Slashdot Mirror


PetsWarehouse vs. Mailing List

klaun writes "Salon is running a story about a federal suit against members of an Internet mailing list. Seems a company got a bad review on the list and the owner sued the person that said it and everyone who agreed. But the case grew bigger from there, including a suit against the legal defense fund set up to support members of the list being sued and anyone who linked to the defense fund. The ultimate rub of it all is that it basically worked. Most of the defendants have settled." This is a truly bizarre story.

629 comments

  1. watch out /. by DimitryP · · Score: 1

    so, if i have this right, a company sued people that didnt like them. imagine what would happen to slashdot readers if microsoft decided to do that.

    --
    Guns are like umbrellas and condoms. Better to have one and not need it, than need it and not have one.
    1. Re:watch out /. by weatherbee · · Score: 1
      imagine what would happen to slashdot readers if microsoft decided to do that.

      That guy Novak seems so lawsuit-happy I wouldn't be surprised if he were drawing up his pro se papers against Salon and /. at this very moment.

    2. Re:watch out /. by jmccay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Watch out /.? Hell, if this nut-case (the pet store owner) wins any of his lawsuits in case, everybody will need to watch out. Mailling lists are the equivalent of talking in a group of your peers. You have to sign up to be on most of these mailing lists. There won't be much difference in saying these things in person, and saying them on a mailing list. The word would still travel. Do be suprised if you see someone getting sued for casual conversation amoungs your friends and peers because you had a bad experience with some company. This is stupid!

      The store owner should have handled this better. Sueing everybody in sight is not good PR. At this point, he should go out of business because who will want to buy anything form him now? Sueing a defense fund? Is this person insane?!?!

      I am tired of all these stupid lawsuits being allow to go foreward, or at the bare minimum allowed to reach a settlement! Somebody make sure Microsoft doesn't hear about this because they may find that this will fund the new revenue stream they've been looking.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    3. Re:watch out /. by CuriousKangaroo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is that, although frivolous suits will likely lose in court, in many cases the defendants are unable to pay to defend themselves. The plaintiff has the time and money, and the defendants don't, so they are forced to settle, even if their chances of winning in court are high. THIS kind of thing needs to be stopped. Some proposed recommendations involve all sorts of fines against the party that brought the case if it is determined to be frivolous (plus paying the defense legal fees), but the problem is that the defense still needs to money to get to that point. Deterrents like this stop lawsuits where the plaintiff KNOWS it is frivolous, not lawsuits where the plaintiff really believes.

    4. Re:watch out /. by austus · · Score: 1

      Hey wait a minute, this kind of seems like legal "terrorism"! And it's successful at that. Georgie Boy, sickem!

    5. Re:watch out /. by J4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, the reason he's so litigation happy is his son is a lawyer and gets free legal advice. How do I know? Well, about 2 years ago I negotiated with Bob Novack about bringing his webserver in house. He was telling me tales of taking legal action against the co-lo he was using at the time and had plenty of stories about threatening people with legal action.

      This guy is a dick, plain and simple. I was going to give him some serious discount and do the job for $50 an hour. His counter offer?
      $10 an hour. Then to add insult to injury, I started getting spam from him.

    6. Re:watch out /. by (outer-limits) · · Score: 1
      So the basic problem is not people like Novack, but a court system that does not function as a justice system any more. Justice at a price is not justice. Perhaps to keep everything simple from now on, legal cases should just ask people what they can ante up before a case starts, and award the case to the side with the most money. This would save a lot of time and money for everyone.

      This sort of tactic has been used for many years now, and the only newsworthy point about it is that it is not newsworthy. People complain about the unions looking after their own, and sticking together. Take a look at the legal and medical 'unions'. They stick together tighter than a teamster or wharfie ever did.

      And I can't see that a legal solution to this is going to work, as it just makes the whole process even more expensive, such as fining a frivilous law suit. Who will win that case? Once again, the guy with the most money.

      --

      Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?

    7. Re:watch out /. by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2

      Has /. been served yet, I think you useded the name P3+3 \/\/@r3h0u$3.

      HAHA! I SHOWED YOU! I've encrypted the potential trademark name so no one can copy it! We go after those guys with the DMCA if they sue us!

    8. Re:watch out /. by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      The plaintiff has the time and money, and the defendants don't, so they are forced to settle, even if their chances of winning in court are high. THIS kind of thing needs to be stopped.

      I think the defendants could have a case against him (Note: IANAL). Isn't abusing the court system by filing baseless lawsuits wrongful prosecution? That is illegal in itself..

      Some proposed recommendations involve all sorts of fines against the party that brought the case if it is determined to be frivolous (plus paying the defense legal fees), but the problem is that the defense still needs to money to get to that point.

  2. I don't know by Sc00ter · · Score: 0, Informative
    Sounds fishy to me... (phun intended). But seriously, if I got a quote of $7 for shipping, and they charged me $18, I'd just call the credit card company and refuse to pay. What this guy is saying could be a lot of bull, if he can back up his claims, then I don't see what they can do to him. My guess is that he made it up, and that's not legal, you can't go around saying such and such company ripped you off when they didn't. That's probably why people are settling.

    1. Re:I don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This post is libelous against my company. I will be seeing you in court. Anyone else want to try??

    2. Re:I don't know by grattwood · · Score: 2, Informative

      The defendants are settling because the owner of petswarehouse is defending himself, and filing lawsuits is his "hobby". Also, most (all?) of the defendants are out of state and had to hire a NY lawyer. When you are right, but it would cost you $50,000 to prove it and the plaintaif is basically sueing you for free...

      well settling looks good after a while.

    3. Re:I don't know by cameroncase · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, that isn't exactly what happened. On that list there is a long time trend of getting advice on where to shop (think about it, there aren't that many places to buy aquatic plants...tiny hobbie). One guy offered his opinion. Dozens more chimed in with similar stories (not just "me too"). One guy's complaint was overcharged shipping, but there were many others (including delayed shipping running into the multiple weeks, dead plants upon arrival, etc). There are just too many people that agreed for me to think he made it up. Plus, check the history of the case. The plaintiff continuously adds people each time someone says something negative about this their experiences, or even about the suit. My favorite part? Two of the defendants are John Doe and Mary Roe (in essence anyone else from the APD that he decides to add). More confusion is that he has claimed, in another article that filing suits is his "hobby." He also admits that the court is five miles from him, so it is a short drive, while each defendant has to pay for a plane ticket and motel to appear in court. The guy enjoys this. Read some of the amended complaints he has written, some are funny, most are sad, and generally all are poorly written. Why? Oh, he's representing himself. Wait, you say, how can a non-lawyer represent a corporation (Pets Warehouse Inc.)? Well, it can't, but he is doing it anyway. As soon as they sort out whether or not his company is incorporated or a sole-proprietorship maybe this will go away (if is is INC as he says, he can't represent it). For more information (and trust me, this is more about free speech and the internet than it is about plants or aquariums) here are some sites: Forum for the suits discussion (generally pro defendants) Forum hosted by the plaintiff (he has a habit of deleting messages, and blocking posters, as is his right, but be aware it will only have ONE side) The defense fund's web site A collection of court documents hosted by the lawyer in charge of the fund And, finally, to archives of the original messages, so you can read it yourself, and see what REALLY happened

      --
      .sig on vacation
    4. Re:I don't know by Flower · · Score: 2
      What does it matter if he can back up his claims or not? To get the chance he has to pay upwards of $50,000 to get his day in court! With no guarantee that he will get lawyers costs paid for if he wins. Take a moment to envision yourself in that situation and then tell me what you'd do.

      $50,000 is a year's worth of mortage payments, car payments, savings for my son's college fund, investing in my retirement plan, food, utility bills, and still includes enough left over to actually do stuff for my three weeks of vacation, have a cushion for unplanned expensives and actually have some fun every now and then. This doesn't included the emotional costs involved in a protracted legal dispute either.

      That's why people are settling imnsho.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    5. Re:I don't know by bitchx · · Score: 5, Informative

      The suing individual regularly posts to usenet and to the mailing lists. Here are some messages you can look at to evaluate his behavior. Or, read the article where he talks about his suing "hobby.". The mail to the list where he calls a defendant a bum and teases people with "PS: any monies collected will be the subject of a cause of action to have those monies turned over to the Plaintiff--Give generously." is probably the best.

      Hope that helps your evaluation of the plantiff. Most people get lawyers to sue. This plantiff did not. Most people don't talk about a suit in progress. Certainly, they don't try to browbeat the defendant without lawyers present. What do you think now?

      --

      I'm the best IRC client ever.
    6. Re:I don't know by Unknown+Bovine+Group · · Score: 1

      Hear ye, hear ye, court docket # 8008135 will come to order: Anonymous Coward vs. Sc00ter.

      Can I sue a mailing list for NOT mentioning my company, thus denying me all this free publicity?

      --
      m00.
    7. Re:I don't know by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      I love the Internet. Is that Mr. Sc00ter? Dr. Sc00ter? Admiral von Sc00ter? It's hard to take someone seriously when their name has numerals in it.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    8. Re:I don't know by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      They are settling because of sticker shock. Their defense fund was running low, and they could not afford to defend themselves in court.

      This guy wants to sue the Better Business Bureau because they gave his business an "unsatisfactory" rating. Eventually he is going to run into someone with deeper pockets than he has, and he will learn that just because someone says something negative about him or his business, it isn't libel.

      He's lucky - in some places he could be sued for barratry.

    9. Re:I don't know by xonker · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I believe you can win judgements against someone if you can prove that they've filed a frivolous lawsuit. In fact, I believe filing frivolous lawsuits is punishable in and of itself -- they might be able to find a NY District Attorney that might haul him up on charges.

      Yes, you're right -- it is expensive to defend yourself against a lawsuit like this, even if you are correct, but... I just couldn't see settling it. And I'd be contacting every media outlet in NY to publicize the suit. (You cannot sue a newspaper for covering something like this, or -- more accurately -- you can't win.)

    10. Re:I don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      didn't Plato have something to say about overly litigious people? Something about a life not worth living.

    11. Re:I don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then of course there is your honor, self esteem and dignity, but they hardly have dollar value do they ?

    12. Re:I don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who really gives a fuck?

    13. Re:I don't know by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      I tend to take people more seriously when their name has numerals in it. You apparently missed a memo.

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
    14. Re:I don't know by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      I dunno -- If I found out that my new division chief was named B1arg0n the Destr0yer, I'd be pretty alarmed.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    15. Re:I don't know by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      You never know. If this twerp doesn't know when to stop, he might piss off a REAL lawyer or some other "hobbyist".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    16. Re:I don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pshaw! Like your name is Max Vlast.

    17. Re:I don't know by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      Of course you would. Then again, would Biargon the Destroyer be better? I have worked for that guy and it aint no picnic.

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
    18. Re:I don't know by GreyLurk · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, he's cancelled his suits against people in california where anti-frivilous lawsuit penalties are in place, and he'd end up paying their legal fees.

    19. Re:I don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be just as concerned if my future boss refused to give his name.

    20. Re:I don't know by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      I don't suppose I'd like to work for anyone with the title "the Destroyer."

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    21. Re:I don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe one Californian is still named, but hasn't been served yet. The Plaintiff claims he hasn't been able to find the guy and has asked the judge to subpoena his address from his ISP.

      If he ever is served, the California anti-SLAPP law comes into play...

  3. dot coms ran out of VC's to screw... by josquint · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... now they have to make money using their legal departments?

    someday they'll hafta make profit the old fashioned way... sell a good/service that ppl want at a decent price...

    1. Re:dot coms ran out of VC's to screw... by nomadic · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's called the Rambus Maneuver.

  4. Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by echucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'll prolly get /.'d, but here it is- http://216.168.47.67/psw/Default.html As an admin of another (unrelated) aquarium board, I find the trend disturbing, especially after some of the flamewars I've seen bashing suppliers on our and other boards.

    1. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by sylvester · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I find the trend disturbing

      Not everything is a trend. This is not a trend. An instance does not a trend make. Copyright extension, that's a trend. Lawsuits against aquatic plants enthusiasts? Not a trend.

      Trend, n: 1. The general direction in which something tends to move. (dictionary.com)

    2. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by echucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After the legal threats /. received about some of the Microsoft and $cientology comments, and a recent incident on another reefkeeping board, I think it's fairly safe to call it a trend.

    3. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's a trend.
      In this case, since he's already made money
      (read the article, a number of defendants
      had to settle, they couldn't afford to
      defend themselves. anyone think something's
      wrong with that statement?),
      it's a valid business model...

      Unless he copyrights that model,
      a whole bunch of other lawyers are going to
      follow suit, working "pro se" (what's that mean,
      anyways? for himself?), and so who can afford
      to fight off a lawyer who can work at cost,
      leveraging another source of income, while
      you simply try to stay out of debt/jail?

      And then it will be a trend.

      -ABIANALACANA
      (Anonymous Because I Am Not A Lawyer
      And Couldn't Afford Novak's Attention)

      ----
      If pro is the opposite of con,
      what the opposite of progress?
      ----

    4. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by JamesSharman · · Score: 2

      Absolutely, there is more than one way of dealing with someone who is badmouthing you on the internet! Did these people learn nothing from Jay and Silent Bob?

    5. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by cybermage · · Score: 2

      An instance does not a trend make.

      Only one point is required to draw a line through it.

    6. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But two points are required to define a line.

      By your reasoning, no points are required to draw a line. Which of course is true, but utterly irrelevant...

    7. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by hagardtroll · · Score: 1

      But a trend is not a random line. It is a vector. One with a distance and a direction. With a point you don't have either. It requires at least two points.

    8. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by cybermage · · Score: 2

      But a trend is not a random line. It is a vector

      True. But to those with an agenda, an instance is enough for a trend and a point is enough for a line.

      If you want to draw a line in a direction that suits your vision, one point is better than two.

      You can draw a line given one point and infer a trend from a single instance. I just wouldn't trust anyone who does. That was the point I meant to make.

    9. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One with a distance and a direction.

      s/distance/magnitude/

    10. Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'd really like to do is stick the windows XP sourcecode in freenet then spam usent with the key. Same goes for scientology's brain washing manuals (i suspect those are already there, anyone know the key?.

  5. It worked because..... by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Informative
    It worked because people didn't stand up and fight.

    New York has an anti-SLAPP statute. I wonder why this was not used to kick out the case.


    Some of these fights have to be taken and some of these SLAPPERs have to be hit with large enough damages to make others think long and hard before bringing another SLAPP action.

    1. Re:It worked because..... by cameroncase · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is a quote from a lawyer regarding NY anti-SLAPP "Besides myself a couple of other attorneys have also looked at the New York statute. It is limited in what it applies to. For the most part the protected comments must have occurred before government entities." That means its no good in this case. NY doesn't have a _REAL_ anit-SLAPP law, not like CA.

      --
      .sig on vacation
    2. Re:It worked because..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It worked because people didn't stand up and fight.

      No, RTFA. It worked because things got too expensive for the individual defendants, and they settled to avoid even more expenses.

      If you think you've got the financial stones for it, go ahead and post something on an aquarium site and see how it goes.

    3. Re:It worked because..... by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      Here is a quote from a lawyer regarding NY anti-SLAPP "Besides myself a couple of other attorneys have also looked at the New York statute. It is limited in what it applies to. For the most part the protected comments must have occurred before government entities." That means its no good in this case. NY doesn't have a _REAL_ anit-SLAPP law, not like CA.

      I noticed something similar with the law here in Nevada. IANAL, but it appears to apply only if someone tries to sue you over comments you made to a government agency or official. Odds are good that many other states' laws are similar. If you take your claim that a business is engaged in fraudulent practices to the attorney general's office (for instance), you're safe. If you vent your spleen about the same company on /., the law appears to offer no protection.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    4. Re:It worked because..... by Robert+Crawford · · Score: 1

      The New York anti-SLAPP law is limited to cases involving interference with access to government. It's not a real anti-SLAPP law like California has.

    5. Re:It worked because..... by Berserker · · Score: 1

      It worked because people with money to burn can sue anyone and most of us can't afford a $500/hr attourney to get them to put up or shutup and most lawyers would want $10K to even consider it. What chance do we have but to settle or try and get a defense fund going ($15k doesn't go far)

    6. Re:It worked because..... by APD+Mary+Roe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why did it work? You can't be serious.

      Because this named not only the original six defendents, but also named John Doe & Mary Roe as defendents.

      You got it, every member of the APD was in legal peril if they opened their mouths. All of us. But, he was waiting. And baiting. And adding hundreds of lines of alleged complaints, in TWO different amendments, anytime anybody said so much as "boo."

      Some of us have homes, families and savings accounts to protect. Make an example out of a few to shut the masses up. Great strategy, win through intimidation. Fortunately, it seems that his strategy is starting to backfire.

      Now the libj.com, Salon.com, /. and even CNN.com, have picked up the story. No doubt other media agencies will pick this up too. I can see it now. Robert Novak versus Bill O'Reilly on FoxCableNews. Nah, that wouldn't be nice to subject Bill O'Reilly to him. Or the suit Novak would lodge because he asked some point-blank questions. But it would be fun to watch Novak squirm while he tries to justify what he's done.

      No, we haven't been sitting down. We are and were outraged as a community. Fighting back requires intelligence and patience. The turtle will win.

    7. Re:It worked because..... by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2
      Mattel tried that strategy with me. It burnt them and opened them for a $48,500,000 lawsuit.

      Of course it helps that they have morons for attorneys. Especially, where the attorneys walk right into traps that have been set.

      I am outraged at this too.

    8. Re:It worked because..... by GGooden · · Score: 1

      Actually, New York's anti-SLAPP applies only to government, so it doesn't appear to have any teeth for this particular lawsuit.. Of course, he didn't sue ME, but I'm in California where we have GREAT anti-slapp legislation.. Gregory (www.thedefensefund.org)

  6. It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by w.p.richardson · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Too often, frivolous lawsuits are filed against companies, individuals, or whatever (mailing lists?) with no intention of ever going to court. The idea is to get the defendant to settle (with bad PR, threats, what have you). Personally, I would like to see more of these go to court. I doubt this would have turned out in favor of the plaintiff.

    You have the right to a day in court, but unfortunately, too many nowadays want to just cough up some cash and make the problem go away, rather than fighting. It's really a shame.

    --

    Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!

    1. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by restless_ne'erdowell · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The problem is that, at least in this case, it costs a lot more to have your day in court than it does to settle. The one guy settled for $5,000 after the defense fund ran through the $15,000 it had raised.

      Most people, given the rock/hard place choice of spending X to settle and spending 5X to prove they're right, will be forced to settle.

    2. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by Ashyukun · · Score: 1

      Okay, maybe it's just me, but why the smeg is this moderated as funny??

    3. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you counter-sue for attorney fees, libelous accusations, and emotional distress caused by the frivolous lawsuit.

