Slashdot Mirror
Criticize Online, Get Fined
maxpublic writes "Yet another outspoken critic of corporate America has been SLAPP'ed - only this time, Dan Whatley didn't even know he'd been sued until he was presented with a $450,000 judgement. For those who don't know, SLAPP stands for 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation' and is used to silence people who openly criticize thin-skinned corporations." In this case the company doing to suing is Xybernaut, the makers of
wearable computers mentioned here many times in the past. This article is a must
read. And now Xybernaut has joined Amazon and others on my list of Must-Avoid
companies. This is a creepy run around the 1st Ammendment, and you should
be aware.
An obvious question...
"Nora," ... "among several outspoken posters sued last year by Viragen, a small biotech firm in Florida that is trying to genetically engineer chickens to lay cancer-curing eggs"
She deserves to be sued, speaking out against Mother Goose like that.
Mattel has been trying to kill this site. Now the guy turned around and is suing Mattel for $48 million for violating the ADA and some other laws. Glad to see the censorship by litigation people getting slapped back.
So this company is now on your list of "must avoid" companies? You mean, like the RIAA, MPAA and all the other products and companies you've encouraged everyone to avoid but then turn around and buy from and hand your cash to the instant they have something like an Akira DVD or an X-Box you want to buy?
You know, I haven't seen Slashdot come to the aid of the thousands of teens and pre-teens who have harry-potter oriented sites and have been recieving cease-and-desist orders left and right by JK Rowling and WB and whoever else.
I guess it's only important when the law is coming after adults. Screw helping the 12 year olds.
I think it's pretty obvious someone is lying, but I wonder who it is. They claim he got a letter by registered mail, which means he had to sign for it. He claims he never got it. Seems like a simple thing to go back and check the receipt of the letter (if there was one) and see if he signed for it. I have a feeling he really did get the letter, since even the dumbest lawyer would be smart enough not to lie about something that easily checked in court, especially when you know the guy will challenge it when he gets the judgment (of course I could be wrong and the lawyer really is that dumb). I think finding out about the registered letter will clear up pretty much the whole case.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
There are three possibilities:
;)
1) Murphy lies about not recieving the lawsuit notice
2) The Company(tm) provided false documents about the letter reciept
3) The mail company provided false documents about the letter reciept
I incline to believe the third one. Anyhow, if Murphy is being truthful, he has a case here
Does Xybernaut even have any products that I can avoid? Will they ever have any products, or are they going into the revenue-by-lawsuit business?
Sounds like someone needs to spend less time in chat rooms, more time at the drawing board.
* Lawyers as a group are no more dedicated to justice or public service than a private public utility is dedicated to giving light.
--David Melinkoff, Professor of Law, UCLA
Yet another symptom of the corporatizing of America. If you have money, you win. Isn't this country "by the people, for the people"? Obviously, Xybernaut is a company losing money. Trying to "protect" your companies interests by suing potential customers is a *real* good way to piss off most of the rest. Personally, I will never, ever buy anything from this company. I will also never recommend it's products to anyone I know. Hey Newman (I'm sure you or one of your storm troopers, er, lawyers will be reading this). I have people asking me every single day about what tech items to buy. From corporate upper management to home owners. I'd say if your weren't percieved as being so incompetent, you wouldn't draw comments like the ones you sued Whatley over. Comments like this:
... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
"If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of
heh. Now, you are a big item here and I'm sure a bunch of other forums and blogs. Good luck trying to sell anything at all.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
They only give us one side of it, nobody tells us what he actually said... and he claims his certified mail was never received....
...
Well.. that should be fairly easy to show in court, eh? If he *signed* for his mail, and ignored it, and is now claiming he never received it... (if)
How can you call USA "a democratic country" when you don't have freedom of speech?
This is a creepy run around the 1st Ammendment, and you should be aware.
The First Amendment is a restriction on government, not on you, your neighbor or a business.
This was a civil judgement not a criminal conviction, the First Amendment does not apply AT ALL.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
All Americans are free!
Best regards,
Steen Suder
-- for email: send to
I guess I should make sure I have "Personal Injury" coverage in my home owners policy before I post any more messages on /.
To quote Rage Against the Machine:
"What the land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enenmy."
Freedom in the USA seems to be more about freedom to sue, than freedom of speach.
Well, the article said that the guy who got the $450,000 fine claimed that one of the company's senior executives (and brother of the CEO), "if [...] was not a relative his job would consist of ... 'Would you like fries with that?'" He also called them liars.
Normally, I'm all for the little guy, but in this case, seems like the poster was a troll, not an "outspoken critic of corporate America."
Now, if he had provided a deep insight into the company's workings, and if he had some facts to prove that the company management is incompetent, that would've been a questionable case. On top of that, he claimed he never received a certified letter, when it's very, very easy to have USPS check whether such letter was delivered or not. I don't think we're getting the whole story here.
Bush Lies Watch
... and companies don't have as much power over here as in the US, here goes:
Microsoft is going down the drain fast, installing a complete retard (check video footage) like Steve Ballmer as CEO.
AOL is single-handedly destroying the internet by getting millions upon millions of clueless idiots to surf the web. The internet will be destroyed as a result of Steve Case's actions, which in turn leads to his company going down the drain.
Steve Jobs' insistence to 'think different' even now that it has become obvious that PC's are the way to go is harming the stockholder value. This incompetent nincompoop wasn't fired for no reason.
Now come and get me.
Well, that's the basis for his over turning the default judgment against him. The US system of law is based on fair play and notice: you must know that you that you might be sued under certain laws. That is procedural matter jurisdiction.
But even more important is to know that you have been sued to give you a chance to fight. That's called subject matter jurisdiction and can only be conferred by good service of process [if they hand you a copy of the complaint, nail it to your door, etc.] He will argue that the company never served him. If he can show that, the original judgment against him is gone.
Of course none of this should be construed as creating a lawyer/client relationship and your mileage may vary.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
This is business as usual, especially since January 2001. "If you don't have the money and time to pay for lawyers and sit in court, then it's not worth your while to even open your mouth to criticize."
Of course -- it needs to be said -- when our society allowed career white collar criminals to usurp the highest Executive office of our government, including an individual who responds to criticism of his less-than-pristine character with the statement,"there should be limits on freedom of speech," it's really no surprise that Corporations would take advantage of such an oppressive atmosphere.
A sad fate for the Bill of Rights and American democracy indeed.
It's entirely possible to create an argument against a company without resorting to speech that would be considered inflammatory and cause for a suit. Granted, they're not as much fun to read sometimes, but a well-reasoned post with thought and backup will be more endearing in the long run.
Take this as a warning that you are responsible for your speech on the Internet, as much as people may try to hide behind the shroud of digital anonymity.
It seems like nobody ever asks the one organization that can provide proof of delivery in situations like this: the Post Office. Delivery of certified mail requires a signature. If that signature isn't his, service has not occured. Without service, there can't be due process (meaning you never had the option of confronting your accusers in court, not only a right but a constitutionally guaranteed right), and without due process, there can be no legitimate trial. Unfortunately, there's no way he can recoup his legal losses without a countersuit.
Xybernaut has a bunch of morons in charge and all their products are lame and unreliable. Their hardware usually falls apart or stops working a few days after purchase. Did you know their devices are made through child-labour, by the way?
Viragen is a bunch of loonies too, especially management. I hear they actually pay people to have sex with the genetically engineered chickens, to create half-man half-chicken offspring.
I really hate Amazon too, did you know they use their profits to fund terrorism?
Are they going to sue me now?
Hell, yes! Lets go to Sealand and flame every shonky CEO from Disney to Coke. Litigation don't scare you if you aint got no money. And it would be in Euros too. I dont think litigation lawyers can count that high.
