future plans to write additional titles with a company that actively is trying to crush members of the Linux community unfortunate enough to use a common English phrase in the course of their daily communications or online documentation.

The specific cases to which I refer include the "Real Beginner's Guide to CVS" guide, which happened to mention farther down that it is "affectionately known as 'CVS for dummies'". I additionally noticed a post on the Slashdot.Org online forum today where you are apparently going after a non-profit group in Australia for using the phrase on a website.

I am left to wonder if I myself may be the target of your pressures by unwittingly using a phrase such as "for dummies" on my own website, in my own e-mail communications, or even on the phone.

I would ask at this time that you ceasee this unwarranted harassment of the good people on the Internet and instead focus on the people that are actually trying to harm you, if any.

I additionally consider it only proper to inform you that I have created a webpage containing the words "for dummies" at http://www.complete.org/news/957731761/index_html

Sincerely,

John Goerzen
jgoerzen@complete.org

References:

• http://www.octapod.org.au/dummies/
  One site you succeeded in bullying.
• http://slashdot.org/articles/00 /05/07/1019231.shtml
  Today's Slashdot story.
• http://slashdot.org/articles/ 99/10/28/1636205_F.shtml
  An earlier Slashdot story detailing your attempts to censor e-mail.
• 15 USC 1125(c)(4) explicitly stating that your representation of having an actionable claim are untrue.
• http://www.users.one.se/~feltby/idgb_s mells/
  Which details other cases of your oppression.
• http://www.kvaleberg.com/html.html
  Another person you succeeded in censoring.

-Marc

Flame all you want, I'll post more

Apparently, IDG only has a case against for-profit organizations. Here's a quote from the page:

The provisions of the 1995 Trademark Dilution act are, in a nutshell, that

"The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled to injunctive relief against another person's commercial use of a mark or trade name if such use causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark."

But

"... to be actionable the use must not fall within any of the statutory exemptions. Under the Act, 'fair use' of a mark in comparative advertising, 'non- commercial' use of a mark, and news reporting and commentary are not actionable."