    4. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, this case is so obviously bogus, one could probably serve as their own lawyer(ala James Trafficant-----tho he is not doing a good job of it) and get the case thrown out

    5. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by Eccles · · Score: 1

      The problem is that, at least in this case, it costs a lot more to have your day in court than it does to settle.

      I'd read for the Bar, but they don't allow that anywhere in the U.S. anymore.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    6. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots who settle in cases like this, are like the people who cowtowed to the Nazis and let them rise to power. Come on people take a fucking stand on something! If everyone just did what was easiest and not what was right, then democracy would have never existed.

    7. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Yeah goddamit! Go bankrupt and have to rely on social welfare to pay for your food so you can fight this case.. oh wait.. we're dismantling the welfare..

      Oh well, nobody said democracy would be easy. Whaddya mean corporate state?

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    8. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Idiots who settle in cases like this, are like the people who cowtowed to the Nazis and let them rise to power. Come on people take a fucking stand on something!

      You tell 'em, Anonymous Coward!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, puhlease.

      There's a matter of degree. Comparing this issue to the rise of Nazism is ridiculous.

    10. Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True however one must first take care of the main suit before one can then jump into a frivolous suit. Catch-22 yuh?

  7. Something fishy... by DickPhallus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read from the printer friendly version, no ads and stuff...

    But anyway, this is simply unbelievable. The idea that if someone says something bad about their own experiences can somehow justify suing them for 15 million dollars. And then to sue a defense fund! WTF is going through people's mind?

    Instead of wasting their time with such frivalous legal actions, they should perhaps try to improve their aquatic plants division.

    But I guess trying to serve customers is a harder way to get money than just sueing people.

    --

    --
    Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
    1. Re:Something fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But anyway, this is simply unbelievable. The idea that if someone says something bad about their own experiences can somehow justify suing them for 15 million dollars. And then to sue a defense fund! WTF is going through people's mind?

      Smells awfully familiar. The estate of (the late) Lisa McPherson sued the Church of $cientology for wrongful death after Lisa died after being allegedly being held against her will (and tied down to a bed at one point) for 17 days in $cientology's Fort Harrison Hotel complex in Florida.

      The resulting civil suit brought countersuit after countersuit by the "Church", so in essence, $cientology was suing their own dead member. (no, not L. Ron Hubbard's dead member... that's just sick.)

      That case can be followed here

    2. Re:Something fishy... by sconeu · · Score: 2


      Man, this guy had better watch out... what if Fry's came up with the same idea? Of course, CA has a *REAL* anti-SLAPP law...

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Something fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it was not a waste of time because they got their way with it.

      But yes this should have been a waste of time, and it should have gone to the consumers, and they should now be sueing the company for wasting their time.

    4. Re:Something fishy... by symbolic · · Score: 2

      If this catches on, I see the disappearance of many valuable resources - like resellerratings.com. When ever I purchase something online, I look at comments about the vendor I'm considering. If nothing else, at least I'm able to make an informed decision. I see these resources as a good thing, since they help the market weed out the morons, and contribute to the surival of the companies that deserve it.

  8. Uh Oh... by Apreche · · Score: 2

    I think Microsoft is going to sue all of us who say there software is poor. But wait! We can sue them back for saying *nix/open source sux. Oh how emotionally distressed I am, I deserve someone elses money because they exhibited their right to free speech. Sorrow!

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Uh Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's slashdot, man. People like him are the bread and butter of this site. No matter what the topic is, they have to relate it to ms vs. open source. It's a damned good way to get modded up, and it ensures that almost everyone will agree with you.

      M$ suxors! Mod me up!

    2. Re:Uh Oh... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      I think Microsoft is going to sue all of us who say there software is poor.

      Truth is a defense to a libel lawsuit.

  9. PetsWarehouse = Satanism by TheMonkeyDepartment · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hate to stir up more trouble, but it is my opinion that PetsWarehouse are a bunch of child molesting, cocaine distributing, AIDS-infected Satanists who routinely butcher small puppies and kittens in worship of the Dark Lord. Robert Novak is best friends with Gary Condit and he helped pull out Chandra Levy's teeth with a pair of pliers.

    You are welcome to post your agreement below.

    1. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Sure, I'll second that opinion. They seem like real assholes considering their behaviour in this case.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    2. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Funny

      As the webmaster and CEO of statistis.com, I am hereby bringing to your attention my intention to sue the pants off your libelious ass.

      Satan can not effectively and profitably doom souls and turn humanity to the evils of sin in a community where sladerous remarks can confuse consumers and associate his practices with those of the ill reputed petswarehouse.com.

      Expect a call from my lawyer, Satan. (not that his choice of earthly career should be a surprise at this point ;)

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      er, satanists.com

      and yes, its a joke. i have no idea whats at that site, and I'm too lazy to check.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    4. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hate to stir up more trouble, but it is my opinion that PetsWarehouse are a bunch of child molesting, cocaine distributing, AIDS-infected Satanists who routinely butcher small puppies and kittens in worship of the Dark Lord.


      Unfortunately, since you qualified that as a statement of opinion rather than fact, it probably isn't libel, and won't stir up the sort of trouble you were hoping for.

      Robert Novak is best friends with Gary Condit and he helped pull out Chandra Levy's teeth with a pair of pliers.


      This one, on the other hand, you have presented as fact. Novak, Condit and Levy (or her estate) might all have cause for action if those statements were false, though their status as public figures might save you. Or not; I am neither a lawyer nor a llama.

    5. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and they're all Scientologists!

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    6. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by dattaway · · Score: 3, Funny

      uh oh... You just had to reveal they were Scientologists... Now we are all in trouble! Let the picketing wars begin!

    7. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by BigJim.fr · · Score: 4, Funny

      I agree : everyone should know that Robert Novak is performing gruesome experiments involving duct tape and small rodents, infecting baby animals with various assorted viruses before shipping them to unsuspecting american youths, selling pools specially fitted for seal clubbing contests, and selling aquarium rocks that are in fact the bones that remain from their daily slaughter of cute fury critters that they eviscerate before eating their still beating heart.

      And they are terrorists (but then, who isn't these days...).

      petSWEARhouse, buy from them and you'll be swearing!

    8. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by infochuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is, of course, hilarious, but I reccommend more sever action. PetsWarehouse is endangering our internet. All loyal slashdotters should write them, complain, and tell them of your decision never to do business with them. This kind of legal wrangling and out-maneouvering by big business has gone on too long. *WE* can do something about it. Let's get to it.

      I know pw@petswarehouse.com will get there... any body else have some exec's email?

    9. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by bitchx · · Score: 1

      I will gladly picket the Petswarehouse store in Long Island if someone else will come with me.

      --

      I'm the best IRC client ever.
    10. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by carlhirsch · · Score: 2

      PetsWarehouse.com wants to Kill the President.

      --
      . We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
    11. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by web-cre8or · · Score: 0

      you got balls... lol

      --
      wah!
    12. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally saw him club a baby seal to death with a new born kitten while Russell Crow watched. After this they sang a song and beat up some inuits.

    13. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Violet+Null · · Score: 3

      This is, of course, hilarious, but I reccommend more sever action. PetsWarehouse is endangering our internet.

      Wouldn't an easier and more effective treatment be to slashdot them?

      Or would that cause Slashdot to get sued for conspiracy?

    14. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could /. them.... Oh, no.... wait... It looks like that's already been done. :p

    15. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by OblongPlatypus · · Score: 2

      Rather than post my agreement, I'd like to declare my endless admiration for the incredible intellect and foresight displayed by Robert Novak in this combined money-making scheme and marketing ploy. Please excuse me while I go buy a thousand of his best aquatic plants...

      (Whatever you do, don't mention the word sarcasm, I don't want to get sued.)

      --
      -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
    16. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like it worked. I went on to do my part of the slashdotting, and after a few minutes it stopped responding.

    17. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by curunir · · Score: 5, Funny

      Expect a call from my lawyer, Satan.

      Wow...Satan represents himself...he must not be a very good lawyer...I would have thought he'd get a call from the "devil's advocate."

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    18. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's us, buster!

      Ka-Ching!!!

    19. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, fuck dem! I hate dem assez!

    20. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Dimensio · · Score: 2

      Personally I believe that Robert Novak deserves to be killed horribly for what he's done. Specifically, I believe that laws should be created allowing for public execution of the spineless pusies like Robert Novak for filing frivilious lawsuits to stifle public opinion.

    21. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Dimensio · · Score: 2

      There's also bob@petswarehouse.com and I already fired off an e-mail. I stated that I will never buy from his sleazy company and that I will inform others to avoid it as well. Bet I'll be named as a defendant next for the "loss of revenue" that I'm causing by not buying from such a slimeball.

    22. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't an easier and more effective treatment be to slashdot them?

      Your suggestion appears to be working. :-) (Then again, maybe it's just the crappy DSL connection at work that's sluggish...it's hard to tell conclusively.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    23. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by bberg · · Score: 1

      heh. I agree. I hope we and /. get sued. I'ld like to see the deference in /.ers reactions from the aquarium plant peoples reactions. I bet we could raise more than $14k

      sue me please!

    24. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Arkaein · · Score: 1

      You should check, its hilarious. It points at (or is a copy of) Microsoft's "7 Steps to Personal Computing Security"

    25. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by KernelHappy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have a better idea. Write your local news agency and tell them about this. I have already reported the story to my local news channel (who just happens to cover Long Island) and told them about this story.

      Its important that the largest audience is exposed to this story and sees just one of the many ways that others try to impinge our right to free speech.

      If you do submit the story to your local news include the following links:

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/04/145923 5&mode=nested&tid=153&threshold=1

      http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquat ic_plants/index1.html

      http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249

      http://www.petsforum.com/psw/

      If enough of us raise this issue maybe we can get more new coverage raising public awareness.

      --
      -- Button up, your ignorance is showing
    26. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Funny

      You really shouldn't lump Satanists in with these scumbags, every Satanist that I have ever met we're actually pretty nice.

      Scientologists on the other hand.....

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    27. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by fallen1 · · Score: 1
      *heh* I think Robert Novak needs a new fucking hobby. If he wants to add me into the lawsuit, I'll be glad to file a counter-suit for as many millions as my LAWYERS can come up with for intimidation tactics and abridging freedom of speech. By the time we're done, I should be able to pay my lawyers, repay all the poor souls he's shafted with this bullshit, and come close to not having to work real hard for long time. Not to mention if we make it a civil suit and file on behalf of all the defendants in this case. Man, nothing like having the law on your side :-)

      Fuck off Novak, you're pond scum for suing these people because you're company had poor customer service and shipping.

      --

      Dream as if you'll live forever.
      Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
      ~Anonymous~

    28. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Ditto for Jacksonville, FL. I have nothing to do this weekend...

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    29. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by zootread · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.. Their website, PetsWarehouse.com, doesn't seem to responding.

      --
      Zoot!
    30. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...who do you think taught all the lawyers ;-)?

    31. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is, of course, hilarious, but I reccommend more sever action.

      I agree. Which appendage of Novak's should we sever first?

    32. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by xerph · · Score: 1

      Great idea. I just contacted 4 local news shows and the 2 main newspapers in the area with the story and all relevant information. I don't know how much of a difference my messages will make, but if everybody followed suit and took 5 minutes of their time to send an email or two to their local news agencies it might make an impact.

      PetSWEARhouse's main strength is the fragmentation of the people and the relatively small number of opponents. If everybody banded together and made a stand, that coompany would be burried in the wave of public backlash against it.

    33. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by serutan · · Score: 2

      I agree wholeheartedly that PetsWarehouse is the earthly home of his infernal majesty, Satan. PetsWarehouse has been an active force of evil ever since the 1960's, when its agents gave free drugs to Jimi Hendrix and fed Mama Cass a sandwich moments before she passed out in bed. They introduced Yoko Ono to John Lennon, and used death threats against the head of NBC to get the original Star Trek cancelled. In the eighties, PetsWarehouse hired hypnotists to force Coca Cola executives to change the taste of Coke, and was instrumental in the development of karaoke machines.

    34. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, L. Ron was a student of the famous satanist Aliester Crowley, according to _Bald_Faced_Messiah_, IIRC. That would effectively make him a satanist :)

    35. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      I'm of a similar opinion, Robert Novak also came around my house last night and left the toilet seat up; the bastard!

    36. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Carmody · · Score: 2

      I sent mine. I think everyone should send an email to bob@petswarehouse.com, as did the parent poster.

      --
      God is real unless declared integer
    37. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about contacting NBC dateline! The fleecing of America! This would make a perfect story :-)

    38. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by sethdelackner · · Score: 1

      This one, on the other hand, you have presented as fact

      This is a problem when the law allows the litigious to reinterpret personal opinion as "statements of fact". A statement of fact should be completely legal until you explicitly state that the other person has commited an illegal act. We need the "Yes, you can call someone else a dirty rat bastard lying scum [but not murderer or thief]" law.

      Didn't we just recently get a /. posting about a judge ruling that statements posted in an online forum are inherently statements of opinion?

    39. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      I hate to stir up more trouble, but it is my opinion that PetsWarehouse are a bunch of child molesting, cocaine distributing, AIDS-infected Satanists who routinely butcher small puppies and kittens in worship of the Dark Lord. Robert Novak is best friends with Gary Condit and he helped pull out Chandra Levy's teeth with a pair of pliers.
      I concur, and I dare those assholes to try suing me!
    40. Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If his site is down due to the number of people trying to got to it, maybe he should sue his ISP/HOSTing company for lost business? Oh wait. I was just going to look, not buy. Do customers that are sued ever give repeat business?

  10. heavy by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 2

    Does that mean Novak will sue Salon? And then slashdot for linking to Salon?

    --
    [o]_O
    1. Re:heavy by Lonath · · Score: 2

      No, he'll post here, get modded down as -1 Troll -1 Stupid or -1 NeedsAFuckingLife and he will proceed to sue /. for not letting him get his message across, as well as anyone who mods him down, as well as anyone who posts messages making fun of him for being a Stupid Troll who NeedsALife.

    2. Re:heavy by jsimon12 · · Score: 1

      No he will probably just sue all of us, Slashdot, Salon and anyone else who so much as farts.

  11. Microsoft SUCKS by Jacer1099 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Just imagine if we were held accountable for everything we said.

    1. Re:Microsoft SUCKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm married, so I am held accountable for everything I say(and oftentimes everything I don't).

  12. As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Corvaith · · Score: 1

    At least the subject of everything was a business and could therefore *possibly* have monetary loss over all of it.

    I run a forum. Thus far, I've been fortunate in that nobody's actually gone through with a lawsuit threat. "Waah! Somebody said I was wrong! I'm gonna sue!" Everybody's first line of defense is a threat like that, especially if they're unable to come up with any sort of decent reply.

    Now, if the guy's posts to this list in response actually got blocked, I do feel for him a bit. What was the moderator thinking? If you're going to run something like that, you have to learn to be impartial with your kewl powerz, or pretty soon all the decent people will flee, and rightly so.

    Whether it warranted a lawsuit? I dunno.

    1. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the email wasn't blocked on purpose according to the salon article. there were attachments and those caused the mail to blocked.

    2. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by grattwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The mailing list is unmoderated. He (the plaintaif) simply could not figure out how to send plain text e-mail with out attachments.

      He (the plaintaif) is now a regular SPAMMER^H^H^H^H^H^H^H poster to the list. Too bad he has never posted anything about aquatic plants to the list.

    3. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moderator did NOT block PetSwarehouse's posts. They were blocked by the system because PetSwarehouse posted huge binary Word attachments to the list, which is not allowed.

      One thing to note, a different company with an unfortunately similiar name, PetWarehouse, has gotten excellent reviews on many aquaria boards. I want to be sure nobody gets them confused with PetSwarehouse, which is run by a crybaby that will sue you for 15mil on any pretext he can make up.

      If you want the whole story, just search Deja.com for petSwarehouse.

    4. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Havokmon · · Score: 2
      Now, if the guy's posts to this list in response actually got blocked, I do feel for him a bit. What was the moderator thinking? If you're going to run something like that, you have to learn to be impartial with your kewl powerz, or pretty soon all the decent people will flee, and rightly so.

      That's true, but the article said that those posts had attachments, so they were denied, which I'm sure is automatic. Kinda like sending via Outlook through Exchange auto-adds an RTF attachment (IIRC).
      It seems to me if you can't follow protocol to complain, your defamation suit shouldn't include "I was silenced in my attempt to respond". But at the same time, IF the Exchange thing was at fault, what happened to his email admin?

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    5. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by gerbache · · Score: 1

      Well, it could be damaging, but since when has it been illegal and lawsuit worthy to say something negative about a company? If that were the case, every magazine in the world that reviews different companies' products had better cease their operations, for fear that they might be sued for damages.

      Personally, I say that this sort of thing is the problem with America's legal system today. It is FAR FAR too easy to decide that someone has made you mad, so you will just sue the life out of them and strongarm the problem away. Granted, I don't know the exact details about this and whether or not there truly was a "conspiracy" againt petswarehouse, but nevertheless, the lawsuit should not have even happened, much less requesting $15 million. Besides, after visiting the company's site and reading some of their information, I'm personally inclined to believe that the owner is fulfilling some sort of mission against these people who have filed legal action against him, which, in my opinion, is not the way to run a business. He has already caused himself far far more damage by pursuing action like this than any online message board could possibly have done. Before, those people who actively read the list had heard negative comments about him. Now this story seems to be getting spread to a much broader scale because of its frivolousness, so many more people will see his company in a negative light. Suits him well, I say.

    6. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by rnturn · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ``Now, if the guy's posts to this list in response actually got blocked, I do feel for him a bit. What was the moderator thinking?''

      Well, according to the article, the guy's posts were bounced because they contained mime attachments. I'd guess that the moderator had long ago gotten tired of dealing with attachments and had started rejecting anything that came in containing them. If the store owner had bothered to follow directions his postings probably would have been accepted. But then to run to a lawyer because your postings were rejected... that's a little like me shouting from the rooftop about how someone posted something I didn't particularly like and then, when they don't respond or don't respond in a way that gives me everything I want, then filing a lawsuit. A few postings doesn't (IMHO) constitute much of an effort on the store owner's part. I mean, heck, after the first posting didn't appear on the forum, wouldn't you try to figure out why? Apparently, Mr. Store Owner just got ticked off and called a lawyer.

      I have to wonder -- along with some of the other people posting here -- what effort the store owner made to inquire into the alleged rip-off. His entire reaction to this isn't going to sit very well with his other customers. Who wants to do business with someone who takes you to court if you have a dispute with them? How concerned is he (really) about his business's image and reputation if he runs to the courts to fix his customers reactions instead of fixing the broken business practice that caused that reaction in the first place? (IMHO, not very.)

      I predict falling sales revenues for this guy. Wonder who he'll sue next to make up for that?

      Sad...

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    7. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Grax · · Score: 1

      Well since he has posted to the list before I suspect he attached the documents himself. But I'd prefer to blame Microsoft for it. That damned auto-attachment.

      Now based on his other suits he should sue slashdot now. And based on his logic Enron could get back in business by suing for trademark violation the news agencies that profited by publishing headlines featuring the name Enron.