Xybernaut has joined Amazon and others on my list of Must-Avoid companies.
But any time there's a new must-see movie, you've gotta be first in line, right? It seems clear in this story that you're going to continue supporting disney, and other stories (anything Star Wars related, or LotR) in the past clearly indicate you'll support the rest of MPAA. Probably the one organization in the US that is completely dead-set against computer users having any rights at all and you continue to support them, while boycotting Amazon et al for relatively minor things. How do you sleep at night?
Obviously, IANAL
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
hmm??
--he that be not ashamed shall have no source code to hide.
How would this affect someone outside of the US? If I were to write a scathing, bile filled statement of hatred for [insert favourite ceo here] below this post would I find myself subject to UK law or US law? If the US, how could they enforce it?
And on the evening of the first day the lord said... LX 1, STANDBY; LX 1, GO!; and there was light.
I think these SLAPP lawsuits are worrysome in that they create a chilling effect on peoples ability to candidly express their views. Now, if your view consist of "These guys are dicks!" then you might have some libel issues, unless you can be specific about what sort of dicks they are and back it up with evidence.
But honestly, we're talking about a day-trader message board here, right? I think this kind of "insider information" (accurate or not) is exactly what they should be facilitating. I used to live in Lower Manhattan, and if you go to any wall street bar you'll hear much more unvarnished and opinionated statements being made about potential investments. Of course, that's bar-talk and this is an online posting, but it seems to me that saying a company's management if full of it (even if you use creative langure) aught not to bring legal action.
Of course, when you bruise a wealthy, powerful executive's ego, especially if you do it by hitting a little too close to home, you're liable (no put intended) to see some blowback.
Howard Dean for president
[Apologies for the slightly off-topic nature of this post. But it appears highly relevant because of the thread.]
How long before Taco or one of the other Slashdot editors is accused of and sued for libel by one of the individuals or corporations that is commented on (and perhaps defamed) on the site?
By the Lectric Law Library's definition, libel is:
Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. [The 'Lectric Law Library]
By the CyberLibel definition:
A publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. [CyberLibel]
I tried out the Libel Checklist over at UTexas, and found that a good number of posts by slashdot editor's could at least be considered suspect of libel claims. However, I am anything but a lawyer, and would love to hear a lawyer comment on this.
For example, if an editor posts a comment in response to an article saying something to the effect of "so-and-so's marketing practices are highly suspect and should be avoided by all good slashdotters." If the statement is not provably true, is not a fair report of an official and public record, is not a matter of public concern, is not merely abusive, is not consentual, and is not clearly an opinion, then such statements could, I believe, be intrepreted as libel.
Furthermore, could the users of Slashdot also be sued for libel due to their comments?
Or worse, could I be sued for libel for raising this very question about Rob and Slashdot? Uh-oh. Nevermind...
it is only a restriction on government, so it has nothing to do with a civil suit free speech and responsible speech are not the same thing...
I didn't see RMS, ESR, or any of these other "freedom" luminaries rise up for environmentalists or Native Americans or the homeless or anti-pollution activists, so I have little sympathy that they're whining in their (free?) beer now about how mean, nasty corporations are picking on poor techies. Too bad, guys -- you lost the war when you failed to fight for others. Now that the fight is in your backyard, you care -- but it may be too late, because the rights were eroded long before the DMCA became reality.
Freedom of speech isn't just about the GPL and software; it's about fundamental human rights and corporate control of government.
All about me
Excellent point. Here's a link that has some summary coverage. This is such corporate BS!
Howard Dean for president
Wait and see if it is recorded that he signed for the letter ,(informing him of the slapp),before jumping on the corperate hate band wagon.No one here has posted the specifics of the case yet,as in if there was evidence or not that he recieved the letter.
""The postings (in question) are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents, such as corporate press releases or SEC filings," Judge David O. Carter wrote.
That's a pretty good description of the postings Xybernaut sued Dan Whatley over, according to a copy of the suit. The suit lists posts in which Whatley berates Xybernaut chairman and CEO Edward Newman and his brother Steve Newman, who is the vice-chairman. "
Having said all that , what they seem to be suing the guy over seems to be ridiculus, basicly saying the managment of the company was incompetent and accusing the company of lying on a message board which every one knows are havens of 'truth and 'facts'.
_________________________________________________
If she did nothing illegal then she should have stuck to her guns. There are various free legal services she has access to, all she had to do was call her local public defenders office. IANAL BUT I do believe that she would have had the right to coutner sue (in her home state) for the company filing a false, misleading, or malicous (sp) suit.
FYI, if the company that filed suit in the article said they delivered a letter via certified post, they probably have a signature card with SOMEONE's signature on it. Most lawyers won't goto court unless they have some documentation that they have made a "valid effort" to inform the defendant, or that a summons was delivered.
The sad truth is that very few people wish to take the time to actually stand up for what they believe in. Hiding in the sand and ignoring a problem is more effective and less dangerous. If more people filed counter suits and fought these law suits they wouldn't exist.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
hmm??
using terrorism to control you with hidden code is certainley a better sell than piracy!,.. LOL..+6t
--he that be not ashamed shall have no source code to hide.
"3) As for the letter, it's too late, he'll have to hire a lawyer to even raise the issue, but now he has no opportunity for a pretrial dismissal, this will get really expensive. He has to appeal this. If he ignored the letter it was the dumbest thing he ever did. "
But Can they realy do that ?do they not have to prove that the guy got the letter and hence was aware of the trial ? And if he wins the appeal who pays the legal fee's for both sides?
_________________________________________________
It is entirely possible that Mr. Whatley did not recieve the certified mail. In a case like this it is up to the courts to serve the defendant with the notice of hearing. This is done with certified mail. The prosecution can only assume that the person receieved the letter. I have a friend who was doing much the same, except in his case he was suing a business. In his case the business did not show up and he won by forfeit. The company then came to the court claiming that the letter was not receieved. That was when the records were checked and found that indeed they had not recieved the letter. Of course it is also possible to refuse certified mail and by doing so make it appear as though you have not recieved it. Certified mail is no guarantee that a party will recieve a letter.
This is all speculation though, since there is a lot of information we do not know. We can only hope that this is resolved properly, on the side of justice. Besides, $450,000 is an extremely large judgement, and an appeal is still possible.
Unfortunately, this is not the best example of SLAPP suits; it could be argued that someone in the process is simply lying about the certified mail.
A much better example would be a few years back when a woman found out a business in her area was dumping waste behind a school. She notified the state agency to confirm it, and as a resident of that school's district, had a right to be on the property. As a result, she was SLAPP'ed, by the contractor who was hiding the waste. Now THAT is scary. What possible right could that contractor have for suing her, when he WAS guilty?? She was nothing more than a whistle-blower, I don't think any of us would argue with that.
Suing someone over a troll-like post on a messageboard is childlike, and shows a company to be immature. Suing because someone exposed you for poisoning the planet is just downright low, even lower than dumping waste materials behind an elementary school in the first place.
You can read more about SLAPP and that particular lawsuit here at ZeroWasteAmerica.org
It'll be a cold day in hell before I boycott a company based on some flamebait kneejerk paragraph posted by CmdrTaco.
well-that's-just-plain-creapy dept.
It's *CREEPY* not creapy.
You know, creepy, like the concept of Taco breeding...
off of the xybernaut contact page there are a few addresses to complain to. i'm sure i'm not alone in being a person who has considered purchasing their stuff, perhaps they should know how much they've pissed us off.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
"I see no BUSINESS basis for this suit,..."