    8. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Robert+Crawford · · Score: 1

      He was never blocked -- he posted attachments to a list that forbids attachments. There is no active moderation of the list, just someone who warns when off-topic discussions have gone on too long.

    9. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

      here where I work we managed to write a perl script which strips attachements off incoming mail; then sends the mail on. I imagine he could have done something like this; or if he bounced a email, have explaining text included.

      --
      -- www.globaltics.net

      Political discussion for a new world

    10. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by JCCyC · · Score: 2

      My guess: he sent with attachments on purpose to get the messages blocked, in order to build the bogus "I was censored" argument. NOTE: this is an opinion, and therefore not suable. Besides, I'm in Brazil, and not planning to set foot in the USA anytime soon (never if the CBDTPA passes, but that's another story).

    11. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2
      but since when has it been illegal and lawsuit worthy to say something negative about a company?

      Unfortunately, that's not really what he's suing over. He's claiming that the comments were not only malicious, but false. He's also claiming that attempts to block his responses were intentionally blocked.

      Note that I'm not supporting his actions, just stating what technique I believe he used to get the case heard in the first place. And remember, IANAL, nor do I watch them on TV.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    12. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2
      He's also claiming that attempts to block his responses were intentionally blocked.

      Err, that should read "He's also claiming that attempts to respond to criticism were intentionally blocked." I definitely need more caffeine.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    13. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Eccles · · Score: 1

      That's true, but the article said that those posts had attachments, so they were denied, which I'm sure is automatic.

      ...in which case, the list owner has grounds to sue *him* for libel.

      Geez, I thought Novak was grumpy enough when he was on Crossfire...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    14. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      He's got a corporate website?

      Then he doesn't need to use anyone else's computing resources like corporate welfare. He has his own soapbox and really doesn't need to hijack anyone else's.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    15. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call them and find out how their revenue is doing. Better yet call them and ask them who their legal counsel is. It is fairly entertaining 1 800 991 3299.

      (I wonder if I'm violating their trademark by posting their number?)

    16. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      He's also claiming that attempts to block his responses were intentionally blocked.
      Err, that should read "He's also claiming that attempts to respond to criticism were intentionally blocked." I definitely need more caffeine.


      Either way, thats nothing to sue over.. You aren't constitutionally guaranteed a right to post on someone's mailing list.

    17. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      Either way, thats nothing to sue over.. You aren't constitutionally guaranteed a right to post on someone's mailing list.

      Agreed, but he's just using that argument to add fuel to the fire. The only legal basis he has is regarding slander. And, as most of us agree, that legal standing is (in the eyes of non-lawyers like myself) very shaky at best.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    18. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LET ME MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR, this SUIT is NOT OVER. Novak recently added several new people to the lawsuit, and the host of the forum never settled. There are several of us waiting this thru.

      For those who think people who settled chickened out because of money... We went thru over 14,000 dollars before it even went to court. Do you know who is being sued? A student trying to pay off loans, a small business owner, a school teacher, a mother of three small children...

      But the fight is still going strong, and we need help more than ever. The ACLU and every other group turned us down. Most of us are now representing ourselves without an attorney. You can help by contributing to the defense fund and by contributing legal expertise

    19. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by symbolic · · Score: 2

      I predict falling sales revenues for this guy. Wonder who he'll sue next to make up for that?

      Capitalism?

    20. Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      One thing to note, a different company with an unfortunately similiar name, PetWarehouse,

      Not for long. PetWarehouse is now www.drfostersmith.com.

  13. History repeats itself by Ali+Jenab · · Score: 5, Informative
    A number of years ago, when I was just getting into the digirati, Oracle filed lawsuits against several members of a DBA discussion group because they were posting less-than-glowing reviews of their database software. Since these victims were highly-paid professionals, not just a bunch of whiny kids (as in the PetsWarehouse case), they had the resources to fight Oracle in court. What happened next was a victory for free speech on the Net and for American justice: every single case Oracle filed against the users was summarily dismissed, and the 4-5 defendants who countersued Oracle received several hundred thousand dollars in punitive damages - more than enough to cover their legal bills and buy themselves something nice.

    The moral of the story here is that giving up on what you believe in gets you nowhere. If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court. If you stand up for your rights when you know you're correct, justice will prevail and you will know you've made a difference for netizens everywhere. What would you rather be - a victorious hero or an unprincipled loser? Don't answer here - save your response for the judge.

    /ali

    1. Re:History repeats itself by MilesBehind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The moral of the story is that highly-paid professionals will get their way in courts because they got the money to fuel their fight through the system, while a bunch of aquatic plant enthusiast will get shafted.

      This entire story seems to surreal to be true, even for US. Saw some bits about emails with threats directed at the supplier, and claims that some criticism went from just reviews to open hostility on personal level. Still doesn't justify the lawsuit, but explains why someone would go into a frenzy to even sue the fund.

    2. Re:History repeats itself by L-Train8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From 2600 magazine's Summer 2001 issue, Emmanuel Goldstein wrote an editorial, about the DeCSS linking case and other legal fights with which 2600 was involved. It seems pretty relevant to the Pets Warehouse case:

      "...the injustice takes on an even more serious tone when it no longer seems to matter whether or not you're found guilty or innocent - whether you win or lose. If you're even brought into the game, you lose regardless of whether or not you win. Sounds crazy? It is. And it's what the American justice system has turned into...

      Every time we find ourselves in a court of law, we seem to have lost by default, something even a victory can't seem to change. Not that we don't relish the idea of standing up to any of the bullies who put us through this hell. But every time we do, it costs us and not just financially. We have to devote tremendous resources into the act of simply defending who we are and what we've been doing for all these years."

      --

      Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
    3. Re:History repeats itself by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should stop being who we are. Just leave IT totally. Or, we could emigrate from the US.

      If enough of us leave - then we will be missed. When there is no one left to run the servers that they run their business on, when there is no one left to get their lawyer's computer back up after a crash, when there is no one left to buy their products because their market has disappeared, then we will be missed.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    4. Re:History repeats itself by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court.

      Very few people know just how bad it is for your credit rating to lose or settle a lawsuit against you. It basically destroys it - if you cave in to or lose a lawsuit then nobody will loan you ANYTHING - you probably will have trouble getting an apartment, non-pre-paid cell phone or even a job or insurance.

      If you cave in you might not lose that much money - but you'll lose everything else. People won't trust you - they'll think you must've been at fault to some degree.

      Heck you are better off representing yourself if it truly is frivolous - at least you have a chance at not having your life ruined - if you settle, kiss having a decent life goodbye forever.

      Of course, the DeCSS case proves that even people who are innocent (the judge ignored fair use, the US Constitution, and all the exemptions listed in the DMCA itself) can and sometimes do lose, even when they do have good lawyers. And if you lose, you will be required to pay damages and sometimes even be required to pay for the court and/or the plaintiff's lawyers. This is just like in some countries where when someone is executed, the family is billed for the cost of the bullets that were shot into his/her head.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    5. Re:History repeats itself by jheinen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is merely bizarre. For a truly surreal story, look at the case of Brandi Blackbear.

      She was suspended from school for successfully practicing witchcraft. She allegedly cast a spell which made a teacher sick. The ACLU is taking it to court.

      Yeah, it's offtopic, but it is interesting.

      --
      -Vercingetorix
      "Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
    6. Re:History repeats itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > The moral of the story here is that giving up on what you believe in gets you nowhere. If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court. If you stand up for your rights when you know you're correct, justice will prevail and you will know you've made a difference for netizens everywhere. What would you rather be - a victorious hero or an unprincipled loser? Don't answer here - save your response for the judge.

      So, you have a house, you have a family, you have a retirement fund and a kids' college fund?

      What assets do you have that you would be unwilling to lose fighting such a case?

      It's all very well to spout off about "giving up on what you believe", when you've got nothing worthwhile to lose in the first place OR aren't the one being threatened by the eventual loss of worthwhile things during the long fight.

      Please, feel free to post a negative opinion of PetsWarehouse on one of those aquatic sites, to deliberately draw a lawsuit, and then you can report on how well you do, and how much it costs you to fight the good, LOOOOOOOONG fight. There was a very good reason why those folks settled - and if you'd RTFA you would know it.

      (Clue: they couldn't afford to keep fighting. The spirits were willing, but the personal economies were weak.)

    7. Re:History repeats itself by Mekanix · · Score: 1

      But you get to keep your wife and family.

      What is more important to you, your family or your rights?

    8. Re:History repeats itself by Danse · · Score: 2

      Err.. yeah. And when we're gone, they'll just import a whole lot more IT people. Be interesting when the majority of the US ends up being Hindu or Muslim. :)

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    9. Re:History repeats itself by ClarkEvans · · Score: 2

      if you cave in or lose a lawsuit then nobody will loan you ANYTHING - you probably will have trouble getting an apartment, non-pre-paid cell phone or even a job or insurance.

      Settling out-of-court usually does not involve your credit report... only judgements against you. Thus, greater risk if you actually try to fight a stupid case...

    10. Re:History repeats itself by durocshark · · Score: 1

      "What is more important to you, your family or your rights?"

      Ouch.

      I happen to be willing to support the battle financially, if I get added to the suit (yes, I do regularly post to the places Mr. Novak pulls his defendants from). Trade my family for it? No, but unless he sues for posession of my family, it's not a trade. ;-)

      --
      Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
    11. Re:History repeats itself by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2

      It is still a matter of public record though, isn't it? As in anyone can go to the court and find out you settled a lawsuit against you.

      Granted if it is not in the consumer credit report fewer people will find out about it but it can still come back to haunt you. If you own a business, people (vendors, etc) might not trust you and might refuse to do business with you.

      And unlike credit reports, information in court records never expires.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    12. Re:History repeats itself by Cade144 · · Score: 1
      Lawyers are just today's version of hired mercnary armies.
      Back in the good 'ol days, say, in the 17th century when Protestents and Catholics were making hash of the northern european countryside, noblemen would hire mercenary armies to invade and pillage each other's territory. When an army came by a town, the mercenary leader gave the inhabitants a choice; they would either:
      raid the treasury and granaries but otherwise leave the town alone; or
      kill, burn, rape and/or pillage everything in sight and then raid the treasury and granary.

      Today, we have standing national armies that have nuclear weapons, much too big a stick to use against other petty lords and countrymen. Besides violence is messy.
      Lawyers and the legal process (at least in the US) now occupy the niche that mercenaries did four hundred years ago. All you have to do if you want to attack your rival is a nice cadre of lawyers. And, lest you be attacked yourself, you also need to keep on retainer a few for defensive purposes. Today, sieges are waged by legal teams instead of armies. But one thing remains constant: the outcome largely depends not on who is right, but who is better funded.

      The above remarks are just my OPINION, and are not intended to disparage any particular lawyer, mercenary, Protestent, Catholic, nobleman, the geobraphic area of Northern Europe, or any distributor of aquatic plant life.

    13. Re:History repeats itself by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Except of course if you are a corporation. Then you can admit to guilt and wrongdoings all the live long day and never have it affect your credit rating. I'm all for capitalism, but NOT corpration. Corporation is the practice of giving large faceless entities some of the privilieges of a person under the law, but none of the responsibilities a real person under the law has to deal with. You can't send a corporation to jail. You can't make its life miserable. You can't ruin it's livelyhood. The most you can do is fine it, and then never for more than it can actually afford (unlike when a settlement fines an individual). The *people* behind the corporation, who might actually be intimidated by such things, are under no personal threat from the wrongdoings that they carry out through the corporation. The worst that can happen to them is that they lose that job because the corporation goes away. That's *IT* - that's as bad as it gets.

      When a corporation and an individual go to court, they aren't putting the same risk up on the block. And they *can't*, because the corporations aren't really people - get rid of their ledgers and money and they cease to exist as an entity.

      If a corporation's software gathers information off your home computer without asking you, they might face a fine at the most. If an individual views information on a corporation's computer without asking, his whole life's pursuit is over - his entire career, not just his one job he holds at the time, is over and he's never allowed to touch a computer again.

      You can't punish a corporation as severely as you can a person. This is what makes them not be accountable for their actions.

      What's the solution? Stop treating corporations like people who can be found guilty or innocent. If the people in a corporation do something wrong, then go after the PEOPLE. Keep the corporation as a convenient tool for consolodating funds and organising the business, but stop letting it be used as a sheild against personal responsibility. Let the people at the top know that if they engage in illegal activities that *THEY* are the ones who will be responsible for it if they get caught, NOT the imaginary person called "The company". Get them to treat their lives with the same sense of responsibility and personal risk the rest of us have to deal with, and then maybe for once they'd get some semblance of fair play.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    14. Re:History repeats itself by quonsar · · Score: 2

      The spirits were willing, but the personal economies were weak

      and the reason this does not enrage you is...?

      it's always been a screaming injustice that those without money automatically lose. and now, ever since corporate america looked at the internet and saw dollar signs the attacks on free speech have gone postitively out of control.

    15. Re:History repeats itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Enron case could end up as a test bed for corporate accountability.

    16. Re:History repeats itself by flink · · Score: 1

      Yeah so was the Savings and Loan bailout of the 80's and look where that got us...

    17. Re:History repeats itself by RiverOtter · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine why Ali Jenab would say that the defendants in the PetsWarehouse case were "a bunch of whiny kids. The fact is that the defendants who settled did NOT have the resources to fight Mr. Novak, who claims to be the owner of PetsWarehouse and who is representing himself in this suit. What would you do, Mr Ali Jenab, if you had a mushrooming legal bill greater than your annual salary, and no trial date in sight? The defendants were all out of state, and had to hire a New York State lawyer, who turned out to be very expensive. There is a lot of loose talk about freedom of speech, and the "right" to free speech. How free is speech, if the cost of defending it is more than you can bear? Speech isn't free if you have to pay anything at all to defend what you say at least up to the point where a trial is held and the decision goes against you. If the trial is decided against you, then, presumably, you have violated the laws concerning libel. If this country really valued the 1st. amendment, a defendant in a freedom of speech action would not have to pay a penny until the trial was over and the judgment was against him.

    18. Re:History repeats itself by sethdelackner · · Score: 1

      Very eloquent, I just hope that more people come to this realization very soon. Our corporate rule is soon going to excrete the mangled tatters of our constitution or choke on it and die. Most everyone I know could care less. They are also somewhat intelligent, so I have very low hopes.

    19. Re:History repeats itself by muleboy · · Score: 1

      Why is there nothing about this since October 2000? Does it really take that long to get a court date? Was the case thrown out? What's the deal?

    20. Re:History repeats itself by splorf · · Score: 1

      I've been googling for this story and can't find further info. Got any details, or a URL? What were the names of the defendants, etc.?

    21. Re:History repeats itself by jheinen · · Score: 2

      The trial is set for July. I haven't been able to find any other info. Apparently the defence wants to call a 'mystery' witness who will testify that the principal has been disciplined in the past for his fanatical religious beliefs. The prosecution wants to put Brandi's mental state on trial.

      --
      -Vercingetorix
      "Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
    22. Re:History repeats itself by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      The ACLU is seeking an undisclosed amount of punitive and financial damages on the Blackbear family's behalf, a declaration that the school violated the student's rights, an injunction preventing the school from banning the wearing of any non-Christian religious paraphernalia and an order expunging her school record.

      There's the ACLU defending the liberties of all people again! Sheesh, I love how Christians don't seem to be included in the category of "all people"

      --

      -Bucky
    23. Re:History repeats itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Moron,

      When a school allows the wearing of religious symbols _except_ Christian ones, then you can bitch.

    24. Re:History repeats itself by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      The ACLU is seeking an undisclosed amount of punitive and financial damages on the Blackbear family's behalf, a declaration that the school violated the student's rights, an injunction preventing the school from banning the wearing of any non-Christian religious paraphernalia and an order expunging her school record.

      There's the ACLU defending the liberties of all people again! Sheesh, I love how Christians don't seem to be included in the category of "all people"

      You need to read the full court complaint. The problem was that the school allowed Christian paraphernalia while banning symbols from other religions (notably Wiccan). This was Tulsa, Oklahoma -- the rights of Christians there are hardly threatened compared to others.

  14. Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch out, he'll give you a "-1, Trolle"!

    But really. Shut the hell up, you didn't FP by a long shot. Save the honor for those who press Reload 50 times a second.

  15. Just a thought.. by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    It's conceivable that someone outside the US could register petswarehousesucks.com at someplace like godaddy.com for 8.95 and run a site from there. Last time I checked WHOIS, it was available. The (very) first amendment point of this post is...... Could the US legal system be able to reach that far should some people outside the U.S. get it in their heads to continue a campaign against this company?

    1. Re:Just a thought.. by bkw · · Score: 1

      you misspelled 'petSWEARhouse.com'.

    2. Re:Just a thought.. by ringbarer · · Score: 0

      you misspelled 'wetSPERMhause.com'

      --
      "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
    3. Re:Just a thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm right now busy mirroring http://216.168.47.67/psw/ on http://www.upfuckingyours.org/psw. Let them sue me. I will laugh my brains out :-)

    4. Re:Just a thought.. by Stoutlimb · · Score: 2

      Yes, the US legal system could still crush you quickly and brutally. Just the other day, a US court convicted a Canadian man for things he did in Canada, that are perfectly legal to do on Canadian soil. He's going to jail for life for trading with Cuba. USA isn't the world's policeman, it's slowly becoming the world's dictator.

      Don't believe me? Go here.
      http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id={6A B849AC- DBB0-42C5-B048-5A3CC89706BF}

      You USA'ers get your buildings blown up because you're overbearing bastards in how you treat other countries. Who woulda thought? Nah forget it, the rest of the world is full of terrorists, nuke em all...

      Bork

    5. Re:Just a thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like many URLs on slashdot, something added a space in the middle of the URL. You will have to remove it before the link will work.

      I.e. "...9AC-DBB0...", not "...9AC- DBB0..."

    6. Re:Just a thought.. by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Nice troll Bork. While one of the defendants was indeed a Candian citizen he was an executive of a US company living in PA. Also, of the 20 counts he was convicted of only 7 of the counts covered activities he did while in Canada. Perhaps you should read the article again?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    7. Re:Just a thought.. by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      Yea 7 out of 20 ain't so bad... Of course nobody would think that it's the principle of the thing that matters. Since he's already a criminal, I guess it doesn't matter how many charges he's convicted of, or their legality/fairness.

    8. Re:Just a thought.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Canadian and I agree with what the US did to this guy. Too many here in Canada, including our federal government, think that Cuba is friendly, harmless and free. Cuba is a communist state whose leader urged the Soviets to conduct a nuclear attack on the US during the Cuban missle crisis. Anybody who trades with Cuba should be locked up, because they are a friend with a enemy of civilization.

    9. Re:Just a thought.. by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      Thanks... I must have missed that in the preview. I suppose from now on I shouldn't trust Inernet Explorer 6 to cut and paste URL's accurately. I should also get off my arse and learn how to add HTML tags so people could click on these URL's.

    10. Re:Just a thought.. by afidel · · Score: 2

      Cuba stopped being a threat when Khrushchev pulled out. Now during May Day parades the Cuban army rides bikes, they have no diesel for the tanks.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Just a thought.. by multicsfan · · Score: 2

      If you read the article closely, all the charges against him while he was working in Canada were dismissed. The only charges that he was found guilty of were those done while he was working/living within the US.

      I'm not sure I agree with the charges to begin with mind you, but you should try to make sure you have the facts straight or at least the alleged facts from the article.

    12. Re:Just a thought.. by durocshark · · Score: 1

      You rock!!!

      ROTFLMAO!!!!

      --
      Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
  16. Not the first time by zentec · · Score: 2, Informative


    I've seen this argument from Pets Warehouse on various mailing lists when I kept salt water fish.

    His own actions have caused him more problems than one customer complaint.

  17. A new way to make money ... by pgrote · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow. So if someone thinks my business sucks and they tell people about it I can get rich. Kick ass.

    What I found exceptional about this article is that the guy from Pets Warehouse was representing himself. His costs out of pocket were court fees. It doesn't appear that he paid anyone to serve most of the summons'.

    The most striking question I have is why didn't everyone who was sued band together? I see the reference to the defense fund, but no mention of targeting the suit's validity in front of a court. Wouldn't that be the first step?

    Between this and "recollecting" memories of being abused by priests, one could make a nice living.

    1. Re:A new way to make money ... by Robert+Crawford · · Score: 1

      The suit hasn't gotten far enough along to challenge, and The Plaintiff hasn't served anyone who lives in California (ie, those who could file an anti-SLAPP counter-suit).

      BTW -- I posted three entries about the case in my blog, and received a cease-and-desist letter from the guy. So, I avoid using his name. Everyone knows who I'm talking about, right?

  18. Enough already.... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

    "I've been an attorney for over 20 years, and I have rarely seen anything that's as frivolous as this is," says John Benn, a lawyer and aquarist in Sheffield, Ala.,..."

    Can't take the pressure...must...get...out...

    *kaboom*

    ...............

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  19. PetsWarehouse sucks ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey Novak... come sue me! Its the little people like you that evolution should have gotten rid of long ago. Trying to silence people's opinions about how much your company sucks is going against the ideals of our country. USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! USA Forever!

    Come shut me up! Don't buy for petSWEARhouse cause if you do you'll be sure to swear! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  20. Sure hope he makes enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...from the people who have settled - he's basically killed his business (I imagine word travels quickly in a niche market like that), and if anyone does stand up to him in court, they'll probably win, and he'll be stuck with the legal fees.

    What a loser.

  21. Osteichtheis Stinkus by elocutio · · Score: 1

    Something really stinks about this story, and it's not the fish. I suspect some sort of coercion on the part of the claimant (Novak) or his representatives (Attorneys) to get the defendants to settle on such a fluke, or else there really was some sort of conspiracy against the fish man. I believe that the merits of this case are a red herring. :P That reminds me of a joke: Q: What's the difference between Novak's attorney and a catfish? A: One is a bottom-dwelling scum-sucker, and one's a fish.

    1. Re:Osteichtheis Stinkus by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      Um, Novak has no attorney. He's representing himself. RTFA.

    2. Re:Osteichtheis Stinkus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that only makes it funnier, doesn't it? STFU.

    3. Re:Osteichtheis Stinkus by Robert+Crawford · · Score: 2, Informative

      Basically, The Plaintiff's goal is to cost the defendants as much money as possible while spending the least possible. He represents himself (something he may not be able to do), and lives five miles from the court house; the defendants (mostly) live in other states and have to hire an attorney who's able to represent them in that specific court.

  22. do you know how much it costs to go to court ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    most people would settle because they can't spend the $ to hold their defense. read the article : they settled when the raised fund ran out. this is IMO the problem of most western (particulary US) legal system. You may be in your right but do not have the money to defend. Thus justice is only a question of war of attrition : you have the supply line or not.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:do you know how much it costs to go to court ? by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 2
      this is IMO the problem of most western (particulary US) legal system.
      At least here in Germany, there are are number of useful mechanisms to protect individuals against misuse of the legal system. First, if you are reasonably poor and the court recognizes that you have a reasonable (not necessarily winning) case, it will sponsor your legal representation. Secondly, lawyers usually work for a standard fee (based on the amount in controversy) determined by the equivalent of the board association. And finally, the court will award these standard fees and other reasonable costs to the winning side.

      All in all, a normal lawsuit is not insanely expensive, and if you are right, you cannot easily be forced to give in by a big spender.

      Another bonus is that lawyers are not allowed to work pro bono, which much reduces frivolous lawsuits.

      I believe that similar checks are in force in most European countries.

      --

      Stephan

    2. Re:do you know how much it costs to go to court ? by TooTallFourThinking · · Score: 1

      I am waiting for someone to write a Lawyer HowTo Guide or even Defending Yourself Against Frivolous Lawsuits HowTo Guide. You know, something that I can read on my own without having to go to law school part time. A couple of law memes would be nice. Give people the ability, confidence and resources necessarily to defend themselves, at least decently.

      I've already started compiling a list of ReasonsGregShouldBecomeALawyer

    3. Re:do you know how much it costs to go to court ? by aePrime · · Score: 1

      I can't see how eliminating pro bono work would reduce frivolous lawsuites. A lawyer ususally works pro bono on a case when he/she feels it's a worthy cause. Lawyers usually file a frivolous lawsuit when they think they can make some money off of it.

    4. Re:do you know how much it costs to go to court ? by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1
      I can't see how eliminating pro bono work would reduce frivolous lawsuites.


      Well, perhaps I misunderstood the exact meaning of pro bono. In Germany, a lawyer always has to charge at least the minimal fee, he is not allowed to work for free, and he is not allowed to charge only if the lawsuit is won, or to participate from the settlement money. So if you loose your case, you always have to pay at least the two lawyers (yours and your opponents). This acts as an entry barrier against lawsuits which you do not expect to win. In the US, a lawyer who has free time can much easier talk people into entering a lawsuit even if he only has an off-chance of winning (Hey! It's FREE!). If he gets one McDonalds jury out of 10 suits, he will do well!

      --

      Stephan

  23. It's federal... by sterno · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the lead in it said that it was a lawsuit filed in federal court, thus New York's anti-SLAPP statutes would not be applicable (to the best of my knowledge).

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:It's federal... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      I wonder why no federal anti-SLAPP laws have yet been passed? I mean, they'd certainly get support from the senators and representatives from those states that have passed such.

      I also wonder if such a law could make "threat of frivolous lawsuit" as a class of duress, as in "no agreement made under duress is legally binding". The suit would have to be frivolous in the eyes of the duressed, so that threats to sue over legitimately illegal stuff (one of the government's main powers) maintain their value.

    2. Re:It's federal... by CashCarSTAR · · Score: 1

      The main reason for that, is that the people who want to eliminate frivilous lawsuits only want to eliminate it when it comes to corporations. They'd still allow the typical SLAPP to occur.

      A federal anti-SLAPP law will never happen.

    3. Re:It's federal... by jspectre · · Score: 1

      Why not? Think about it. Big businesses pay our politicians for laws. Why ever would they want a law enacted that would prohibit them from suing people who say negative things about them?

      It's my guess they pay federal lawmakers to keep such laws off the books.

      --

      abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

    4. Re:It's federal... by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that federal courts already have rule 11 for getting rid of frivilous lawsuits.

    5. Re:It's federal... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      Rule 11? I haven't heard of it before, but it must not work too well for anti-SLAPP if stuff like this keeps getting through.

      As to the prior poster, I don't see why people wouldn't want the "typical SLAPP" to be banned as well. Aren't most SLAPPs filed by corporations in the first place?

    6. Re:It's federal... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      Same thing happens at the state level, and yet such laws get passed. Besides, this would protect corps too, if someone gets ticked off at a corp trying to make a buck in a legitimate way and files a SLAPP to make the activity unprofitable.

    7. Re:It's federal... by DavidBrown · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually federal courts apply state law all the time. Federal courts are supposed to apply the substantive (ie, not procedureal) laws of the forum state. There may be some choice of law issues here that could prevent application of the NY Anti-SLAPP law, but it is certainly could have been raised in federal court.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    8. Re:It's federal... by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      Rule 11 is a rule thats not used very often, but it allows for throwing out cases that are frivilous.. The defendants should file some sort of motion based on rule 11 asking for the case to be thrown out.

    9. Re:It's federal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sanctions the attorneys. Judges very seldom apply it.

    10. Re:It's federal... by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      Check out This Link apparently their lawyer did bring up Rule 11.

      I can't imagine this case will go anywhere, its amazing that the defendants are settling instead of representing themselves at the very least.

    11. Re:It's federal... by Sabriel · · Score: 2
      I can't imagine this case will go anywhere, its amazing that the defendants are settling instead of representing themselves at the very least.
      Not so amazing, really. Average joes and janes just can't afford to defend themselves anymore, especially if they've got kids to feed.
    12. Re:It's federal... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 1

      ...which would seem to prove my point. (Even if the attorneys should be sanctioned for stuff like this, IMO, if that's just going to get in the way of having SLAPP suits dismissed, then toss that part.)

  24. Its this guy's "hobby" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this article at Long Island Business News going to court is the 'hobby' of the petSWEARhouse guy... I wonder if he'll sue slashdot next.

  25. Again? by slipkid · · Score: 2, Informative

    This isn't the first time this has happened. Seems that anytime someone posts in the negative regarding a company, the crap almost immediately hits the fan. In fact, not too awfully long ago, we saw this story in which 2600 was threatened for trying to register the domain name verizonreallysucks.com.

    I also seem to remember AOL instituting a policy some time ago restricting AOL-hosted websites and chat rooms from having any anti-AOL sentiments published... And what about those who have been unfortunate enough to raise the ire of the Scientologists?

    Sad that having negative feelings about a group or corporation means having to spend one's life savings defending oneself in court.

    1. Re:Again? by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      I also seem to remember AOL instituting a policy some time ago restricting AOL-hosted websites and chat rooms from having any anti-AOL sentiments published.
      They don't want to host/relay anti-AOL content; if you want to do that, you'll have to do it somewhere else (different hosting provider, IRC, etc). This is a condition on which AOL provides service to its customers, no different from other ToS conditions like "you may not spam people". What's wrong with that?
      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  26. Original Message that started the whole thing... by neo · · Score: 5, Informative

    In case it get's S'dotted.

    Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't.

    Actually the plants I received were average to maybe a bit below
    average, but they'll pull through in my tank. What is crappy is their
    service! And they're maybe even a bit dishonest.

    Way back in the beginning of April (April 10th to be exact) I was
    seduced by the huge list of plants for sale on their web site. I
    ordered 4 types of plants, all quite common. Though it states on their
    web site that they directly import their plants, I didn't realize that
    they'd import the plants you ordered *after* you placed your order! Or
    at least that's the way it seemed ...

    I received my order today, May 15th. It only took them 4.5 weeks. And
    this is after 6 phone calls. Twice they promised they'd be shipped on
    a certain date, then nada. And dealing with them on the phone is,
    well, let's just say they stick to their pat answers and work very
    hard at getting you off the phone as quickly as possible. My 6th call
    was last week, and when they realized I was calling about a plant
    order they proclaimed "They will be shipped on Monday". Click. And I
    didn't even give them my name or order number! Maybe *all* orders
    finally went out on Monday?

    There was never a "sorry for the delay" or any sign whatsoever that I
    was the valued customer and they were the business providing a product
    that I was paying for.

    Though I found all of this very annoying, it wasn't what annoyed me
    the most. On my order confirmation I was quoted a shipping price of
    $7.50. Nice ... it was one of the selling points for me. Then the
    order arrived complete with an invoice stating that shipping was
    $18.50! When I called them today to straighten this out, they
    informed me that the original quote was wrong and that I was stuck
    with the $18.50. Again, no "sorry for the mixup" or any indication
    that they would fix the problem (with the web site and order
    confirmation system).

    Another hassle - their shipments *require* a signature. I quote their
    email notice telling me the plants had been shipped: "You must be home
    to sign for it. We guarantee live arrival if the order is accepted on
    the first delivery attempt." Yikes. This was the first I knew of this
    policy. So I actually had to take a half day off work in order to be
    there to receive the order! These plants are getting *very* expensive.

    The whole organization has the feel of someone who started yesterday
    out of your neighbors garage. It even sounds that way when you talk to
    them on the phone.

    Maybe I expect too much?

    Though I have a few gripes about Arizona Aquatics as well, they're
    light years ahead of this outfit as far as service.

    As always, your mileage may vary.

    dan
    --

  27. Bad Sport! by sinserve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This company should learn a thing or two, from the notorious
    programmer/book-author Herbert Schildt.

    This gentleman has been slammed by the members of BOTH the C and C++ standardization
    commitee, Academia, Usenet, and just about anyone old enough to write an Amazon review.

    Herb however, acknowledges the "points" of his critics in his later books, but continues
    doing what he feels like.

    He is almost the "abusive boyfriend" of programming books. You know "I am sorry baby,
    I don't spend as much time with you as I used, I know I have cheated on you, but BITCH,
    get off my back".

    It is best for this company to acknowledge the inferriority of their products, but keep
    making them anyways. People wont notice it, just ask the millions of heart broken girlfriends
    with black eyes.

    --

    1. Re:Bad Sport! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... I just checked Amazon's web page, and saw only one bad review about only one of Mr. Schildt's books. Can you please point out what/where the problems are?

    2. Re:Bad Sport! by sinserve · · Score: 2

      http://www.accu.org/cgi-bin/accu/rvout.cgi?from=0a u_s&file=t001453a

      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=herbert+schild t& hl=en

    3. Re:Bad Sport! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the links :)

      for anyone else who follows the links: I had to go to the root directory for the first link you gave (apparantly the cgi checks for referrer or something) then look around to find info on Schlidt.

    4. Re:Bad Sport! by quonsar · · Score: 1

      i never learned C in 21 days from herb. but i did once sleep through a starcastle concert at wings stadium in kalamazoo. herb was excellent.

    5. Re:Bad Sport! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      saw only one bad review about only one of Mr. Schildt's books. Can you please point out what/where the problems are?

      Here's a thorough one.

  28. Robert Novak == Bernie Shifman? by elsegundo · · Score: 1

    Well it would be true, but Mr. Novak seems to have actually brought legal proceedings. Almost to the point of barratry really.

    --


    The revolution will be televised. Blackout restrictions apply.
  29. But the people can do this, too by shimmin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Companies with sufficiently deep pockets have demonstrated the ability to "win" lawsuits by simply prolonging them past the ability of their opponents to financially endure.

    However, the American justice system does allow a sufficiently large number of people to do this straight back. And I'm not talking about class action suits, from which only lawyers benefit, anyway.

    It's called small claims court. Pay the filing fee (typically less than $100), bring a sufficiently plausible gripe that your case won't get dismissed, represent yourself. If you win, you can even get the filing fee reimbursed, and even if not, rest assured that the company has spent more on paying their lawyer to show up than you were asking for in damages.

    Think of it as the legal equivalent of DDoS.

    1. Re:But the people can do this, too by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      Even better. IANAL, but I've been told that you can't send a lawyer to represent you in small claims court. So a company has to send a company official to represent them vs. a locally-hired lawyer... Or settle ...

    2. Re:But the people can do this, too by grinwell · · Score: 1
      However, the American justice system does allow a sufficiently large number of people to do this straight back. And I'm not talking about class action suits, from which only lawyers benefit, anyway.

      It's called small claims court. Pay the filing fee (typically less than $100), bring a sufficiently plausible gripe that your case won't get dismissed, represent yourself. If you win, you can even get the filing fee reimbursed, and even if not, rest assured that the company has spent more on paying their lawyer to show up than you were asking for in damages.

      Think of it as the legal equivalent of DDoS.



      I have a feeling this will get Slashdot on the "To Sue" list. We shouldn't be looking for (or encouraging) ways to apply the *worst* parts of the net to real life!
    3. Re:But the people can do this, too by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Novak is somewhat of an amateur lawyer whose hobbies include suing people. So, you'd be going after someone who has a decent idea of what the law is. I would say that Novak is the same class of being as pond scum, but I'm afraid I'd be sued - the Pond Scum Anti-Defamation League is very powerful, from what I hear.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    4. Re:But the people can do this, too by Lectrik · · Score: 1

      Quoth the post:
      Think of it as the legal equivalent of DDoS.

      But i thought that in october(or there abouts) ashCroft macaroni and cheese declared that a DDos attack was a terrorist activity. now they're gonna nuke all the small claims courts

      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    5. Re:But the people can do this, too by jamesmartinluther · · Score: 5, Informative

      Some business partners and I had a contractual disagreement with a company several years ago (they mistakenly thought that they did not have to pay for some work that we did for them). After several collections attempts, we decided to take the matter to small claims.

      We did not make use of a lawyer, even though we were facing a moderately large company. Amazingly, they failed to appear (perhaps they did not take us seriously) and the judge awarded the full amount to us.

      It works.

    6. Re:But the people can do this, too by shren · · Score: 2

      This worked from a friend of mine, who got sacked for extremely questionable reasons and took the company to task. Between the firing and the filing of the suit, the company closed thier local office. My friend filed claim in local court - they'd have to send a representive back to the state with the office they closed to contest it, so they didn't. He got a nice pile of change out of that.

      --
      Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
    7. Re:But the people can do this, too by Skapare · · Score: 2

      Did you actually collect on the judgement? Did it cost you anything make that collection?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    8. Re:But the people can do this, too by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      You saw that on Law & Order. Admit it. It was the one where that company sold the defective pacemakers. TV 'tells' me stuff too.

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
    9. Re:But the people can do this, too by mdwebster · · Score: 1

      Actually I've never watched Law & Order. I happen to work for a Fortune 500 company that has had the honor of being sued in small-claims court from time to time. Normally these suits are settled out of court as it's not worth a plane ticket and someone's time to go out and fight over whatever issue but we have sent people from our customer relations department to court when it's a local issue or some "principle" is involved.

    10. Re:But the people can do this, too by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      Next time send the mail room guy. It will make his week!

      Man, if I could say I had never watched Law & Order I might work for a fortune 500 company too. Oh well, next time.

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
    11. Re:But the people can do this, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawyers are not allowed in small claims court. A personal representative of the company must show up in person, and they can't be a lawyer. All the better.

    12. Re:But the people can do this, too by jamesmartinluther · · Score: 1

      Collection was the hard part, but only because it was time consuming as opposed to expensive. If we could identify a bank account with enough funds held by the company, the bank would have to honor the judgement and pay us. The company was complicated and was doing business under several shell organizations with their own accounts. It was possible to find these accounts, but the main partner decided at that point to move on with life.

    13. Re:But the people can do this, too by symbolic · · Score: 2

      Why not just slap a lein on the company?