,havens of solid facts and should be treated as such),but obviously they can and have done this.What should be clear is the fact that this case realy seems to have nothing to do with a ,"..BUSINESS basis", and was/is specificaly about the comments the guy made about the Managment,(i.e calling them stupid and saying they were liars),this point is important as the basis of the case would seem to be to defend the reputation of the managment ,(which does granted have a signifigant baring on the companys reputation),and not nessecarily the ,"..company's interests" ,and we realy should move on and start looking at the details of the case,(i.e Did the guy get the letter,does the person suing have to show that the defendant got some form of warning before the case can be awarded in favor of the person suing in the absense of the defendant,)and learn from it.
I agree with you in the sense that I think that this case is ridiculus and should not be in the courts,(message boards are not by and large
Also I would like to see more on the specifics of the case so as to find out how it warrents a slapp case specificly and more on cases like this , any one got any good links?
_________________________________________________
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If sue-happy companies can follow their lead, and start trawling http://www.fuckedcompany.com/, it would be open season... on our freedom of speech.
Of course, you can't believe everthing you read on the internet.
On the other had, maybe Taco can drop the whole subscription idea, and start suing AC trolls who post nasty things about his fiancee to keep /. afloat.
- passion
Well, after posting your opinion on Slashdot, why don't you let Xybernaut.com know what your feelings are? I always thought what they were creating was pretty innovative.
But after reading all of this, they leave a bad taste in my mouth. If you feel the same, why don't you send an email to public relations
[Certified Mail]
Certified mail provides proof of mailing and delivery of mail. The sender receives a mailing receipt at the time of mailing, and a record of delivery is maintained by the Postal Service. A return receipt to provide the sender with proof of delivery can also be purchased for an additional fee. Certified mail service is available only for First-Class Mail or Priority Mail. Certified mail is not available for international mail, nor does it offer insurance protection. For valuables and irreplaceable items, use Express Mail or insured or registered mail.
See Certified Mail
So via US certified mail, the USPS should have a record of delivery. When suing someone for that much money, you'd have to be an idiot not to pay the extra for confirmation of delivery-- but given that we're talking about corporate lawyers I wouldn't rule that out.
See this is the one thing about the Slashdot forums that utterly pisses me off.. I can read all day stories of corps just beating down the common man, my own government restricting my rights, tons of things that "shouldn't happen here" but nowhere do I see info on which organizations to support to oppose these things or which protests to attend, or anything.. it's like watching a mugging from the comfort my web browser and I'm sick of it. If anyone has sites, or info, hook me up, love to be more involved.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
Both the statute (CDA's Section 230 provisions) and case law are very strong in the exemptions granted to the operators of a computer service from the duties and liabilities of a traditional publisher. Every direct challenge brought against an online service provider regarding speech contributed by a third-party has been defeated both at trial and in appellate court.
in the SSSR you weren't allowed to criticise the government. In the USA you aren't allowed to criticise the private corporations.
(I don't live in either; thank god)
I'm posting to avoid being attacked also by Xybernaut. But this is typical with their business practices. On the wearables mailing list they always have trouble with anyone that talks ill of their products. (and they do suck compared to what you get for the money.) they threaten.
,,, everyone reccomends NOT to buy Xybernaut because of price and quality. and Xybernaut hates that.
The thing is that noone into wearable computing would ever think of buying a Xybernaut product. Buying low-power hardware for 10 times what it is worth isnt for the researcher or pioneer (wearable computing people are pioneers) and the problem is that Xybernaut hates the fact that when a newbie asks about what to buy to get into wearable computing
How do non us people stand in these cases?
_________________________________________________
I wonder what the legal recourse is no something like this. There are a number of cases where someone won by default, such as the coed vs the wild party girls tape folks [austin360.com]. Since it is not a criminal case, as such, what are the legal options.
As other people have pointed out, the plaintiff here won a default judgment because the defendant didn't show up. The defendant's position is that he was never notified of the lawsuit.
It seems, then, that (assuming that he wasn't properly notified) Mr. Whatley can appeal on grounds of failure to give sufficient notice, which is doubtless a violation of the rules of civil procedure of whatever jurisdiction the suit was filed in (the article doesn't say).
If this occurs, the appeals court would probably overturn the default judgment and remand the proceedings to a trial.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
In this case, it is easy for the judge to allow the default because apparently Mr. Whatley never responded to the complaint. That is understandable because if he is correct, he never received notice. The whole lack of notice argument brings the whole realm of Due Process under the United States Constitution into play. Judges tend to be VERY sensitive to notice problems. Virtually every state's Rules of Civil Procedure have clear guidelines for how to handle these not-uncommon scenarios.
It should be relatively easy for Mr. Whatley to get this undone. Then the battle really begins.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Defendant Whatley said: If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of ... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
According to the company's Web site:
Dr. Newman is the former President and CEO of Fed American Inc., President and CEO of SANDCO American Corporation, and President and CEO of SAN Medical Corporation. A graduate of the University of Rochester School of Medicine, he also has degrees from UCLA and Brooklyn College. Dr. Newman's articles and presentations on the future of technology have been distributed worldwide.
On the face of it, Whatley's statement is wrong, defamatory, and made with wreckless disregard for the truth. The only question is whether $450,000 is an appropriate penalty for what he said, that is, did Newman or the company suffer that much in damages or did Whatley's conduct need a substantial judgment to deter him in the future.
The main line of Whatley's defenders appears to be that nobody should take what he says seriously, a curious position for people who claim the moral high ground over corporations.
With so much true stuff that needs to be said, why would anyone waste their time on malicious nonsense?
I thinkit's funny that a lot of people in this discussion are quick to criticize companies for defending their intellectual property, but when there was the slightest possibility that Morpheus had violated the GPL, everyone was up in arms. Granted, I think the companise in this case are being a little too heavy handed, but it's the same concept.
Where is the outcry to our elected representatives to work to fix the system. The legal system is now just another implement in the corporate toolbox. What is it going to take for us to work and get people into office who will actually try to change things, instead of sending yet another stream of RepubliCrats in to keep the system going exactly like it is?
You've got to be served by a constable or other officer of the court. You can't just file a suit, mail it out and collect a judgement when the defendant fails to show up. That being said, if you are sued, even if you are completely innocent of everything, it'll most likely cost 10-15k to prove that - and it's 50-50 whether you'll get that money back. That's only if you never go to trial. If you got to trial it'll be more like 50k. If it's inter-state more like 100k. That's why so many suits are settled and why the little guy generally loses unless he's got a brother who is an attorney.
Disbar any lawyers involved in bringing frivolous libel/defamation suits. Now, in this particular case, we don't have all of the facts, so it is hard to tell if it really is frivolous, or even if the guy is being truthful about not getting the letter. But the court system should have the tools necessary to make a determination of frivolity, and then punish the lawyers involved.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
I will presently refrain from making comments about those with high user ids missing out on juicy
This is another view of the world.
gov't can save us all, that is why ONLY corporations are evil. When government does this such thing all the time it is not worth mentioning unless it happens to ME.
"Registered mail is the most secure service that the USPS offers. It incorporates a system of receipts to monitor the movement of the mail from the point of acceptance to delivery. Registered mail service provides the sender with a mailing receipt, and a delivery record is maintained by the Postal Service"
However the sad thing is that as soon as the court clerk Writes the letter in as being mailed it is Legally considered mailed. To overturn on appeal you would suffer the burden of proof that the clerk had conspired to prevent delivery of the summons! They don't have to send via registered mail and certified mail is much more lax than registered mail.
I just wish this guy luck on overturning the decision on appeal.
Here is the pdf or if you prefer the Google Text based version.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I hope someday we have freedom of speech in america.
A letter can be sent certified mail and not be signed. If you want the signature of the person you are sending the letter to, use signature confirmation or insured mail.
"Certified" doe not mean "Signed"
Rhapsody in Numbers
The article says that his online handle was dan7, which was a name that I remember quite well from the Raging Bull boards. Dan7 was a short, plain and simple. His whole purpose for posting was to cause the stock to go down so that he could make money. In my opinion, he got what was coming to him. Do a search for his postings and see for yourself.
There's an interesting quote of the day at the bottom of the SlashDot page that, co-incidentally, relates to the article -- "Lieberman's Law: Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens"
If he received the letter or not that shouldn't be the question. The question is, how could this kind of lawsuit stand in court? The judge should've laughed in their face and sent them back home.
PS: The opinions expressed above may not be mine and I can't assume there responsibility. So if anyone is considering suing me, please don't.
If your interpretation of the 1st amendment is that is guarantees no restrictions on speech, then you would have to allow libel & slander, as well as shouting "fire" in public places.
One doesn't get in trouble for shouting "Fire". One gets in trouble for the riot that follows as people flee.
Not that either of these could ever be implemented...
Make the party, and its lawyers, that brings the case to court responsible for the defendants (party being sued) legal fees plus $50K-$100K. Then if the law firm that brought the case loses another two cases (of libel/defamation), suspend all lawyers in the firm for 5 years (or 1 year if all lawyers re-take courses relating to libel/defamation) and reset the counter (if happens again, 10 year disbarment for all lawyers in firm).
This is my opinion and I stand behind the U.S. Constitution that defends my right to express it.
He also recommends regular posters sign up for "personal injury" coverage option offered with most homeowner insurance policies. It covers legal costs if the policyholder is sued for defamation.
I didn't realize this was an option - but it's a really good idea. I wonder what kinds of insurance policies are available like this. I'd like to be covered for any kind of legal costs - from civil suits to criminal.
It seems like with civil suit coverage, corporations have a lot less leverage against individuals to infringe on our rights by the meer threat of lawsuits.
Since their libel claim was that they were libeled because I said that they violated the FMLA, ADA, MGL c.151B (the Mass. version of the ADA), I was able to bring this under those laws. Those laws specifically allow for punitive damages, where simple abuse of process does not.
Fight Spammers!
it is the only way to fly... er, post.
so, fuck you, all you people who deride anoncows. when i have something nasty to say, anoncow status is the only way!
Its pretty clear to me that these guys filed a meritless lawsuit to cover up their pathetic earnings...look at the companies annual stock record over the last year -- it parallels the track-record of Enron and more so Global Crossing: steadily down hill, with no end in sight, except for the big ch11. Anyone who'd buy stock in this company is nuts.
Some asshole here said, "the first amendment doesn't apply in civil lawsuits"?? So, somehow you think the founding father's wanted rich corporations preventing people from speaking freely? Somehow, you think that just because its "only money" that's involved, that's less serious than being sent to jail on a criminal case? I'd rather go to jail for years than lose 400k.
Defamation/libel lawsuits are nothing but a crock. All of them. Someone says something about you that's not true, and somehow that entitles you to their hard earned money? Bullshit. If its not true, put out a factual statement, with facts, testifying to its falsity. If people believe the liar over you, well then that's not the liar's fault -- its the fault of people who believe in gossip. While we're on defamation/libel, why don't they just sue people who gossip, as well?
Lets face the facts -- libel/defamation suits are only used as weapons by the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless. They NEVER help out the average person. Overall, more harm is done by them than good. They should be abolished.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Fight Spammers!
And what if there really is a fire? We have corporations setting fires to screw people over, and then preventing people from raising the alarm.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Take a look at our system. A huge pack of lawyers make the laws. Most of those lawyers are paid by corporations. Surprise, the corporations get all the "rights" in the system. If I think that XYZ biometrics corporation sucks, I should have the right to say so. Trouble is, my puny 1st amendment rights can't hold up to the laws made by lawyers to protect corporations. We should all get used to it, because you and I, the non-corporate citizen, don't have lobbyists in government. We don't make the laws and we have very little influence on what laws are made. The message from all this? BE QUIET. CONSUME. WATCH TELEVISION.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
citizenship. yes, i have been mulling it over for years.
since the coup d'etat staged by the sOoPrEeM kOuRt of the yoo ess ay, i have been wanting to leave this mess of lies and hypocrisy. see this article for info about the coup d'etat. and see this article for what a Republican has to say about it and books written about this coup d'etat.
the hell of it is that most if not all countries are precious little better. other countries have one thing going for them, they are not my country of birth. this country (yoo ess ay) is my country of birth and as such it galls me to see the Constitution get pissed on and torn up constantly. i can not stand to see what is going on in my country. i think i will leave.
(now, watch all the shitforbrains reactionary swine come out from under their rocks and tell me "get out and good riddance!", to them i say: just wait until they come for you, scumbag, and kick your door down)
have a goddamn fucking fine day.
The identification of a person or entity is cause for concern.
We have more room to comment upon public figures because of Constitutional First Amendment rights.
Material that reflects badly on character is the core of libel; if it also injures reputation, there is considerable cause for concern.
Nevertheless, an expression of opinion is not generally actionable so long as it does not imply that there are undisclosed defamatory facts underlying the opinion. Ask yourself whether the reader would likely conclude that the author must know something (in order to hold the opinion) the reader doesn't know, and that "something," were it printed explicitly, would likely be defamatory.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Well, I was going to jokingly suggest they got it by doing something underhanded, but hell, that could get me sued. It feels very wierd, not making a joke out of fear.
I think the real story here is this Viagen/Nora mess. While it seems like Whatley decided not to show up and rightfully lost the case by default, Nora was bullied into apology and silence by Viagen's sleazy lawyer. And it sounds like her statements were complete opinion and stated as such, which of course means they can't be construed as libelous. Hell, I don't understand how a company that makes cancer-curing eggs could not be "crooked." I mean, if you had the cure for cancer, why would you go and put it in an egg? What, do they also import olive oil?
c-hack.com |
The CDA was overturned 5 years ago as being unconstitutional. So the 1st Amendment is your only legal refuge right now.
This
I have recently become aware of paypalwarning.com which has made me seriously consider doing business with paypal.com?
Would they be affect by this?
Sigs are dangerous coy things
According to this story at Wired, Xybernaut's Mobile Assistant® V product will be used at COMDEX Chicago by the event staff to reduce queues. I could envision two different ways that slashdotters could protest. If they are actually going to attend, they could wear something that states their position about the company and its practices. If they are not going to attend, but live in or near Chicago (big place, should be a few around somewhere), they could do the usual protest thing on public property at the border of the convention (I'm sure the COMDEX people would never allow them in the convention area).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I have been dealing with the Slashdot and Linux and they are the most incompetent management I have ever seen. If CmdrTaco was not a raving homosexual his job would consist of ... 'Would you like fries with that?'
update comments set karma=-1, reason='offtopic' where sid=26315
So can this be an argument for a cheaper legal system then?
default judgements are handed out like candy when the defendant is avoiding the proceedings. they often give the plaintiff everything they want, but they are extremely easy to overturn.
basically, the court is trying to get the defendant's attention. nothing more.
-- p
We have a long Wired article talking about poor Mr. Whatley and all the suffering he's going through, a quote here and there from the website in question, a single comment from Xybernaut's lawyer, but not a single link to Whatley's page for everybody to see exactly what was considered libelous. In fact, it doesn't look like Wired tried very hard (if at all) to get Xybernaut's opinion and mostly just wrote a little sob story about poor Whatley. Did I somehow miss the part where the article said "Xybernaut officials weren't available for comment?"
... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
Like it or not, libel is libel, and just because you're free to say what you want doesn't mean you're not responsible for what you say. Of what was shown of what Whatley said, it could very easiily be libelous.