    14. Re:But the people can do this, too by WNight · · Score: 2

      I'm in exactly this position now. I was doing some programming (hourly wage) for a guy who changed his mind partway through and decided he wouldn't pay for the parts he didn't want, despite having clearly asked for it to be done. When I billed him for it he said he decided not to pay. No justification, just decided not to.

      I need to find out if I can get damages (time lost filing) as well as the outstanding bill. Also, if I lose, am I liable for his legal fees? (Not really asking for advice, just saying where I am in the process, Canadian law would be different anyways.)

      What a jerk though. He has the money, but no doubt thinks I won't bother filing for a small ammount ($750).

      I also want to find out how much of this I can say without fear of defamation suits. I mean, he did very obviously break the contract. Can I put that (and his names/business name) on my webpage with the facts? I'd love to, he gets business from the web and being on google with some nasty facts in the public eye would hurt his business a lot, but justifiably IMHO.

  30. Re:The secret of Existence lies in SCIENTOLOGY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this just some loser talking to himself?

  31. Digging a little further ... new article on Novak by pgrote · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the Long Island Business News ...

    http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249

    "Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York. The BBB gives Pets Warehouse an "unsatisfactory rating," the organization's lowest. Novak said some of the complaints were from another business that licensed the Pets Warehouse name and that he didn't get adequate opportunity to respond. "

    Shoot for the stars ...

  32. Satan's Lawyer's Billing Rate: by wiredog · · Score: 3, Funny

    $666.66/hour.

  33. In My Opinion by hrieke · · Score: 1

    So what would happen if I had posted something like this:

    In My Opinion Petswhatever.com is horrible because x, y, and z.

    I don't see why they would sue. Contact me and find out more about why I wrote what I wrote, but to take legal action only risks ill will and a counter suite.

    --
    III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    1. Re:In My Opinion by bluGill · · Score: 2

      Doesn't matter. someone can sue anyone over anything. there are two difficulties though. First you have to win, and second you have to collect.

      "In my opinion" will give you an easy win in court.

      As for the second, even if you do lose in court (which can happen, even in stupid cases like this), very few peple have enough money to pay the fine. Essentially you leave the court room, walk into the next office and file bankruptcy, which will go through since you have no chance of paying the fine. (I'm not sure what the details are, but if nothing else since they will be taking all the money you earn over living expenses if you don't, a part time job is a good way to assure that you don't every pay anything. And courts cannot easially touch your house or retirement acount.

  34. Cease and Desist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Please cease and desist from defaming The Church Of Scientology® on this public forum. If your message is not removed with in 24 hours, our attornies shall pursue this matter further in court. This is your only warning.

  35. Countersuits by coyote-san · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate to say it, but where are the countersuits here? Hell, where's the DoJ nailing this bastard for violation of civil liberties?

    The courts have ruled time and again that the public welfare requires that discussion of civil and criminal cases trumps ALL other rights. There is absolutely no way any suit for "trademark infringement" against a defense fund because it bore the trademark name of the company suing would last 5 seconds before a judge.

    What's the alternative - "We're collecting money for unnamed people to fight an unnamed company in an unnamed state for reasons we can't discuss (and can't warn you to avoid repeating). Please be generous!"?

    The ONLY reason this even got before the court was buried deep in the article - Novak was representing himself. Probably because no lawyer would touch this case with a 10-foot pole.

    I'm a firm believer in the right of people to represent themselves (and equally hostile to the "YANAL, shut up!" posts we see here). Countries where access to the courts are restricted to a privileged few who must always fear the possibility of having that access revoked tend to be less free than countries where the courts are open to all. But that must come at a price - you use this access to trample the rights of others, either as a pro se asshole or a corporate SLAPPer then you need to pay a hefty price for it.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Countersuits by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > Hell, where's the DoJ nailing this bastard for violation of civil liberties?

      Can't do that -- all their resources are tied up defending Micorsoft right now.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Countersuits by revscat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hell, where's the DoJ nailing this bastard for violation of civil liberties?

      Bwahahahaha! It is to laugh. *This* Administration? Protect civil liberties? You GOTTA be joking! The day the Bush Administration does ANYTHING for civil liberties will be a cold one in Hades. Civil liberties are so far down on their list of priorities that they don't even register.

      Money, power, and secrecy. Those are the driving factors of this administartion.

    3. Re:Countersuits by quonsar · · Score: 1

      he's a businessman. we are the internet. put another way, he's boss hawg, we're niggers.

    4. Re:Countersuits by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      And that sentiment goes for all corporations vs actual humans. Or as another person said. "we are all palestenians now".

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  36. This says it all... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    "If Pets Warehouse had sent me e-mail saying: 'We're sorry you're upset. What can we do to make it better?' I would have vented to them, they would have sent me a $20 gift certificate. I would have posted to APD: 'Yeah, we had a bad deal, but let's give them another chance, and it would have been over.' But instead, he [Novak] sued. It is his act of suing us that has caused all the bad feeling. He has brought this upon himself."

    What a Analog-Hole! Did he go to the RIAA school of Business?

    "Alienate your customers at all costs!"

    "When things don't go your way, sue!"

    "If all else fails, involve the government!"

    "The customer is ALWAYS wrong, and is trying to destroy your business!"

    1. Re:This says it all... by lunenburg · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the people are lazy and will put up with crap like this, unless it affects them directly. So we end up with corporations that do stuff like this, but people still patronize their business. Sad, really.

    2. Re:This says it all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA hasn't alienated anyone. People are still buying CD's, even the slashdot constituants.

      Either that, or they are stealing from the RIAA, in which case, it isn't in their best interest to cater to your interests anyway.

      I am getting really sick of "The RIAA just doesn't get it, just last week I bought yet another copy protected CD."

      And equally fed up with "The RIAA just doesn't get it, when will they realize that I don't want to buy music the way they want to sell it." Because you are stealing it, with no intention of buying any new music.

    3. Re:This says it all... by durocshark · · Score: 1

      Soo....

      Contribute to the defense fund!!! Help those who are listed on the lawsuit fight to the end.

      http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Fund.htm

      --
      Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
    4. Re:This says it all... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      Exxcept that I haven't bought a CD in _years_ and I don't have a mp3 collection either. (I did but deleted it all for space when I realized I was just collecting it for the hell of it. I never replaced any of it.) I guess I don't like much of the music that the RIAA is offering. I buy records occationally, but not much else.

      Mostly when I get a jones for new music, I write it. Too bad more people don't do that.

  37. I Love The USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The only country in the world where you have the right to hold any opinion you want, unless you use a computer to express it. And soon, the only country in the world where it is legal to own an unlicensed firearm, but owning an unlicensed CD player will get you five years in the slammer.

    1. Re:I Love The USA by finkployd · · Score: 1

      It is not legal to own an unlicensed firearm in the US.

      Finkployd

    2. Re:I Love The USA by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      a) Holding an opinion != expressing it.
      And, with regards to the latter, the form does NOT matter when it comes to liability. Spread libel through skywriting aircraft and if somebody has evidence -- a good videorecording -- you're just as vulnerable to a lawsuit.

      b) Firearm legality varies. Try walking into a police department in D.C. and asking their advice as to how to safely store a handgun. Guess what -- possession's illegal there. Ditto, for that matter, in NYC.

      c) So does owning an unauthorized pirate videotape collection. It's not exactly confined to high technology, foo.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:I Love The USA by exodus2 · · Score: 1

      True but in most places licencing is just buying from a gun store where they keep reciepts on paper in a back room, so if somthing bad happens with the gun and they find it they can track what store had the gun, ask them and the store will pull out the paper saying that it was sold to so and so, but you dont go into a database which can be checked and say who owns a gun.

      --
      .sigs suck, thus nothing here.
    4. Re:I Love The USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure you are mistaken. As far as I know, there is no reason why firearms such as hunting rifles cannot be legally given to heirs without notifying any agency of the government (or anyone else). In some states, this may technically be illegal for handguns or semi-automatic rifles with military styling.

      Of course, you better read the fine print if you really need to know.

      AC
      --

    5. Re:I Love The USA by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      hmm.. If no one has guns there, I wonder why the crime is so bad?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:I Love The USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is.

      It isn't legal to buy an unlicense fireawm from a dealer, but you can own one.

      I have several legal firearms that were inherited from my father who inherited, or bought them back when gun control was hitting what you shot at.

      These aren't illegal, never have been registered, and probably never will be.

  38. Whose fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except it was the fault of the idiot for trying to send attachments to a mailing list, not the moderator. He did something technically stupid and then refused to believe it was his own fault, and so sued. I'm reminded of policemen/lawyers/inquisitors continuously grilling victims because they don't believe the truth.

  39. Here's the message that started this all: by MikeyO · · Score: 4, Informative
    Unfortunately much of this discussion has been deleted from the list archives, but here is the not that started it all:

    Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:06:02 -0700
    From ...snip...
    Since others have decided to vent:)

    > Subject: Another Pets Warehouse UNsatisfied customer (long)
    >
    > Well, Dan's not the only one they got. Normally, I hate to vent, but it's
    > neccessary in this case.

    I think I have the record with these nit wits. I've talked to Bob Novak
    several times etc(the owner). This guy named "Ed, yea I'll call you back". A
    number of years back they did have a person that could do the job well,
    Donna. But they drove her off fast. I've been through some 5 or more order
    folks there now. There will not be a 6th. That was the only person that ever
    got a single thing ever worth mentioning done in the plant area regarding
    service. Also the only one that gave decent service, owner included.
    They claim to fill 90% of the orders.

    Well I can tell everyone it's more like 20%. Or less. If it at all.
    I've been extremely fair and patient far beyond anything I've ever seen
    posted here by anyone on the APD or other boards. I order from them every 2
    weeks for about 2 years(6-8 months is one thing with certain plants due to
    the wholsalers etc). I gave up awhile back. Never got but one so so order in
    that entire time. Ed said "I'll call you/email you etc if he gets something
    in etc". Never ever once. Didn't matter if you order 300$ worth of plants or
    25$ worth of plants, every sized order is ignored equally. I understand some
    weeks you might not have any/much order to place a plant order overseas etc.
    So I kept re ordering. This seemed to bug them even more. This part, myself
    knowing the trade and industry to some degree, am very understanding on. I
    mentioned that and they mentioned it to me about this issue. But two years
    of not getting certain plants and orders is just plain BS no matter how you
    look at it/size it up from their end. The high shipping cost are a complete
    joke.

    But it seems like a LFS that's trying to get into MO with no concept of the
    expectations and needs of this different type of internet business. They are
    failing terribly in this area. And certainly the customer is last, rather
    than first. They act like it's a hassle and that they are going to do it
    when they want to and they are going to over charge and charge extra for the
    trouble.

    For me this is not about the cost of extra shipping etc, I don't care so
    much about the $. It's about being able to simply get the plants. Most folks
    care about the $ much more than I do and are not nearly as
    patient/understanding about this issue. They also should not have to be,
    they are the customer who pays their bills but they act like they are doing
    you a favor. It's one thing if it's a mistake one or two time or even three
    times, but many years and 5 different service employees??
    They get ...snip...'s official:

    Worse service award of any plant MO place.

    And they deserve every bit of it beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Regards,
    ...snip...
  40. In other news... by mckeowbc · · Score: 1, Funny

    /. and salon.com have now been sued for reporting the story of the suit against the people that bitched about Pets Warehouse.

    Oh...crap...now I'll probably get sued for making a joke about them suing /. Crap. Oh well.

  41. More links to primary source info on lawsuit by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 4, Informative
    Primary source information about the lawsuit can be found at:
    http://www.aquaria.net/lawsuit.html

    And the archive of the infamous mailing list is at:
    http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/index.php

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

    1. Re:More links to primary source info on lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Seth! Will you stalk me next?

    2. Re:More links to primary source info on lawsuit by ethereal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Y'know, reading the two accounts, it's amazing to see that two almost diametrically-opposed accounts of the same things could be written. These guys must really have it in for each other, and (after reading this) I have no idea who's closer to being in the right. Seth doesn't get any points from me because he doesn't put his .sig in the right spot so that it isn't shown when I have "hide sigs" enabled. But on the other hand, most public opinion seems to be in the anti-Michael category. Is that just because Seth got his story out first, or is it because his account is closer to what really happened?

      Decide for yourself, I guess. I'll be damned if I can tell what the truth is.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    3. Re:More links to primary source info on lawsuit by GGooden · · Score: 1

      You can also find lots of good information (along with press information) at http://www.thedefensefund.org. Gregory

    4. Re:More links to primary source info on lawsuit by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      ethereal, I don't like to reply to people about this topic in story threads, because I don't want to give the appearance of trying to hijack discussion. I'll make an exception here, because you're not a troll, and for other reasons.

      The simple way you "can tell what the truth is", is that every single other person associated with censorware.org has wanted Michael Sims to stop playing dog-in-the-manger with the censorware.org domain name. And not only has he refused, he's now turned it into a smear-site. Note this does not depend on whether or not you believe I am sane.

      It's instructive to look at, e.g. Jonathan Wallace's account, and a public comment by Jamie McCarthy. This isn't objective proof, though, because we all could be ganging-up on Michael Sims (pile-ons have happened, Michael Sims is trying to create one on me).

      I categorically deny the accusations of spamming Slashdot and similar. And the way to know the truth of that is simple logic. If he had anything, anything, serious on me, he'd be making maximum use of it. When you break it down, the only thing he has, is much calling me names, and that other people have called me names. In contrast, he still has the censorware.org registration

      If you want, we can take this to e-mail.

    5. Re:More links to primary source info on lawsuit by ethereal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Good points, and on the balance they are convincing. I just thought it was interesting because I'd read your account a year or two ago, and had only now stumbled onto the other side of the story. I was taken aback by how Michael was able to write a convincing opposing viewpoint - this was not something that I expected, based on my previous reading of your account.

      So: I'm not necessarily doubting you, or doubting Michael; I'm just amazed at the different views of the same events that people can perceive, and how convincing (at least when taken independently) they can both be. It makes it tough on bystanders like myself who just want to know who the good guy is, and who the bad guy is.

      Oh yeah, and not to forget what's really important in life: thanks for your hard work and perseverance on the censorware front. Hopefully this kind of public sniping doesn't slow you down too much.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  42. PetsWarehouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd just like to say I got bad service from them

  43. Apparently by His+name+cannot+be+s · · Score: 2

    Apparently PetzWhorehouse doesn't want any more customers.

    This kind of bad press only makes them look stupid and desperate. Kinda reminds me of Bernie Shifman

    Is it just me, or do these people figure the world owes them just because they are alive?

    *sigh*

    --
    "...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
  44. Relavent Comment by McD!ck · · Score: 1

    From GTA3
    "Is your work taking time away from more important things like watching wrestling? There's a solution! Sue someone! See the great thing about this country is that you can sue anyone, and probably win, or at least get a settlement!"

    GAWD things like this tick me off! I know we have a great legal system comparitivly, but I still hate that feeling I get from stories like these. I guess I am just going to have to form my own country full of /.'ers. . .

    McD

    --
    People who are against human cloning must be bitter they are not good enough to be cloned.
    1. Re:Relavent Comment by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

      Great legal system, compared to what? Have you actually bothered to compare to other legal system?

      I'm willing to bet money you haven't.

    2. Re:Relavent Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm willing to bet _you_ haven't either. You ugly twat.

    3. Re:Relavent Comment by bluGill · · Score: 2

      I have not done a full comparition. However just a quick overview will reveal that all legal systems in the world have problems. In the US anyone can sue for anything, and the little guy has a chance of winning. In other countries you need [to meet some requirements] before you can sue, which means there are less frivilous lawsuits. However there are also some cases in thos countries where a non-frivious lawsuit that would win in the US cannot meet the requirements and make it to court.

      Does one outweight the other? I'm not sure. I know the US system fairly well, so I'm not willing to change to something else unless until it proves to solve their problems. I'd rather patch the current system than replace it. Those who live in other countires tend to feel they same about their system.

      Can we come up with a perfect justice system? I don't think so.

    4. Re:Relavent Comment by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      How about Canada? The guy would get laughed out of court up here.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    5. Re:Relavent Comment by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

      That was an unexpectedly insightful response. Most Americans tend to have the opinion that "while I don't like the American system, at least I know it's the best in the world", and actually believe that blindly without caring to know anything about what the world looks like outside the American borders, not to mention off the North American continent. I thought I saw this in your text, which triggered my knee-jerk reaction.

      I personally believe that the U.S. sue-them culture is very destructive, as it tends to promote blame thinking. Hell, there's even a hefty monetary incentive for blaming other people for your own problems. Hence, protection against this consumes a disproportionate (again, compared to elsewhere) amount of resources; most American power tool manuals, for example, are three times the volume of elsewhere, simply because of all the should-be-obvious warnings ("Do not try to stop the chainsaw with your genitals. You may be injured."). Lawyers are everywhere; a full-time lawyer is an early employment in small firms. They are the true winners of this system.

      In the country where I live, there is no judicial distinction between "did indeed understand" and "should have understood". For example, suing because you tried to stop the chainsaw with your hand and subsequently got hurt is going to get you slightly shorter than nowhere. I am not saying this is the all-out solution, but it helps to stifle, forgive my wording, pure idiocy, which I sometimes see elsewhere.

      So accept my apologies for an aggressive reaction. Your follow-up argument was more interesting.

    6. Re:Relavent Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The members of the Dogberts New Ruling Class newsletter know about our country which consists of bubbles of space surrounding it's members. It is our right and duty to demand the passport of anyone entering out country and occasionally demand they have a painfull series of vacination shots. it realy depends on how much they bug us

    7. Re:Relavent Comment by McD!ck · · Score: 1

      Besides your obvious flame-bait, I will take the time to show you the other legal systems I have lived under or have some rudamentry knowledge of:

      Mexican legal system:
      This is a contradiction, the system, though improving, is geared toward helping those with money, criminal law or otherwise. Any argument/arrest can be overturned with money. At least in the US, crime convictions are high even in the upper class. Since I live very close to mexico I have witnessed several miscomings. The major one that sticks out in my mind is a friend who died in a TJ jail after a accident. A car pulled out infront of his motorcycle injuring him severly, he was placed in jail cause he could did not have mexican auto insurance,though it was the other driver's fault. He died waiting for bail money from his family.

      British legal system:
      Guilty until proven innocent. Nuff said.

      Chineese legal system:
      GUILTY. You would be lucky if you even went to trial for some crimes.

      Any islamic or fundamentalist country:
      Need I go on?

      I am not saying we have the best legal system, just that in our legal system, though better than most, we do have a few drawbacks. This petswarehouse example is one of them. But the real purpose of the legal system, to punish criminals and protect property, is protected in the USA quite well.

      I think pets warehouse should reconcider what they have done and what they are doing to their reputation. If I have a problem with your flame, I am not going to sue you, I am going to defend my comments.

      McD

      --
      People who are against human cloning must be bitter they are not good enough to be cloned.
    8. Re:Relavent Comment by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      He should have got laughed out of court here.. I have no idea why the defendants didn't file for a rule 11 ruling asking for the case to be thrown out because its frivilous.