"I have been dealing with the Newmans and XYBR and they are the most incompetent management I have ever seen,"
Wouldn't it be interesting if Whatley had had no dealing with Xybernaut prior to the lawsuit? How many managements has he seen in order to make this comparison?
"If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of
Has he seen Newman's resume? Has he even met Steve Newman face-to-face? Is Newman really a relative, or just somebody that happens to share a last name? Hell, has anybody even checked to see if there's a Steve Newman working for Xybernaut? Anyone?
I have checked and there is a Steve Newman on the executive board, and he does share the last as somebody else on the board, but since the bio links aren't working I can't find out if they're actaully related. However, at the very least the fact that Steve Newman has a doctorate suggests that Whatley's claims of his lack of education might be just a tad unfounded.
If you simply believe everything you're told by the media, whether it be AOL/TW or Slasdot, you're no better than the mindless sheep you claim to despise.
publicrelations@xybernaut.coma ut.com
techsupport@xybern
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Please don't feed the trolls.
IANAL, but I have sued lots of people in my lifetime so I have firsthand knowledge of the process...
First off, sending notice of a lawsuit - called "Serving Process" isn't generally done by certified mail. It can be, but isn't because a) Certified letters, are letters, and are occasionally lost by the fine folks at the USPS. When they're lost, you haven't served process on someone and they don't have to show up because they never knew... b) If you selected "return receipt requested" (and you always should), then you're supposed to get back that little green postcard as proof of delivery - sometimes you don't get the postcard back (it gets lost) and with that loss goes your proof of delivery... c) There's no disinterested third party to testify to the contents of the envelope. So all you can guarantee with certified mail is that you sent a certified envelope. There's no way to prove that ANYTHING was inside it. Even if the other side stipulates to there being SOMETHING in the envelope, there's no way to prove that it was the item which you say you sent.
To get around all that, you use PROCESS SERVERS. The Sheriff, the Police, a certified Process Server, etc... The gist being, that you hand the Notice to Appear in court to a third party who has no interest whatsoever in the case (a disinterested third party). You give them $30-$50, and they find the person in question and deliver the notice in person. They then call the lawyer or you and say "I delivered the notice to so and so...", they'll fax you, or even fax the clerk of the court. The court accepts the word of this third person without any other discussion or investigation because they have no reason to lie - it's called Prime Facia evidence. If it comes down to it, they'll appear in court and testify to the veracity of the document that you say they delivered to the person... Again, it's prime facia...
If the process server can't find the person they're to serve, they notify the client. The client then appears in Court and when the court asks if process has been served, the client says "No your honor, we've been unable to find the defendant, and want to apply for an alias summons...". The court then authorizes that, and the client has to get a process server to serve the original person, or someone with his name, or someone in his household that knows him, etc. The person who is served is then responsible for appearing in court - or at least telling the original defendant and appearing with him.
If the defendant can't be found after an alias summons, then the client can go to court and demand a default judgment which they'll usually get. Sometimes the court may also ask for a certified mailing to be sent (just for kicks) - but it's rare. More often, one sends a certified letter to the defendant, and when it gets returned as refused, or not picked up, then the client brings that to the Court - UNOPENED - and allows the judge to open it. The judge then can see for himself that you also tried the certified thing as well and usually accepts that as Prima Facie evidence as well...
All in all, this guy seems to be fucked. He's going to have to do some investigation into this and then appear before the court and motion to have the judgement set aside because of:
1) Process wasn't served...
2) Alias summons weren't served
3) The certified mailing wasn't received. If it was sent, then the records from the USPS detailing the audit trail must be requested to see if it even ever showed up at his local post office, and if so, when.
4) That the judgement is wholly unreasonable and not representative of actual damages, real or perceived, of the company. A company without any revenue whatsoever.
If he wasn't served, he ought to sue the company for wrongful and malicious prosecution. Add in perjury if they lied to the court about the process being served when it wasn't, or if a certified letter wasn't sent when they said it was.
If they did forge a certified letter receipt - he ought to call the postal inspectors, they'll be glad to check into it.... If it's perjury, he should contact his local state's attorney. If no process was actually served, and the judge was lied to, then it means that the Judge didn't actually see any documents from the process server and didn't request them - judicial misconduct - file a complaint with the judicial review board. File complaints with the state attorney review and disciplinary commission because the company's lawyers are slime (if they even had a lawyer for it).
Yes, he's going to have to work for it, but the moral, is POST ANONYMOUSLY!
I'd just like to point out that lawyers are essentially agents of parties petitioning a court. Here, the management of company X wanted to file suit against a cranky poster to a message board - It's not like some lawyer decided to file suit and then sold the idea later to company X (lawyers get disbarred over tactics like that). I don't see where it's inappropriate to blame the corporate entity of company X for the lawsuit, seeing as it's the plaintiff.
You don't have a bogus lawsuit (or any lawsuit) without a plaintiff.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
With all of our negative comments, they will be sending us all a notice by certified mail pretty soon.
(KNOCK ON DOOR)"I have a certified mail package for a Commander... what? Is this right? Taco?"
Having never been sued, is it normal for civil suits to serve notice by mail? (certified or not). Somehow a piece of mail, even one you have to sign for doesn't seem quite as effective as someone handing you a notice and saying "You have been served." I have had to sign for mailings that were nothing more than vacation scams to Florida. Ally McBeal would never mail a lawsuit notice.
Letter To Iran
read the pages to make sure they are what you want, I don't want to make a blanket statement that these are for everyone.
/.-esque things.
www.eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation. Fights for your rights to publish open source, crypto all kinds of
www.aclu.org
American Civil Liberties Union. You get a little card for joining. These guys have LOTS and LOTS of lawyers. If you read any CNN/Reuters news article about this kind of stuff, you'll usually get a comment from the ACLU somewhere in there. I am a member. There are a few others. I'm not sure which, but hopefully someone will post those. These are our weapons.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
Have a look at Rule 4 sometime. Have a look at the small claims court rules. People get served by mail all the time.
In some states, you don't even have to go as far as filing the case or getting the judgment. For an example, see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/001270
You will be receiving registered mail in a few days giving you notice of the lawsuit filed against you for this statement. :-)
Good service gives the Court personal jurisdiction over this particular defendant. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the type of case which can be heard.
If the Court never had personal jurisdiction because of bad service, the judgment is void.
Further, to enforce the judgment, it must be docketed in the home state of the defendant or a state in which the defendant has assets. When the plaintiff attempts to do this, the defendant can assert the defense that the judgment is void and should not be docketed. If the judgment is not docketed, it cannot be collected. Any attempt to collect it is abuse of process.
It should be easy for you to prove you've not been masturbating over a big jar of yogurt which you then stir and give to your mother to eat.
All you need to do is allow one of our 'proctors' to sit in your house and monitor your behavior.
Surely you don't have anything to hide, just like Microsoft shouldn't be 'ashamed' of their source code.
Right?
Ok if you had read through the regulation a little more you would realize that the reciepts are not necessarily signed. Signature confirmation is an additional service that you can have by request.
The problem here is more than that of companies being heavy handed and attempting to use force to silence people. The problem is that there are lawyers out there who are willing to be their mercenaries.
Lawyers like that are who give the legal profession as a whole a bad name.
I find myself having fantasies about lying in wait near the home of one of these lawyers and blowing their head to bits with a high powered rifle as they are out getting the paper in their bath robe. I won't do that of course, because I know that to do so would only cause more problems. As much as I hate these fuckers I don't want anyone else to do something like that either. There is more evil at work in the world than that represented by these lawyers. There are people and groups whose every thought and action is towards depriving others of liberty. Were someone to go on a shyster shooting spree it would only play into the hands of those who are working to destroy the second amendment (among other things).
Undermining the second amendment just to whack someone who is undermining the first isn't exactly a good idea in the long run. The first and second amendments are the bedrock of our democracy. They are what ensure that, even if all else fails, tyranny will not prevail.
Instead of shyster assasinations, what needs to happen is for news of cases of these SLAPP suits to be disseminated as widely as possible. Use the very thing these suits attack, the first amendment, to hurt the suits behind the suits. Create enough bad publicity that the suits become a double edged sword to anyone behind them. Imagine if a company lost 20% of its customers after SLAPPing someone. Would they do it again?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There are more threats to our freedoms from all sides than what most people are aware of. On the left you've got socialists, communists, political correctness, and your garden variety "liberals". On the right religious whacko's, corrupt corporations and "family values." Which side is right? If you ask me I'd say neither. Both are vile in my opinion. Both are equally harmful and undermine human rights, the only difference is the approach that is taken and the rhetoric and justifications that are used.
In the end however, it is not these evils that are the greatest threat. The greatest threat is that your average citizen is not aware of them, or does nothing about them when they are. All that is required for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. That is the status quo in America, people doing nothing. Those who are not vigilant, who do not fight back, are the true villans. The wolf is always at the door. That is the nature of the wolf. Blaming the wolf for getting in when someone opened the door for him isn't exactly rational. Its like blaming fire for burning a building when an arsonist started the blaze, or a car for killing a pedestrian when it was a drunk driver at the wheel. Its up to each of us to keep that door closed. When we fail we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Nevertheless, anybody I call a crook, online or anywhere else, does *NOT* want me anywhere near a witness stand to explain why, whether it involves matters of opinion OR fact. Heh.
I should know. I've been damaged more than any crummy half-mil, not by someone expressing an honest opinion, but by motherfuckers who conspired to frame me on felony charges. NO WAY they're letting me anywhere near a court with it.
Heh. They think.
--rgb
I was wondering if a properly written clause would protect me from anti defamation lawsuits?
For example, a statement that says everything I said was just my personal opinion? I think I've seen these before but I would like to know how much legal weight they carry?
Something Like:The views and opinions, if any, expressed (or implied) by any, all, or part of are strictly opinions and not stating fact. You cannot sue me now ha ha ha.
Or something like that.
Jess
That next week I can look forward to a slashdot 'story' about a new shiny thing from Xybernaut... ooo pretty! Must have! *drool*! Does it run Linux?
And you don't have one without a lawyer either. I'm all for blaming the plaintiffs, but I don't see why the lawyers shouldn't be blamed as well. Lawyers have no obligation to file bogus lawsuits just because people ask them to, and the world would be a better place if more sanctions were imposed on lawyers that do.
Is not Nora's statement, quoted above, the heart of the matter. Stand up for your rights. If those rights are not sufficient or have been erroded then fight. The fight, any fight, is visceral. Cave in and the 'hired guns', as many lawyers call themselves, will own you and they'll get you through fear as the school bully gets the geek's lunch money, as a pimp gets children. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." The Kings and aristocracy of ancient Europe truly thought the papists of Rome held the Keys to the 'Kingdom of God' and feared excommunication. Historically we take Martin Luther's posting the Diet of Worms as the opening slavo in the fight against the theocracy of Rome. The birth of America necessitated a similar stance against entrenched power.
Fight or flight, flight is the way of prey.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
When you take your first business law class, either in HS or in college, you will find out with authority that your statement is false.
That is, if you bother listening to the instructor or reading the book.
(* Due Process per the 5th amendment applies ONLY to CRIMINAL prosecution; it has absolutely nothing to do with CIVIL suits. In civil suits, you are effectively deemed guilty by the accusation itself, and it is up to YOU to prove your innocence. If you don't show up to defend yourself, regardless of the reason why -- tough shit, you lose. *)
The law is totally F'ed up.
However, the defendant does have one way out of this: file bankruptcy. A friend of my inlaws was tricked into signing a funky contract to hand over tens of thousands (he didn't read english and trusted the guy). He filed bankruptcy and the slimebag got nothing.
Sure, you have to pay cash everything for seven years, but at least those slimebags won't get a cent. IOW, use stupid laws to fight stupid laws.
I think the effort to notify the other party should be proportional to the monetary claims. Thus, if it was 100 bucks, then a letter is probably sufficient. However, an amount of 500,000 should require a lot stronger notification and evidence of notification.
This process probably wont be fixed until some bigwig gets screwed by it.
Table-ized A.I.
I think reality has proven you wrong. Ignoring the letter was, in fact, more stupid than them sending it. Witness the fact that they won.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Even when you actually were served and given due notice and an opportunity to be heard.
If the facts are as indicated, that no serious effort was made to give the constutitonally required notice before proceeding to seek a default, not only will it be straightforward to obtain vacation, but there may may sometimes be recourse against an attorney who had overreached, and the client on whose behalf it was done.
There will be no trouble vacating a default judgment, but defending the action itself will be another story. One which will depend upon the merits, with respect to which we haven't yet heard the full story.
Unless he signed a contract that placed limitations on his speech, then the First Amendment absolutely does apply here. Civil or criminal makes no difference. In fact, most First Amendment cases have been civil suits.
I'll say it right now, they made all their money in shady ways. They are corrupt, the owner sleeps with a sheep, and their dog has 3 testicals.
My name is Bill Gates in case you were wanting to sue me. I live in Washington somewhere.. look me up in the phone book.
fuck RIAA, MPAA, Micro$oft, AOL, Enron, and every other corporate gang of greedy, corrupt, self-serving, law-breaking, capitalism-abusing, soul-less, hellbound suckers of satan's cock. may their businesses utterly fail and they and all their guilty employees live miserable, penny-less, and shunned by the rest of the world for the remainder of their worthless, wasted lives.
The heart of this problem, for me, is a fundamental problem in the US legal system. The UK has a huge advantage over the US. There, the loser typically has to foot the legal bill. Here, only in very limited circumstances is there any chance of getting the loser to pay for the cost of litigation. Therefore, the party with the deeper pockets can nearly always intimidate the other into settling or dropping the matter. This situation is not likely to change. Our legal system is founded on the principle that each side pays its own way.
I've recently been in one of these situations. I was wronged by a big company. My first reaction (after failing to resolve the matter through earnest negotiations on our part, and lip service on the other) was to grab our litigators and look at forcing a legal remedy. But here was the problem: we would be suing for $200-400K, but my legal costs would be somewhere in the $100-200K range. So the best I could get would be fifty cents on the dollar; and of course there's no guarantee I would win. And I wasn't crazy about reaching into my bank account for six figures worth of a gamble. The other party had a squadron of in-house litigators, and (we found later) had already put a $250K budget in place for outside counsel, with the instructions "drive them out of business." They were loaded for bear. We were right, but like straws in the wind. So we were facing a very tough battle, and the best up-side for us simply wasn't good enough. There was absolutely no legal basis under which we could sue to recover our litigation costs. So we caved in, backed away from litigation, and kept negotiating. (At the end of the day, we might finally resolve the matter, which is good news; but it's no thanks to the big guys.)
With a more civilized legal system, there would be a stronger incentive to find a fair solution, because neither party could wear the other down simply by the weight of legal expense. But it ain't gonna happen.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
I really can't believe that this kind of thing is allowed to go on.
Though I guess a lot of these 'non profit' making companies need to sue all these people, to help pay the CEO's wages - that $450,000 could sure come in helpful to cover one or two of the big bosses annual salaries.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Really? I was not aware of a charge for use of "the Linux logo." Do you have links to the logo in question and the fees required for that logo's use?