  45. Quoting Novak Himself by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

    "It's not about the First Amendment or squashing free speech. One of the suit's purposes is to stop people from spreading vicious lies and is directed at making them accountable for saying things that are not true." I think the above statement sums things up nicely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is a clause excluding lies/false statements from First Amendment protection is there?

    1. Re:Quoting Novak Himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expression is protected -- but slander and libel aren't, much the same way the First Amendment won't protect you if you walk up to somebody and say, "Give me your wallet or I'll kill you."

    2. Re:Quoting Novak Himself by kerith · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are wrong, to a degree; libel and slander are two cases that most certainly are *not* protected by the First Amendment. Of course, in this case, it's just people relating their experiences in dealing with this guy's company; I don't think that counts as either, and what these people have said about the company should be legally protected. IANAL, of course.

    3. Re:Quoting Novak Himself by Robert+Crawford · · Score: 3, Informative
      Check out www.chillingeffects.org; they have some great FAQs on the subject. In a nutshell, companies have to prove you both intentionally lied and did so with malice.

      Unfortunately, The Plaintiff only has to file his suit to drain your pockets.

  46. Post in their forums by cemcnulty · · Score: 3, Informative

    Go here:
    http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ul timateb b.cgi

    and let their forum posters know about their practices, or at least tell them about the Salon article so that they can read it themselves. Post in a forum for whatever pet you have.

    -Chuck

    1. Re:Post in their forums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UBB has some security issues:

      http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/vulns-item. pl ?section=info&id=3993

    2. Re:Post in their forums by moof1138 · · Score: 1

      I have been on the APD list for a while, so I cannot make an account (I have gone out of my way to avoid posting anything regarding Novak to avoid the barratry).

      The admins of those boards ban anyone on the APD lists, delete critical posts, and ban anyone who posts anything critical. It would be fun to see if the boards got slammed with a lot of new posts, but keep in mind that they would disappear fast.

      --

      Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
    3. Re:Post in their forums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, of course, that their webservers are dead now

      Guess that's one way to keep people from complaining on your forums.

    4. Re:Post in their forums by alexo · · Score: 1

      "Sorry, this bulletin board is temporarily unavailable, while we perform some routine maintenance. Please try back again later."

    5. Re:Post in their forums by daoine · · Score: 2
      Not anymore...

      "Sorry, this bulletin board is temporarily unavailable, while we perform some routine maintenance. Please try back again later."

      That didn't take very long...

    6. Re:Post in their forums by durocshark · · Score: 1

      Don't bother.

      Others who have posted there have had their posts deleted by the forum maintainer, (read: bob novak) in a desperate attempt to keep their customers from hearing about the way Mr. Novak has handled this.

      --
      Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
  47. Pets Warehouse has also threatened to sue the BBB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    A few weeks back I sent Pets Warehouse a letter condemning their decision to file a $15 mil. suit on a group of vocal dissatisfied customers. In the letter, I brought up Pets Warehouse's unsatisfactory rating by the Better Business Bureau.

    In their response to me, the email began with the line:

    "We're suing the BBB too!"

  48. petswarehousesucks.com can be yours.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    Is not taken according to your friendly WHOIS.

  49. I'd say something... by jhines0042 · · Score: 2

    ... but I don't want to be sued.... after all, I could lose all of my Karma.

    --
    42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
  50. Better plan... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 2


    He should have countersued.

    Made him come to his state and duke it out. Make him spend money on gas and then negotiated it back.

    This Novak cat is going to die a lone, miserable exsistence if he doesn't straighten up. Truly a pehtetic thing to do to another human being.

    1. Re:Better plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not too late, I would guess...

    2. Re:Better plan... by Izmunuti · · Score: 1

      "He should have countersued."

      ...and thus accumulate legal bills at twice the rate they would have with only one lawsuit going on.

      That's the whole point. These people would have, without a doubt, won and would have probably won nice, big awards in their countersuits IF they were able to afford to fight their way to the end of the gauntlet. They couldn't afford it so they settled.

      Would you gamble your life-savings fighting a stupid lawsuit based on a message board argument about underwater plants?

      It's disgusting that this is how our legal system works but basically, you get your money's worth. Those with the bucks can use the courts to abuse those without. I understand that other countries have a more enlightened approach to these kinds of civil cases: loser pays both side's legal bills.

  51. Damage limitation my ass by joebp · · Score: 3, Insightful
    [...] the lawsuit may be frivolous, aimed at stifling criticism, but for Robert Novak, the founder and owner of PetsWarehouse.com, the reputation of a company is at stake.
    My estimation is the damage done to the company by the critical comments could be put at 10, whereas the damage done by bringing a lawsuit against your customers would probably be closer to 200.

    Their intelligence rivals my elbow.

  52. Too much but, by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    Fits very well into the picture how some of us foreigners have of the whole suing deal in the US. Might be a amplified view caused by too many cheap tv series. :)
    Anyway, I haven't read the thead/actual emails but it seems stuped that they did block his email and did not allow him to defend himself. After all that's also what free speach is about.
    Still a lawsuit seems over the edge.

    1. Re:Too much but, by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      If you read the entire article, you'll notice that his E-mails were blocked because they contained attachments. Besides, the mailing list is under the listowner's administration--and the listowner does have the right to include or exclude members at his/her discretion.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  53. The REAL Issue here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    is that people are not making a distinction between SAYING SOMETHING and POSTING SOMETHING.

    A message board is NOT a conversation. It's a public forum. Saying a company is dishonest on a message board is equivalent to having it printed in the newspaper or broadcast on radio/tv.

    Like it or not, libel laws usually make this distinction, so the law against libel does apply here.

    Saying you think a company is dishonest in a conversation usually is not actionable. But publishing something like that in a newpaper or on the internet is.

    I have no opinion on this particular case, but I do think that people fail to make the distinction between a converstaion and a message board.

    1. Re:The REAL Issue here.. by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful
      True, but there's also a difference between posting a comment on a forum, and writing an article in a newspaper. The courts have upheld this. Forum postings should be considered to be opinions. Especially when the majority of the complaints are expressed as opinions.


      There's also the fact that he might be telling the truth about bad service.

    2. Re:The REAL Issue here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an absolute defense against charges of both libel and slander, that the statments are true.

      It's also a defense that the statements are of opinions, not facts. And one court has held that online forums are normally statements of opinions.

      In short, for a statment to be defamitory, it has to be a statement of fact, it has to be false, and it has to damage the plantiffs reputation.

    3. Re:The REAL Issue here.. by symbolic · · Score: 2

      Saying you think a company is dishonest in a conversation usually is not actionable. But publishing something like that in a newpaper or on the internet is.

      I would assume, though, that it's only actionable if the what has been said was done so with maliscios intent, and was not true. I believe the guy who started the whole thing explained WHY he thought he had been deceived, and his explanation sounds reasonable.

  54. Post in their forums by cemcnulty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let their customers know about this practice, or at least tell them about the Salon article go to:
    http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ulti mateb b.cgi
    create an account and post in the forum of whatever pet you have. They have a few thousand members of their forums, and it looks pretty active. Spread the truth.

    -Chuck

  55. /. them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please make sure you visit www.petswarehouse.com and while your there, why not send them a friendly email, just to show them all how much we care. :)

    1. Re:/. them by PackMan97 · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to check out their site and their website is already /.'ed.

      Oh well

  56. Don't blame the list owner... by 87C751 · · Score: 1
    for the submitter's clue deficit. From the FA:
    Mark Rosenstein, the owner and founder of Active Windows Productions, the company that hosts the list and its archives, says that Novak's responses bounced only because they contained files with attachments, not because of who they were from or what they said.
    (emphasis mine)

    I'm on a number of mailing lists that prohibit attachments. And every once in a while, I see a whine from a partially clued subscriber that he can't submit because he wants to use Outlook, which attaches some cruft and causes the list manager software to drop the item. Such whinage is usually met with the exhortation to use a Real MUA.

    --
    Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
  57. What damanges?? by MongooseCN · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...alleging libel and defamation and seeking $1 million in damages. He also claimed that he had suffered "$5 million, plus interest" in damages to his "good name and reputation and to his business interests."

    What the heck does that mean? So I guess everyone on the mailing list was about to buy $6 million worth of plants from this store until someone else on the mailing list complained about the store?

  58. Sounds vaguely familiar... by jhaberman · · Score: 2

    Awhile back, Slasdot posted a story about "Bernard Shifman (is a moron spammer)" who spammed his resume to 1000's of people then got irate as hell when anti spam activits called him on it. Well... Bernie threatened to sue everyone and their grandmother over this.

    This sounds exactly like what Mr. Novak did, except this bigger moron actually went through with the threats. Unbelieveable. I seriously wonder if he thinks after word of his lawsuit gets out (and it obviously has) that he is going to have ANY customers? Espically in a rather small market of aquatic plants.

    Suing your customers whom you've screwed over with shoddy service sure isn't the way I'd go about building a successful business. But then again, the RIAA/MPAA are still in buisness... and they're the kings of alienating customers...


    Go figure


    Jason

    --
    He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
    1. Re:Sounds vaguely familiar... by Vulture_ · · Score: 1
      Suing your customers whom you've screwed over with shoddy service sure isn't the way I'd go about building a successful business. But then again, the RIAA/MPAA are still in buisness... and they're the kings of alienating customers...
      The difference is that the {RI,MP}AA alienate 10% of their customers. Mr. Novak alienates 100% of his customers.

      Besides, suing people is a lot more profitable than selling aquatic plants. I agree with the others here who've said that he's 'lawsuit trolling' -- that is, he delivers extremely crappy service, waits for someone to complain, and then sues everything that moves until it stops moving. Not that I agree with his actions, but I do understand why he's doing this.

      --

      The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

  59. LOOK at his POSTING HISTORY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say this is a good arab, he is a tr011 :-D

    itfadal ya habibi, elbayt baytak.

  60. I wanna flame the guy, but... by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 2
    I really want to vent at this frivilous lawsuit, but I've got a nagging feeling that he'd come after me next...

    (*SIGH*) If only that were a joke.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  61. tragic... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is yet another nail in the coffin of free speech. I guess I'm gonna have to write a parser that I feed all my comments through...

    I can see it now...

    Jutkers News Service:
    In a ruling today, the federal supreme court ruled that opinions are now all illegal. The justices were split, with half saying "I'm not prepared to issue a statement at this time that might be construded as something libel" the other justices had this to say reading from a prepared statement. "Citizens who engage in 'opinions' now must be ready to be held accountable for those 'opinions' in a court of law. The willy-nilly saying what you think will only bring you trouble. They should keep their mouths shut and enjoy the free open society they are lucky to have"

    A press conference that was held later, the justices were asked what they thought this meant for free speech. Their response, reading from a prepared statement "Free speech isn't so free anymore... people just opening their mouths is bad business. If any person can just go out and do 'free speech' stuff including opinions and observations, what kind of world would we live in. Companies spend millions on marketing campaigns just so some person can go on a website and say 'I had bad service' thus ruining millions of dollars of advertising. Suddenly that free speech isn't so cheap anymore. What happens when that company goes out of business and all those people lose there jobs! Don't you see, by that person opening their mouth once it ruined a whole company"

    The reporter countered asking "What if the company really had bad service?" Justice millhouse responded slowly, reading through a couple of pages. "It has been our observation that businesses never treat a customer poorly, because it would be bad business. If someone has bad service, they've brought it upon themselves, and they are to blame."

    Pretty much the rest of the press conference went on with the same thing. I'd like to comment more on this but I feel my opinions would land me in a lawsuit, or worse jail.

    God Bless America, the home of the free and brave...

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:tragic... by mamba-mamba · · Score: 1

      Your criticism of the Supreme Court is unfair. They take free speech very seriously. Flag burning, vulgarly disparaging the draft, etc., are all protected.

      In this case, no judge has heard a single argument from the defendants, as far as I can tell. The problem here is that the defendants don't have the resources to mount a defense, so they are forced to settle. But they probably can counter-sue.

      And as far as I know, the truth is always a sufficient defense against libel and slander.

      MM
      --

      --
      By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
  62. Nature's defense by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There's a defense strategy against this in nature, and it doesn't demand that the victim be tougher in any way than the attacker.

    It's called 'mobbing'.

    Crows hate owls and hawks and cannot possibly ever hope to win a fight with one, no matter how many crows there are. So, rather than hiding, if crows see a hawk, they will fly around it at a safe distance and SCREAM at it. Caw! Caw! More crows will come and join. If the hawk goes for any one crow, goodbye crow, and the rest will scream even worse. Result: good luck finding prey with a lot of crows tirelessly screaming around you, hawk!

    Thus, the hawk is 'mobbed' by crows, and that is the defense I mean.

    I read this story in Salon, from a link on CNet. The first thing I thought of was 'slashdot oughta cover this!', and then when I came to Slashdot, it was the top story. Good job, all the people who no doubt all submitted it at once... because nothing quite rivals Slashdot as a 'mobbing site'. Many, many people read Slashdot- many people who are NOT FOND OF BARRATRY.

    The fact is, as things stand right now, legal attacks of this nature ARE beyond what most people can withstand, whether they are justified or not: it's unsurprising that people are forced to settle because they cannot destroy their lives just to be an example.

    That's why 'mobbing', like crows mobbing hawks, is the best answer: if you have no defense and can't possibly win a fight, it CAN still be possible to make things so unpleasant for an attacker that it gives up. I would love to see this 'petswarehouse' guy bankrupt: judging from the Salon story, I think he is a danger to society, all the more because his behavior may be imitated by others realizing, "Hey, you don't HAVE to be a multinational corporation to wreck ordinary people's lives with baseless lawsuits!".

    I am no more capable of this than the original victims were: but I hope I have expressed the 'mobbing' defense adequately that it may turn out useful. People do this already- the point is, rather than being whiny bitches who can't win, they are sounding the alarm in a disorganized but determined way, about a deadly threat.

    1. Re:Nature's defense by Lectrik · · Score: 1

      Quoth the post:
      Crows hate owls and hawks and cannot possibly ever hope to win a fight with one, no matter how many crows there are. So, rather than hiding, if crows see a hawk, they will fly around it at a safe distance and SCREAM at it. Caw! Caw! More crows will come and join. If the hawk goes for any one crow, goodbye crow, and the rest will scream even worse. Result: good luck finding prey with a lot of crows tirelessly screaming around you, hawk!

      AHA! and since a group of crow is called a murder (IIRC) you are advocating a mob screaming bloody murder... wait... nevermind...

      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    2. Re:Nature's defense by Chops · · Score: 2

      On a related note, if you happen to come across an 800 number for this guy (800-333-xxxx) while Googling, please note that it's been changed since then -- it now points (apparently) to some innocent woman's voice mail, and calling it as a way of harassing Novak isn't productive. My bad.

      Digging through Google's cache of petswarehouse.com seems to indicate that the only number this guy has now is a toll number. Ain't that a shame.

    3. Re:Nature's defense by gorilla · · Score: 5, Funny

      They have on their page "1-800-991-3299". Now calling them up on that number would be wrong, and calling them from a US pay phone, which costs them an extra 35 cents every call, would be even wronger.

    4. Re:Nature's defense by Saeger · · Score: 1
      * Call #1
      THEM: "Hello, PetSWEARhouse..."
      ME: *3 seconds of silence* CLICK.

      * Call #2
      THEM: "Helloo, PetSWEARhouse..."
      ME: *3 seconds of silence* CLICK.

      * Call #3
      THEM: *annoyed* "Helloooo, PetSWEARhouse..."
      ME: *Novak is a suehappy asshole.* CLICK.

      There... I feel better now that I've cost them a few pennies.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    5. Re:Nature's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod the parent to this UP! Everybody should call that number!

    6. Re:Nature's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Mobbing' is a technique that has been successfully used in political campaigns in the past.

      In fact, in the last century there are cases where entire countries were captured by 'mobbing.' The mobs often waved red flags or wore brown shirts in some of those success stories.

    7. Re:Nature's defense by Chops · · Score: 1

      /me rubs my hands together in glee. Good spot.

    8. Re:Nature's defense by Sir+Homer · · Score: 0

      I called it, but it gave me a busy signal. Gotta love /.'ers. MOD this up!

    9. Re:Nature's defense by Grue · · Score: 1

      Heh, I find the name "mobbing" even more appropiate considering the tactics the company is using.

      It just screams mafia type intimidation and extortion Seriously, of course it worked intimidating all those people, it's been working for the mob for decades.

      Josh

    10. Re:Nature's defense by tpv · · Score: 1
      They also have online forums.
      But unfortunately:

      FYI Sorry, the Pets Warehouse bulletin board is temporarily unavailable, while we perform some routine maintenance. Please try back again later.

      Now I wonder why that is?

      --
      Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
    11. Re:Nature's defense by infochuck · · Score: 1

      I and, for one, intend to not let this die a quick and quiet death. In addition to writing Pets Warehouse directly, I have taken the advice of someone who replied to an earlier post I made, and I've written to the local paper and all the local TV stations to inform them of this travesty of justice, in the hopes that they will cover it and invite more crows to point and scream. I hope others do the same.

    12. Re:Nature's defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because some script kiddie set his email reply address in their email forms to "whatever@[127.0.0.1]" and they replied to it. Or could it be because they are running Win2000 and IIS5 according to Netcraft.com? Hey--Netcraft has a link--sue them too.

  63. Address not blocked by Lathi- · · Score: 1

    If you had read the article you would have seen that they claim to not have blocked his address. His messages were blocked because he was mailing attachements to the mailing list.

  64. Re:Just in case by volsung · · Score: 0, Troll
    (to add to the trolling)
    GNOME was designed by pansy GNU/Linux zealots who don't know jack about software engineering.

    (I like this randomness of this thread.)

  65. Oh well by Pussy+Is+Money · · Score: 1
    A few years ago, Slashdot would have covered this story when it was nothing more than a thread on a mailing list.

    Now, we get links to the arts farty fuckers at Salon.

    Oh dear Slashdot of yore, where did you go?!?

    --
    Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
    1. Re:Oh well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow careful, you dont want slashdot to take you to court for 15 mil!

  66. Regardless of which side is right... by verbatim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Dan Resler agreed to pay $4,150. [...] 'We believed strongly that we could win,' says Resler, 'but I was not prepared to spend $50,000 to do it. So, I settled.'".

    That is horrible. It's like saying "I didn't do anything wrong but if I try to defend myself I'll ruin my life". It's redicilous to think that you only have a right to a fair trial if you have the money to do so. So I guess it's liberty and justice for those who can afford it. Hah.

    --
    Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
    1. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      "Dan Resler agreed to pay $4,150. [...] 'We believed strongly that we could win,' says Resler, 'but I was not prepared to spend $50,000 to do it. So, I settled.'".

      That is horrible. It's like saying "I didn't do anything wrong but if I try to defend myself I'll ruin my life". It's redicilous to think that you only have a right to a fair trial if you have the money to do so. So I guess it's liberty and justice for those who can afford it. Hah


      This begs the question, where the hell was the ACLU, EFF, or other "free speech" advocate organizations in all of this? If ever there was a lawsuit, or set of lawsuits, screaming for support of this kind, this one is it. I guess, not only is justice limited to the rich, but "free speech" supporters only help people out when it would get them in the healines. Sad really.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    2. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by mamba-mamba · · Score: 1

      He can probably counter-sue.

      --
      By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
    3. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by cymen · · Score: 2

      I think you have to go talk to these organizations. How are they supposed to get word of every lawsuit? Maybe the defendent did that but if he was so quick to settle I find it doubtful.

    4. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      By settling he has likely ruined his life. Do you have any idea just how bad your credit rating gets if you settle or lose a lawsuit?

      Heck if I sue you for $1 and you settle with me for $0.01 in damages it will STILL be a big impact on your life. Strange but true.

      Bad credit = No loans, no non-pre-paid cell phone, possibly no place to live, job, or insurance.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    5. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by verbatim · · Score: 1

      That is a very good point.

      I'd imagine that that is the reason why more sensible people settle out of court - rather than risk messing up their credit records. I have no idea what I would do if I were sued by someone with a lot more money than me. I'm not poor, but I'm not rich either. My meager savings are no use against the power of the dark side... er... people with more money.

      I think the petswarehouse company does have a case against some of the users who were libelous, but certainly not against everyone. A legitamite complaint is a legitamite complaint and is not libel (afaik, libel is the written form of slander and it has to be untrue to qualify). He should not be allowed to sue everyone in sight simply because he has the ability to do so. He is doing more direct financial harm to these people then their comments could have indirectly caused (if we are to believe that they caused any damage at all).

      --
      Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
    6. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For GOD'S SAKE PEOPLE!

      ITS SPELLED
      Ridiculous!

      From the word ridicule!

      NOT "REDICILOUS" or "redculous" or any of the thousand other ways this gets mispelled by Slashdotters everyday.

      Cripes people, do you actually wonder WHY people don't take you seriously?

    7. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by Robert+Crawford · · Score: 1

      It was between six and eight months between filing and settling, nothing "quick" about it. I know people did try to contact the EFF, ACLU and maybe others, but none had any interest in it.

    8. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This begs the question, where the hell was the ACLU, EFF, or other "free speech" advocate organizations in all of this?

      Hey, they're organisations, but organisations that are made up out of the people who took the wrong Major (a liberal arts course, often even a hyphenated-american studies course) and consequently need to see the money before they can get involved in an issue. That, or it has to come from a religious conviction (i.e. socialism) that they believe in.

      So the ACLU and EFF folks will get involved, but only in the proper time and context.

    9. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by cymen · · Score: 2

      Well that is a shame then. Thanks for correcting me. I'm trying to remember if I ever ordered from PetsWarehouse.com - I think I did a while back. I sent the obligatory "I'm an ex-customer" email a couple hours ago just in case.

    10. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by durocshark · · Score: 1

      Amen

      --
      Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
    11. Re:Regardless of which side is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THANK YOU. this drives me *crazy*
      how can someone not know how to spell such a simple word? what a bunch of idiots.

  67. Defense Proposal by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    Individually it's easy for a large corporate budget to force a consumer to settle, but instead if we ALL link banner ads to this issue and ALL spread the word online about what's going on, we'll ALL get named in the suit and eventually either the bullshit meter at the Court will hit the red or this idiot will run out of money.
    Will probably be much more effective than contributing to a legal defense fund in the long run.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  68. Post something on their messages board. by MongooseCN · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like PetsWarehouse.com has a message board. Maybe all us slashdoters should go over there and post our opinions on the topic.

    1. Re:Post something on their messages board. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, we can not process your request. The board administrator has enabled flood protection for this function. You must wait at least 60 seconds before trying this request again.

    2. Re:Post something on their messages board. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Looks like PetsWarehouse.com [petswarehouse.com] has a message board [petswarehouse.com].

      You mean HAD a message board. I'm reading the messages in the special legal area and poof, it (the message board) is gone.

      I said to myself, "self, someone must of posted the message board link on Slashdot.". Check Slashdot and yep, it's there. It's even been modded to 4 (most likely 5 now).

    3. Re:Post something on their messages board. by martissimo · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually a better place to post would be the board i found here it seems that some of the people involved in the case post there, and so does Mr Novak himself (under the name Jack).

      You will still be communicating with the people involved in the case, just not on a censored board ran by Mr Novak.

    4. Re:Post something on their messages board. by HaiLHaiL · · Score: 1

      looks like it's a moderated message board though... something makes me think petswearhouse won't be open to what /.'ers have to post....

      --


      reech bee-yond ur clip-0n
    5. Re:Post something on their messages board. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet call them and ask if they are involved in a lawsuit you heard about. It is fairly entertaining 1 800 991 3299. (I wonder if I'm violating their trademark by posting their number?)

    6. Re:Post something on their messages board. by marick · · Score: 1

      actually, they just shut it down for "routine maintainance".

    7. Re:Post something on their messages board. by Sverdlov · · Score: 1


      FYI
      Sorry, this bulletin board is temporarily unavailable, while we perform some routine maintenance. Please try back again later.


      It looks like the /. mobbing has begun...

  69. That's all very well, but by fm6 · · Score: 1
    PetsWarehouse are a bunch of child molesting, cocaine distributing, AIDS-infected Satanists ...
    Nobody cares about any of that shit. Are their products any good? How's their fulfillment? Customer service? Prices?

    I'm here to tell you that in all that in each of these categories PetsWarehouse is THE BEST OF THE BEST !!! I base this assertion, not on any first-hand knowledge (never dealt with them, never even heard of them before today). I just don't want to get sued.

  70. I'm Suing You by Threed · · Score: 2, Funny

    >dan
    >--
    >
    >-- Don't trust anyone with a user number lower than 10,000.

    You have defamed me for the last time, Dan! I will not stand for this sort of character assasination. I'll see you in court!

  71. Real Easy Strategy for These Folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a group of individuals is hit with a frivolous lawsuit -- especially in a case such as this where legals costs will mount -- fight back! Instead of rolling over and settling a $15 million dollar lawsuit, file a counter-suit alleging harrassment, bad business practices, etc. for $20 million dollars.

    Basically a lawsuit in today's America can be used as a tool to suck the time and money out of someone. Well, if doing this is someone's hobby, why not give them more of it!!!

    What if every defendant separately filed a slightly different lawsuit against Novak in their own federal jurisdiction for $20 million dollars. Imagine the time and money it would cost him to respond to 20 or more of these. And, guess what? If he didn't show or ignored him, then you win by default. He would pull his lawsuit just to get all the other people off his back!

  72. Suing the Better Business Bureau... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...probably won't help your credibility as either a viable business, or, say, a witness.

    Just as a general rule.

  73. I just want to go on record... by feloneous+cat · · Score: 1
    As saying I REALLY LOVE Microsoft. No, really, I do, because, after all them being so huge and all, they could just wipe me out in a millisecond. So let me just say that Free Speech is for cowards (I would use another word, but I'm afraid of being sued by the pussies).

    And in conclusion, I love, I mean I want to have really nasty monkey love, with ALL the corporations that I have shelled out good, hard money to for products that have either harmed me in some manner, destroyed the remaining ecosystem, or have made sure that the planet will be suitable for T-2.

    Ahhhh, Liquid Met-al....

    --
    IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
  74. Can Freedom Strangle Herself? by elocutio · · Score: 1

    As several have mentioned, there are some precedent laws dealing with libel over the internet. Pretty disgruntling. I wonder why this escaped the mainstream radar? Surely the ACLU or Oprah would have something to say about it.

    DISCLAIMER: I made no intentionally misleading or disparaging comments in this internet post about Oprah Winfrey, the ACLU, or the Texas Cattlemen's Association.

    And neither did Slashdot.

  75. Emotional distress? by qseep · · Score: 1

    One of the more bizarre things is that Novak is defending a corporation, yet claims $15M for "emotional distress"! How can a corporation have emotional distress?

  76. Petswarehouse is /.ed by genka · · Score: 1

    Petswarehouse is /.ed- Get ready for for a suit, Taco!

  77. But what do you do when he adds you to the suit? by donutz · · Score: 2

    I mean, sure, the added karma's nice, but this guy obviously has no hesitations about suing people...

  78. Sue petswarehouse.com by ttyp0 · · Score: 1

    After reading the defendants comments, I don't understand why they didn't sue petswarehouse.com for poor service, slow shipping and obvious misrepresentation of price. $15 million seems excessive for comments rightfully made by disgruntled customers. I mean, their company probably doesn't even make that much in a year.

  79. Why they settled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THey settled because they could not afford to fight it in court, even with the defense fund. Also, the NY Anti-SLAPP is apparently not applicable. Novak was careful to not list people in states where he could get SLAPPed, at least not any who could afford it. Read some of the links, the guy is a real charmer.

  80. a reason not to buy from PetsWarehouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here's a fun fact: if you buy from PetsWarehouse, you are in fact paying for them to sue people who don't like them.

    Yep, some percentage of their income goes to legal fees. When you buy something, you pay some percentage of their income- and so you, the customer, are funding their war on opinion.

    I'd sign, but I don't have the cash.

  81. IF MS could get away with this... by shawnmelliott · · Score: 1

    ... then half of Slashdots post would read like this

    [edited] sucks. They're [edited] OS crashes. I constantly get BSOD and it's always making me lose my work. I hate [edited] and I hate [edited][edited][edited][edited][edited][edited][e dited][edited][edited][edited][edited][edited][edi ted] and then [edited][edited][edited] also [edited][edited][edited]

    We can all see how ridiculous this is. Now IANAL but Free Speech is a right as long as libel and slander are taken into consideration. I believe that the point of this lawsuit would be to prove that it isn't libel. To prove that would be to show evidence of the issues that they had. Late shipments, so on and so forth.

    I can't go and say that [edited] stole money from my bank account. That would be libel. BUT I can say that I have had 7 hours / week of downtime due to crashes and so on... as long as it's true, it's not libel.

    1. Re:IF MS could get away with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft really doesn't care about slashdot.

      The companies with IT employees who sit on slashdot for hours per day should care more about slashdot.

  82. I think I saw this in a movie once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't beating up people for talking shit on the internet the premise behind "Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back"? Maybe PetsWarehouse should sue Kevin Smith and everyone involved in that film for making fun of such a serious matter.

  83. Re:Just in case by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

    > Did you know we only use 10% of our total brain's capacity?

    The rest is devoted to Xenu! Fear!

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  84. Consumer Advocacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Tom Martino is a well known concumer advocate in the Colorado area, but he works nationwide. He does shows on TV and radio helping people on all topics include real estate, car repair, etc. He talks to both consumers and businesses to get to the bottom of any situation. If there's a business that's screwing and cheating people, Tom has no problem picking a fight with them on the air. He is very knowledgable and resourceful and can get opinions from experts in many fields. I would give him a call.

    www.TroubleShooter.com

    Hope this helps

  85. Designed? by ringbarer · · Score: 0

    You honestly think that filthy spick DeWopza has ever SEEN a UML diagram? I don't think they have those in his filthy barrio.

    KDE, on the other hand, is a fine example of German Engineering. Vorsprung Deutsch Technik.

    Gnome was developed with the sole intention of not being KDE. This is why it has failed. KDE chose to make a good product from the start. This is why they have succeeded.

    Open Source is forever cursed with 'Political Programmers', who develop according to ideology rather than established coding practises.

    Why choose Linux? BECAUSE IT'S NOT MICROSOFT!

    Linux zealots haven't got round to crashing planes into buildings yet, but give them time. There are already patches for xpilot which allow you to crash into the Microsoft Campus. They are in training.

    --
    "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
    1. Re:Designed? by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You know, I have never had any problems crashing in any flight simulator that I've ever used. So this begs an interesting question...

      Does the Microsoft flight simulator have a terrain data package for Redmond?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Designed? by volsung · · Score: 1

      This is why we need government regulation of flight simulation software. Otherwise we're training terrorists to crash into buildings!

  86. He didn't call a lawyer by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    Filing suits is apparently his hobby. And if pets warehouse actually is incorporated, it is illegal for him as a non-lawyer to represent them in filing these suits. But hey, what are you gonna do, sue him?

    1. Re:He didn't call a lawyer by KernelHappy · · Score: 1

      An article in the Long Island Business News says:

      The businessman in question is Robert Novak, who does business as PetsWarehouse.com (www.petswarehouse.com). The online pet shop shares space at his son's store, Pets Warehouse, in Copiague, he said.

      IANL and its not that this is conclusive by any means but maybe he is using a DBA not a corporation. In which case his personal assets would be fair game in a court of law.

      I'm thinking it would be pleasantly ironic if the defendants filed countersuits in their home towns (notice the plural) and strong armed him into settling since travelling to Virginia, Masachusetts, North Carolina, Texas and California would most likely be cost prohibitive.

      --
      -- Button up, your ignorance is showing
    2. Re:He didn't call a lawyer by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Turn him into the local Bar.

      Then he will have to deal with a large collection of well funded local lawyers who may find it in their own best intrest to make him go away permanently.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  87. give them a call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give them a call and tell them what you think.

    It's toll free:

    1 800 991 3299

    1. Re:give them a call by mokiejovis · · Score: 1

      I did. They were a little confused.

    2. Re:give them a call by Skapare · · Score: 2

      Call them back and explain it to them. Be sure to call again so you eventually get every representative who answers the phone so they all know. You might also want to ask for the supervisor and the manager. They need to know, too. I bet they are all named Bob.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  88. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He does *not* say filing suits is his hobby. He says case law is is hobby (I guess he likes to practice in the real world). He may be an asshole, but please do not misquote him.

    1. Re:Correction by cameroncase · · Score: 1

      as an AC i should just ignore you, but the actual quote is, Novak doesn't have a law degree, but he is an old hand at legal wranglings. Talk to him and he cites case law, chapter and verse. "It's my hobby," he said. Novak was able to consolidate the case in federal court. "It's only five miles for me," he said. "All these people have to come here at their own expense." He doesn't say "Case law is my hobby." He says "It's my hobby" in a quote that is surrounded by 1) "old hand at legal wrangling" and 2) "...these people have to come here at their own expense." TO ME it comes off as litigation is his hobby, not a general interest in case law. BTW, check his past history and see if he has ever sued before. Then tell me what his hobby is.

      --
      .sig on vacation
    2. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as an asshole I should just ignore you... OK, that's what I'm going to do

    3. Re:Correction by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      Talk to him and he cites case law, chapter and verse. "It's my hobby," he said.

      It's kindof hard to interpret that as anything other than "case law is my hobby." None of the other statements necessarily refer to his hobby statement.

  89. Scientology by shlong · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This situation has all the fingerprints of Scientology.
    • Dishonest sales and customer service
    • Willingness and desire sue everyone who is against them, and everyone who is associated with those who are against them.
    --
    Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
  90. Where should the global community stand? by ringbarer · · Score: 0

    The hardest question in relation to the Middle East conflict is how the global community should perceive the world-changing events in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

    A brief history of the past decade

    In 1993, Israel and Palestine signed the 'Oslo Accords', both sides admitting they were wrong, and vowing to make amends. This was a historic occasion for World Peace, made most significant by the 'Doomsday Clock' being moved back to 15 minutes to midnight. (I'm afraid I do not have the link here, so use Google)

    What followed surprised and shocked every decent living person in the important countries. Whereas most right-thinking folk would regard a cessation of hostilities to be a sign of hope, the Palestinian terrorists began their perpetual waves of suicide bombings.

    This can be traced back to one root cause. Islam. The Koran teaches muslims that when an enemy yields, they should be struck down for good. Israel yielded. Israel admitted they made mistakes. Israel offered the olive branch...

    Only to have their hand cut off in the name of 'allah'. Repeatedly, Israel tried diplomacy, attempted to rescue some kind of peace out of the accords, now strewn in tatters across the broken bodies of Jewish civilians. Their reward? More violence. More terrorism.

    It is the nature of muslims to destroy. Their beliefs are systematically geared towards the eradication of all non-muslim life on the planet. Presuming their religion to be peaceful and productive, like Sikhism, Hinduism and even Judaism, the western authorities let this cancer spread.

    Israel faced a perpetual struggle, both within and outside its borders. For each attempt at rightful defence was rebuked by condemnation from the World Council. In the end, something had to be done. And Israel began fighting back.

    What followed was a tit-for-tat exchange of hostilities. Israel advanced. The Palestinians capitulated. Peace was discussed. Israel withdrew. And then the Palestinians attacked again. A perpetual cycle of hatred.

    The Israelite Jew is an embittered, harrowed person. Even though they may not agree with the actions of their government, they are perpetual targets of Islamo-racist terrorism. But at least they still have the right to disagree.

    Islam does not permit disagreement with the holy jihad which their deluded sub-human footsoldiers are playing out every time they throw a grenade into a Jewish schoolyard.

    So, where should the global community stand? Clearly, Islamic terrorism is a world-wide crisis. Be it in New York, France, or the streets of Britain during last year's rioting. Where should we stand? Ask yourself this:

    How many countries lost citizens in the name of Islam on September 11th, 2001?

    --
    "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
    1. Re:Where should the global community stand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hades does this have to do with Pets warehouse... get the camel johnson out of your toosh

  91. VERY informative, thank you! by BLKMGK · · Score: 2

    Slashdot wants to run banners? Ads? How about one for this group's legal fund? I've not gotten through enough of the articles to know but is the EFF helping these people out? Is anyone countersuing this guy? I'm not clear on the spelling but barratry? Frivolious (sp?) lawsuits clog the system and cost the community. If nothing he's likely guilty of that.

    I'm not into aquatic plants but I AM into various lists where companies are openly slammed for crappy service. I wouldn't think twice about sharing a bad experience and most of my peers in those circles don't either. That's one of the good things about the 'net. Sure, one complaint might be an anomoly or sour grapes but when others chime in? It's no hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

    If this community is as small as it sounds then this guy's name has GOT to be mud all around. I'm surprised he's got any income at all right about now. I sure as heck wouldn't consider using him if not for his poor service than for his crappy habit of suing. Most companies in his position, if they're as active as he's claimed to be, would try to solve the problems and clear their name the right way. That he's actively attacking his customers speaks volumes and I thank Slashdot for shedding light on this.

    How about we all put up banners on our sites linking this? We did it for DeCSS and this guy is almost as bad IMO. My opinion might change when I've read more than the few articles I have but I doubt it. Even if the initial accusations\comments weren't 100% solid his response to it has certainly shown his spots.

    Mod the parent UP!

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    1. Re:VERY informative, thank you! by Chundra · · Score: 2

      Nah. They should just keep running those Jon Katz ads.

      "If you're looking for an integrated advertising solution that reaches a highly influential Community of IT professionals, systems administrators and Open Source/Linux developers, you've found it at OSDN."

      Yeah, we just LOVE Katz. Thanks OSDN!