Corporations have lawyers on salary who spend their time looking for ways to protect against what they see as attacks on the corporation's reputation. There have been cases reported here where lawyers for some company went after someone in a way that the more Intnernet savvy people at the company would have prevented if they had known about it. A lot of those "cease & desist" letters are done without any approval from upper management. They're just part of the routine for corporate lawyers.
You are right... I would guess that if someone yelled "fire" in a crowded theatre, and the audience upon looking around and not seeing or smelling smoke shouted back "sit down and be quiet you @$$hole" instead of starting a riot, that nobody would be charging the person with anything or disputing the person's 1st amendment right to be a jerk...
Whether something is right or wrong doesn't have much to do with what the law (including the Constitution) says. Lawsuits like this are simply wrong and therefore should be prevented as much as possible. The best ways to acomplish this are to fight these cases rather than caving in, and informing your representatives that this is a problem and it is their responsibility to fix it.
An online game which myself and a few thousand people play had a similar occurence recently.
;-)
:(
Simutronics -- maker of text games such as Gemstone III and Dragonrealms has fired an employee of theirs over just such an incident.
The company has recently hiked their monthly subscription fee to play their games from $9.95 for basic service up to $12.95 -- a hefty price, considering the games are solely text-based.
The change was rationalized, saying that they haven't raised prices in five years... which evidently translates into: "We're getting more money now. If you don't like it, tough."
A GameMaster (i.e. their word for coder) for the company felt this was wrong and said just that on one of the player discussion boards.
The interesting thing is that he used his player account, not his GameMaster one. This means that none of the players knew it was a dissenting opinion from one of the company members... It just looked like another voice of agreement.
Apparently dissention is not treated lightly there, as he was summarily fired from the company for saying so.
Talk about a violation of First Amendment rights... Just because I work for a company, does not mean I should have to agree with every decision made by them.
If this were true, many people would be fired for thinking their boss was an idiot.
The company has not made any official statement about this incident or its policy; the information was received from a reliable source, however.
Just thought I'd add another example of our rights slowly being robbed...
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
First of all, Performer Guy confuses trademark with copyright. It is trademark that can be weakened if it is not protected, not trademark. In fact, it is copyright law that gives JK Rowling the rights to her works and to her characters, not Trademark Law. In other words, even without any Trademarks, no-one else would be able to produce books about her characters, even if they owned the Harry Potter Trademark. If she were to sell the Trademark, then she would still be able to make Harry Potter books, she just would not be able to feature the Harry Potter logo on the cover. Search, for example, for information about the DC Comics character Captain Marvel. The trademark on Captain Marvel lapsed, and, in the meantime, Marvel Comics (which was Timely comics when Captain Marvel was created), created and trademarked their own character named Captain Marvel. So, when DC comics revived their Captain Marvel, they could not name the comic book Captain Marvel, since they did not own the trademark. So, the comic book was titled "The Power of Shazam", but the character inside was still called Captain Marvel. Complicated, convoluted, but not _that_ complicated.
As for Linus Torvalds charging six figure sums to use the linux logo... This statement seems to be verging on libel. If you can provide an example of this, please do. I am quite sure that there is not one. Also, which logo do you mean? Do you mean just the name Linux, or do you mean the famous image of Tux, the linux penguin? If you mean Tux, Tux was created by Larry Ewing. Believe me, it is complicated indeed to trademark someone elses copyrighted work.
It is very obvious with your comment about Linus Torvalds that you know very little about the origin of the Linux trademark. Linus did not originally trademark the term Linux. He did not actually come up with the term, people just started calling the OS that. He left it in the public domain, and there it should have remained. Then, a guy named William R. Della Croce Jr. from Boston took advantage of an incompetent USTPO and Trademarked the term. Then he started sending out cease and desist letters to Linux companies and publishing companies that used the term Linux in their book titles or products. The letters demanded something like fifty percent of the profits. So, then followed a year-long law suit to get the trademark taken away from Mr. Della Croce who, in my opinion, is a parasite and con artist. In the end, the trademark was transferred to Linus. I am not aware of any case, however, in which Linus has charged anyone to use the trademark. If you can provide me with a true example, I will be very surprised.
(Goodbye precious Karma)
The corporate matters more, and has more rights, than the individual.
Huge amounts of military spending. An economy based on a military/Industrial complex.
Military backed imperialism
Silencing of dissent at home.
Socialism for the rich, Capitalism for the poor.
...and then you wonder why the rest of the world hates the hypocisy! ha ha
It's kinda strange and slightly amusing that out of 260 million Americans the Bush's are probably more connected to Bin Laden than any others via OIL and the CIA. Ironic!
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
And you don't have one without a lawyer either.
Anyone can file a lawsuit. The technical term (IIRC) is pro se.
This is like trying to bend the age old saying of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", to lawyers.
However:
1) Guns don't have the capacity to question the right or wrong of their actions. Lawyers do.
2) Guns don't profit from their application. Lawyers do.
Don't try to defend a morally indefensible stance.
By your logic the personel at the Nazi death camps didn't kill people, it was the state. However I'm sure there were plenty of people with a different take.
...what is this "liberty" thing you Americans keep saying you're so proud of?
Dear Will, the plums were poisoned. -- Cheese Club
When you are a public figure or a coproration, you have a much harder case in proving libel from another party. Traditionally, libel was only truly considered an actionable offense if it was directed at a private citizen. If you're a public figure or corporation, dealing with that just comes with the territory (or did at one time... it would appear.)
So it doesn't (or didn't) matter what you say about a public figure or a corporation. Until lately, that wasn't considered something you could sue the offending party for. Public figures and corporations are (were) essentially fair game, for the most part. There are exceptions. Celebrities sometimes sue tabloids for libel, but that's usually when the tabloids get personal and make claims about a celebrity's personal life.
The fact that a corporation can sue for non-personal criticism, regardless of how accurate it is, reveals a startling shift in our legal system that I think undermines freedom of speech.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Can a poster sue a company for defamation by the company against the poster?
I do not blame companies for going after online slander/liable claims. Lets take an example of why (this may not be the best example, but it illustrates the potential damage of unchecked false information circulating). How many times did you see that "Limp Bizkit Screws Guitar Players" post/email? If you are like me you came across it literally a dozen times, in suprisingly different places. It gave no identification of the author, in fact the location of the alleged try-out was not even disclosed, yet it seemed that 95% of respondants took it to be true.
I have even come across people that believe the "KFC has stopped using chicken" urban/online myth. People put out this bullshit, other people believe it and your company is damaged for no reason whatsoever. This may not correlate directly to this suit (Bill O'Reilly probably says that if people weren't connected they'd be serving fries at least a couple of times a week on national TV, in fact that is a statement of opinion and really doesn't constitute liabel or slander in my opinion.)
In any case, serving by mail is valid. You must provide proof of service though. In fact the Judge would not have entered a default judgement without proof of service and proof of attempts to contact the defendant. It wouldn't happen. Basically you ignore a suit at your peril.
I was wondering if a properly written clause would protect me from anti defamation lawsuits? For example, a statement that says everything I said was just my personal opinion? I think I've seen these before but I would like to know how much legal weight they carry?
Something Like:The views and opinions, if any, expressed (or implied) by any, all, or part of are strictly opinions and not stating fact. You cannot sue me now ha ha ha.
Or something like that.
Unfortunately, that's not going to cut it, for two reasons:
1. Whether your post contains "facts" (which could potentially be actionable) or "opinions" (which aren't) is something determined by the content of the post itself, not the text of your disclaimer. So, if you said, "Bill Gates was Hilter's right hand man and last week molested four school children and raped a goat. But that's just my opinion, so he can't sue me," you won't be protected. The statement is clearly factual in nature.
2. Even if you could, it wouldn't matter anyway. The point of what's going on here is not on the merits of any one defamation case. What's happening is these ultra-sensitive CEO's are filing lawsuits against people that probably have no basis whatsoever to them. Then, one of two things happens: either 1.) they try to "notify" them in such a way that they never actually find out they're being sued (which gives the CEO a default judgment for whatever he's asking for regardless of the merits of the case), or 2.) they do what they did to the lady mentioned in the story. They have their lawyers call you up and basically let you know that you'll have to defend a long, drawn-out, out of state court battle that will suck out all your money and they'll win anyway, or you could just play nice and retract your statements. Either way, they get around having to deal with the First Amendment by never actually having to try the case in the first place. If one of these suits was actually litigated, it would be thrown out of court immediately.
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
How would you feel if you were publicly called "crooked" solely on the basis of rumours? Especially if it was in a place and a way that could negatively affect your net worth (stock price, for the company)?
Without seeing her exact words, we can't know whether she expressed her opinion as opinion or as fact. If she expressed it as fact and can't provide any proof, just how sympathetic towards her should we be? And how do we know whether or not she was trying to manipulate the price of the company's stock?
Eggs, by the way, are an excellent growth medium for lots of things besides baby chicks.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Hmm, you're completely right. Consider my mind changed. I suppose I should spend more time looking at things from the corporation's side, and less from the little guy's :)
c-hack.com |
Certified mail is a waste. The USPS does a poor job of tracking these things. Not to mention all he letter certifies (unless the signature is verified) is that the item supposedly went from point A to point B. From personal experience and reading numerous investigative reports, the reliability of the USPS is very poor. In the past I've had signature papers left on my doorstep and certified letters with the entire form left on the package. I've also gotten plenty of my neighbor's mail and some from street address nowhere near mine. I could go on...
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
How did a comment like 'Would you like fries with that?' on a BBS hurt Dr. Newman ? It didn't exactly get published in the AMA's Journal.
I hereby recant all previously libelous, misleading, or otherwise untrue statements about Commander Taco, Slashdot and its parent company OSDN. It is my sincerest hope that no statements I have made have or will damange the reputaion of this upstanding company. Please know that none of the statements made were based on any truth and were merely a pathetic fiction created by their poster. Specifically, Comander Taco has not to my knowledge ever brandished a spatula and a tub of vaseline while wearing a dress and shouted "long live open source, you proletarian worms!"
Sincereley,
A. Nonymous Coward
There! I said it! Now please call of your lawyers!
Mattel had tried to kill http://www.sorehands.com/mattel [sorehands.com]. When the judge asked Mattel's lawyer what was libelous, Mattel's lawyer asked that their libel claim be dismissed. This was after having to file a 5 inche stack of legal briefs with the court.
I know you know the goal of this, but let me repeat what I gathered from your website for Slashdot readers: It's actually a better outcome for Mattel than you might think. The motion to dismiss it's own claim was rejected, then re-filed and accepted -- without prejudice. This means the company can file more similar libel claims in the future. It seems likely Mattel/TLC will continue to try to intimidate their opponent in this way as long as they possibly can.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Right... Lots of public people calling Enron crooked. Maybe this is the way out of their financial trouble. They can sue everyone.
Defecation occurs.
It seems to me.....that the guy ::did:: post something that could be considered libel on a public forum.
It seems to me.....that we DON'T KNOW if he did recieve the letter or not.
It seems to me....that if the scenerio was reversed, the 40'th post would have mentioned this and not the 400'th
Here you are planning to rally and boycot when YOU DON'T KNOW THE FOGGIEST what actually happened.
You may now mod me as a troll.
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
Both Earthlink and ARNet do this. ARNet (http://www.arn.net/) has someone that monitors usenet, web sites (including this one) reqularly for negative comments/discussions re: their service. At least two accounts that I am aware of have suddenly been terminated due to "TOS infringements"... which they do not elaborate one.
When are people going to realize the US constitution has no bearing on the New World Order? The whole precept of the concept gives all the legal power to the incorporated bodies. Show half the citizens of the USA a copy of the Bill of Rights, and they'll accuse you of being a communist for christ sake.
-- Defenestrate Microsoft!
You should publish your list of companies and let us comment on them.
Since I dont have much clue about this, I'm
(thank god) not from USA, can someone over there
sue me for saying some like the gui in question ?
If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of ... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
..." an insult? I sent texts like these in love letters. Only in the mind of the reader can this be an insult. So the one constructing the insult is anyone but the writer. How any judge could pass sentence based on this, is a mystery to me.
Well, if that's literal, it's the worst insult I've ever seen. It fails to insult totally and miserably. Firstly, even in it's context, it fails to clarify whose job (Steven Newman's or his relative's) is referred to and therefore who is being insulted. Secondly, on the dots you can read anything you like, but would that make "I think you are
Freedom of speech? U s a, schmu s a. I'm really glad I don't live there...
I would say something, but I'm afraid I would get sued... Seriously, it sounds to me like this company was just down on it's profits and needed a little extra cash. Knowing that they couldn't actually sell thier product, decided to take it away from the average Joe. I don't know anything about the product, or thier business. The fact that they felt the need to do this though gives me the idea that either thier product sucks, or they don't know how to run a business. In either case it would make the poor posters comments true, and thus not defamatory. He's just telling the truth, which you can't be sued for. For those that might read this and get the idea to sue me, remember this is just my opinion, the key word there. On that note, it makes this lawsuit even more ridiculous, if the poster had tried to pass this off as actual news, or as a credible source of information about the company, then maybe the suit could stand. I thought everyone new that forums were for opinion only...
A question: would it make any difference if you wrote that "you think they are crooked" instead of "they are crooked"? In my opinion the second example could be considered slander, but the first a justified show of your own opinions.
I also think you people in us of a (and other countries) need some kind of law that would force large corporations with a lot of money to take the court expenses when suing *individuals*, until the person in question is found guilty. The way some corporations use the fact that small people can't afford expensive trials leaves a very bad taste.
But yes, you are very right. It's hard to be the judge in that particulary case, without all the facts.
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
It's that ever-scarcer attribute that some of us are fighting for, perhaps ineffectively at times, but that the rest of the world (including, sadly, much of the US as well) is content to pretend that it will always have and occasionally make snide remarks where it doesn't immediately concern them...until it's too late.
Sorry, I just re-read that and it sounds a lot harsher than it is intended to - but it fits. Every time something like this comes up, a few non-USAians will smugly proclaim "Ha ha, Americans!", forgetting that the US Government has a frightening tendency to export Greed for Control (either for itself or on behalf of major corporations) to the rest of the world.
There ARE a few of us over here doing what little we can to try to get the rampaging legislative beast under control, but at the moment all we're accomplishing is to slow it down, just a little. That's all that WILL be accomplished if everyone else is going to be content to point and laugh, "Ha, ha, stupid Americans can't even control their own Government" (and in the US, "Ha, ha, look at the silly whackos being dragged around by the government") as said government drags itself inexorably in their direction...
This sort of thing isn't "comic relief", it's a serious "disease", and it's contagious.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The basic problem is that if you look in the phone book, you'll see that, other than personal injury lawyers (a rather specialized version of land shark), 75% of the lawyers specialise in "business law", i.e., they work for businesses. In the whole of Arizona there's less than a dozen consumer law specialists (i.e., lawyers who specialize in taking on cases where companies produce defective and/or dangerous products). (The above information, BTW, was derived from the Arizona Bar Association's own listing of attorneys).
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I would like to apologize to Michael Eisner and Jack Valenti for statements I made about them in recent posts regarding the SSSCA, Digital Rights Management and Senate Commerce Committee. Please understand that these comments were made with a humorous intent and were not intended to cause emotional harm to either Mr. Eisner or Mr. Valenti.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
Especially all those Americans in jail.