  92. Illegal? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Doesn't NY (or wherever Novak lives) have laws against filing frivilous lawsuits?

    I just can't believe some of the defendents settled instead of countersuing. It is time for "loser pays" laws in this country.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  93. Are we next? by Ashyukun · · Score: 1

    It seems like this guy is running around suing anyone who has ever said anything remotely bad about him on the internet... does that mean /. and all of us are next, since the company name (which seems to be his hot button) is up on the main page?

  94. Re:Digging a little further ... new article on Nov by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    Suing the Better Business Bureau for doing their job? I hope so, he'll finally get someone with the resources to countersue his ass to the stone age.

  95. I am not afraid! by ringbarer · · Score: 0

    Although I preferred Gabrielle. And it's always a pleasure to see Bruce Campbell again, admittedly sans-chainsaw.

    --
    "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
  96. Attack currently happening by cemcnulty · · Score: 1

    Someone is DOSing them as we speak. At 13:05:06 EST They changed their WHOIS database record, presumable to sidestep the DNS, but it's out again. I don't have even the slightest amount of pity. According to this website http://www.petsforum.com/psw/ this guy sues as a hobby.

    -Chuck

  97. Easy Retirement Plan! by SmartSsa · · Score: 1

    Wow, this guys' got it down, sue a few hundred people for millions then retire! brilliant! Amazing! Outstanding.

    Who wants to say I suck so I can sue you? Please? please? any takers?

    1. Re:Easy Retirement Plan! by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1
      Who wants to say I suck so I can sue you? Please? please? any takers?

      You suck more than the rest of the karma whoring bastards who frequent slashdot :)

    2. Re:Easy Retirement Plan! by SmartSsa · · Score: 1

      I know where you live!

    3. Re:Easy Retirement Plan! by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1
      I know where you live!

      hah! We're Canadian! Such frivolous lawsuits would never occur in our great nation!

      After all, it's the American way :)

    4. Re:Easy Retirement Plan! by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      hah! We're Canadian! Such frivolous lawsuits would never occur in our great nation!

      No. The defendants would just be jailed for hate speech instead.

    5. Re:Easy Retirement Plan! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      "I know where you live!"

      hah! We're Canadian! Such frivolous lawsuits would never occur in our great nation!


      &ltsarcasm&gthah! I live in the US, all I need to do is convince my government that you are a terrorist by launching an attack on my good name, and my government will beat your government into submission until they hand your over.&lt/sarcasm&gt
      Yes, even some of us here feel that the US government is overstepping in a lot of cases. Though, I do feel some pity for their situation, they get lambasted if they do nothing, they get lambasted if they do something. What are they to do?

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    6. Re:Easy Retirement Plan! by alexo · · Score: 1

      hah! We're Canadian! Such frivolous lawsuits would never occur in our great nation!

      What makes Canada different?

      Remember, the defendant said he and his lawyer were confident they would win the case; he just didn't have the resources to fight.

  98. Better Business Bureau? by shaldannon · · Score: 1

    If his service was truly that bad, why didn't he contact the BBB? That's why they exist, after all.

    --


    What is your Slash Rating?
    1. Re:Better Business Bureau? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBB has already been contacted regarding petSWEARhouse.com.

      They have an unsatisfactory rating. IIRC, my understanding of a BBB "unsatisfactory rating" means that the BBB views them as scum-sucking bottom dwellers who would screw over their dead grandmother for a nickel, and, most likely, would enjoy themselves in the process.

  99. I hate the man, but he is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Osama said this would happen, saying that everything America stood for would disappear, that you would loose your freedoms. Although I wish he never existed, I must say he is right. We are removing even the most basic rights and freedoms, to protect corporate profits, and to attack "terrorism", which by definition includes hacking. I am very against terrorism, wish 9/11 never happened, but the more steps we take against terror, the more successful Osama is.

  100. His gomez certification has expired . . .lets sue by techstar25 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the main page of his site he has the Gomez certification logo at the bottom. This in fact is misrepresentation since Gomez certifications have all expired according to Gomez.com.
    Here is the quote.
    "We regret to announce that the Gómez Merchant Certification program has ceased operations as of March 31, 2002. In light of this decision, Gómez will not conduct any further merchant certifications. We will also remove all references to Gómez Merchant Certification other than this notice on Gómez.com on April 1, 2002. Merchants currently certified under the Gómez Certification program should remove all references, logos and/or images of the Gómez Merchant Certification program displayed on their sites or affiliate sites by March 31, 2002.
    Man, what an idiot. Can we sue him for that?

  101. No legal department necessary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Novak is representing himself 'pro se' in the case"

  102. /. will be next to get sued by fromunderthedesk · · Score: 1

    Based on the last 2 ammendments to the case it seems logical that the plaintif will include these posts on /. as libelous too.

    I'll miss my /. (snif)

    1. Re:/. will be next to get sued by carm$y$ · · Score: 1

      it seems logical that the plaintif will include these posts on /. as libelous too

      Now that means they'll have to sue the pants off mr.Anonymous Coward; I can't wait to see this...

      --
      -- No sig today
    2. Re:/. will be next to get sued by Lectrik · · Score: 1

      Quoth the post:
      Based on the last 2 ammendments to the case it seems logical that the plaintif will include these posts on /. as libelous too.

      well, now we know what our subsciption money was realy for, slashdot realy did pick this story upwhen it was just a newsgroups/mailinglist thread but then had to get potential legal phees together to put the article up

      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
  103. Re:But what do you do when he adds you to the suit by Xerithane · · Score: 2

    Hell, I'm already getting sued, I'll add on to it.

    PetsWarehouse.com ATE MY BALLS!

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  104. just a remark about "settled" lawsuits by raresilk · · Score: 2
    The fact that all of the defendants "settled" doesn't necessarily mean they capitulated. A settlement just means that a suit is dismissed because the parties have agreed to do so. True, in the typical settlement the party in the wrong has paid $ to obtain the party in the right's agreement to dismiss. However, where a groundless lawsuit is brought, it is by no means uncommon for the defendant to point this out, remind the plaintiff that if there was no legal and/or factual foundation for the suit, he can be held liable for the costs of defending the suit, and in certain circumstances can be sued for "malicious prosecution" and wind up out substantial $$$, including punitive damages. This sometimes results in the plaintiff agreeing to dismiss in exchange for a "waiver of costs" - in other words, "OK, I drop the whole thing if you agree not to come after me."

    Of course, I have no way of knowing whether that did or didn't happen. But I do think it's premature to conclude that all of the mailing list contributors were simply bullied into submission by these cockamamie claims. This was a substantial group of people who knew each other's email addresses, right? It is certainly possible that one of them contacted a lawyer, was a lawyer him/herself, or simply did some research on how to respond effectively when someone files an unfounded lawsuit against you, and then gathered the troops for a unified response. (If not, that's my recommendation for next time.)

    --
    No, no, no. This is not a sig.
    1. Re:just a remark about "settled" lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you could have read the article where it lists the 4K settlement one guy paid. But that would be work, and would interfere with your karma-whoring. Idiot.

    2. Re:just a remark about "settled" lawsuits by raresilk · · Score: 1
      fuck you, your mama, your sister, your kids, and your wife.

      So much for my so-called "karma whoring," asshole. Now crawl back to your Anonymous pencil neck Coward hole and whack off. If you had any genuine interest in providing correct information on this log, rather than merely combing the footnotes for some excuse to lash out at anyone and everyone, you would do it minus the gratuitous hostility.

      --
      No, no, no. This is not a sig.
  105. We've all written a review or two... by pamzella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about reviews on sites such as Epinions, Amazon, bizrate and the now-defunct Gomez? Even eBay? Those comments are more "public" than some listserv for underwater plant hobbyists, as far as their potential to hurt a business' sales. If this guy effectively "wins," does it mean we could get sued because we said we didn't like a book we read? Will companies that get a bad rap on Epinions because of their creepy business practices just become a shell to collect settlements from the people who get swindled by them?

    I for one would have been cautious about this merchant after hearing about their poor customer service. But Novak's responding by suing instead of cleaning up the attitude that brought on complaints in the first place, well, in the real free-market economy, he'd be out of business. Kinda like Bill Jones, who would never get my vote for anything ever again after spamming people. Take the high road, guys...

  106. Which is worse... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Which is worse the a-hole who (ab)uses the system or the a-holes who set up a system so it can easily be abused ? Hint, politicians are usually lawyers and they write the laws and guess who profits from packed courthouses?

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Which is worse... by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      Which is worse the a-hole who (ab)uses the system or the a-holes who set up a system so it can easily be abused ?

      Which is worse, the civil court system that can be abused, or the civil court system to which ordinary people aren't allowed access at all?

      I mean it. If Joe Blow isn't allowed to file pro se when he feels he's been wronged, that doesn't just mean that frivolous libel suits will go away. That means that he'll have no recourse when his insurance company screws him. That means he'll have no option when his Frod Exploder SUV with Fireball Tires flips over and leaves him with a zillion bucks in medical bills. Or when someone announces to half the population of the small town in which he lives that he likes to feed methamphetamine to small children and then have carnal relations with them.

  107. More to the point by GMontag · · Score: 2

    What the hell is wrong with this judge that they are actually wasting the time to hear this case to begin with?

    I keep hearing, from all corners of the "judicial" system, that the courts are "clogged" then I hear about cases like this that can be thrown out at the whim of the judge.

    If the judges would just start killing cases like this (and fining the lawyers that bring them, also fully within their power) then the "clogs" will be reduced.

    1. Re:More to the point by gimpboy · · Score: 1

      you read the article right? i don't believe it has gone before a judge yet. the article talks about cour filings, but i dont believe that means a judge has seen anything.

      of course ianal

      --
      -- john
    2. Re:More to the point by GMontag · · Score: 2

      you read the article right?

      Actually, yes I did and more!

      i don't believe it has gone before a judge yet.

      Well, the record disagrees with your belief:

      I read Pets Forum Docket, after following links from the article, to find this:

      Not yet docketed: Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice.

      03-01-02 (31) STIPULATION and ORDER denying [8-1] motion to dismiss the claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) and 56. The foregoing stipulation is so ordered; and whereas the foregoing stipulation, inter alia, releases plaintiff's claims against deft. Resler, the Motion to dismiss is denied as moot (signed/unsigned by Judge Denis Hurley, on 3-1-02) (lm) [Entry date 03-06-02]

      Looks like the judge had at least one opportunity to get rid of this nonsense, but chose to make his court look busy instead. NOT by accepting the stipulation and settlement, but by seeing that the case is nonsense and throwing it out. Have seen this happen in domestic court numerous times (motion brought, some agreement between parties, whatever, judge hears it, throws it out and scolds the lawyers for trying to pull a fast one). Fed judges have an even wider path than TN Circuit Court judges in matters like this.

    3. Re:More to the point by gimpboy · · Score: 1

      i stand corrected, and good monday to you ;)

      --
      -- john
    4. Re:More to the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      np and have added you to my "friends" list

    5. Re:More to the point by ryanwright · · Score: 2

      If the judges would just start killing cases like this (and fining the lawyers that bring them, also fully within their power) then the "clogs" will be reduced.

      I agree, but the problem is, most of the judges are the same breed of scum sucking bottom feeding lawyers...

      (yes, I know most lawyers and judges are not scum sucking bottom feeders, but man, why don't the good ones do something about the idiots?)

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    6. Re:More to the point by sethdelackner · · Score: 1

      This is all gobbledegook to me. Could someone translate that judge's motion as to why he failed to dismiss the case?

    7. Re:More to the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he is a lazy ass government employee that does not want his dockett to dwindle, while he and his peers whine about their workload while they are on the golf course or in the bar instead of working.

    8. Re:More to the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all gobbledegook to me. Could someone translate that judge's motion as to why he failed to dismiss the case?

      I *think* this just means that the complaint is not completely ridiculous as to structure. Structure, legal basis, is all they're looking at right now.

      IANAL, but I think it's kind of like deductive logic. You can make up ridiculous syllogisms which are perfectly VALID and whose conclusions are perfectly wrong.

      In civil court, the truth of the claims aren't examined until the case is actually before the judge. This won't happen until after the motions we're talking about and after discovery... if the defendents can afford to stay in that long.

  108. Check it out by cavemanf16 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    A similar lawsuit was brought against WorldNetDaily.com just recently, but to the tune of $165 million dollars. Of course, it wasn't an aquarium shop, it was a former US Presidential candidate's buddy (obviously well connected) bringing the suit against the site. And WND was just reporting on a story they had discovered.

    I submitted this as a story back when it first came out, but Slashdot janitors, being the liberal fascists that they sometimes are, rejected it - and my guess is simply because WND is considered a "conservative" website. I'd say my comments above scream "YRO!" more than a dispute between disgruntled customers of an aquarium store and the owner of said store.

    1. Re:Check it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it seems that dissenting opinions have once again been suppressed on the great Slashboard. Offtopic? Maybe slightly. But flamebait? Only if you don't like WND or what it stands for. C'mon, people, can't we back a conservative cause once in a while?

      And this is ontopic, because legal action seems to be the weapon of choice for a certain former candidate and those who hang around him.

    2. Re:Check it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the guy sued Worldnetdaily for saying he had been investigated as a drug runner. Clearly that would cast a bad light on Al Gore and his associates.

      The part I like is that it appears to be a retaliation lawsuit against interests that worked to keep Gore from winning his home state.

      If Gore had won the Tennesee votes in the electoral college, he wouldn't have needed the Florida votes. Yet he wasn't even able to get the people from his home state to vote for him.

  109. /.'ed? by HRH+King+Lerxst · · Score: 1

    Heh, heh, Petswarehouse.com appears to be getting /.ed....it's going r e a l l y s l o w.

    --
    No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
  110. It is not just standing, it's ruining for it by david_e_v · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, if I'm not wrong, nothing is for free, in the US specially. If you read the article, one of the main reasons for settling was that they couldn't afford facing the full trial.
    Justice MUST be free, or it is not justice, it becomes just another good, which can be acquired of higher quality and quantity by the wealthiest.

    That's my very humble opinion, of course.

    1. Re:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it by afidel · · Score: 1

      Dude, did you miss the OJ trial and the Jon Bonett investigation?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it by descubes · · Score: 1

      Justice doesn't have to be free. It simply has to be fair. For instance, the law could mandate that the money paid by both parties be added and then split equally between the lawyers for both parties. That way, a company can put a lot of money into attacking, but it also automatically beefs up the defense. It's no longer Goliath vs. David.

      --
      -- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
    3. Re:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't understand the lingering Calvinist axiom, that underlies many of the inequalities in American society: wealthy people are wealthy because they are better, and better because they are wealthy, so the advantages that they enjoy are rightly theres, and they deserve all the justice they can afford.

    4. Re:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      s/theres/theirs/ - and d'oh. I felt so smart for a second, there.

    5. Re:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      Justice MUST be free

      It because "justice is free" that these people face this problem. All you have to do is slap down a filing fee, and you've purchased a lottery ticket where you get to name the prize amount in the lottery. By filing a complaint like this you really don't face any loss if you lose. It's pretty much all or nothing. What would eliminate this problem is tort reform, in particular a loser pays feature. So if a judge decides that the person suing is being malicious, etc, that he can make this person pay for it.

      I think this would dry up a lot of the "lottery" style lawsuits, and allow the judges a lot more time to speed the remaining cases up. These lawsuits often take years to settle.

    6. Re:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2
      But with "loser pays" then you get the same problem in the opposite direction, I would think. You keep big companies from suiing the little guy frivoulously, but at the expense of making the little guy too afraid to sue a big company.

      Would you bring up a suit against a company, even if you were in the right and thought you had a reasonable chance (say, 85%) of winning, if doing so incurred a 15% chance of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars if you lose?

      "Loser pays" *MUST* come with an attached reasonable max cap on how much one can expect to incur, otherwise you can intimidate the other side into not going to court by hiring an expensive defense team and mentioning that the other guy might end up having to pay for them.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    7. Re:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      "Loser pays" *MUST* come with an attached reasonable max cap on how much one can expect to incur,

      I agree, and most serious proposals have such provisions. The most common one is that you are not liable for more than you paid for your own legal fees. Though I think that there should be an amount above this that the judge can impose in sanctions to deal with people who file pro se, and hence spend virtually nothing.

    8. Re:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it by symbolic · · Score: 2

      The question is, better at what? Skirting the rules that everyone else follows?

  111. Legal system? Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any of you guys who thinks the legal system in this country is to serve JUSTICE is wrong.

    The legal system is now a mishmash of profit and political clout, and I'm sorry- $$$$$ wins court cases. Do I really have to remind you about a certain football player and a white ford explorer?

    How about that software company that forced it's OS onto every x86 cpu in the 90s?

    Do you remember... your president Nixon?
    Do you remember, the bills you have to pay?

    That's my two cents. Fucking sue me.

    :D

  112. Already /.ed by david_e_v · · Score: 1

    It seems they have put down the server.

    1. Re:Already /.ed by jandrese · · Score: 1

      It seems they have put down the server.

      It's better that way. We don't want to let their server continue to suffer (after being slashdotted).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  113. We've done the one thing we can do by datastew · · Score: 2, Funny
    We've slashdotted them. The main page still shows up at http://www.petswarehouse.com/, but trying to go a product page returns:
    Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e31'

    [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]Timeout expired

    //global.asa, line 138
    1. Re:We've done the one thing we can do by gimple · · Score: 1

      What a hoot! Now the homepage is down.

  114. Where are the script kiddies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now, here is a site that truly ** DESERVES ** to be DoSd out of existance for MONTHS.

    Are the script kiddies are too busy DoSing EFNET servers or something else completely meaningless?

    Here's a real chance for Internet Vigilante Justice.

  115. Dont buy from Pets Warehouse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dont buy from Pets Warehouse! They are known to be communists and homosexuals! And they won't deliver your products on time either. If you buy from them you will get screwed and tattooed! We should all kick Robert Novak's ass!

    Found this on petswarehouse.com: "Questions? 1-800-991-3299 or 631-789-5400". My first question for the guy who answers is "What do you think of Free Speech?"

    -dbc

  116. Unless this stops, it could be MS vs /. or..... by cybrthng · · Score: 3, Informative

    People have a right to freedom of speech. I have voiced my complaints many times against crappy vendors, crappy banks, crappy stores and crappy products.

    But what would happen if this dude continues to win, setting precendences for companies like Microsoft to sue slashdot for example on how slashdot user continue to bash windows/microsoft products.

    I use DSLreports constantly to express my opinions of products from routers to broadband service and i KNOW it can get nasty on there. What would happen of COmcast sued dslreports and everyone on there? What if lucent got sick of hearling complaints about companies products or services and did the same?

    Heck EPINIONS.COM does a fantastic job keeping the consumer aware of products and scams, we should go rate this company on epinions.com as a horrible company to do business with.

    My list of companies to stay away from is.

    1. Cross country bank
    2. Verizon
    3. Southwestern Bell
    4. Apex collections.
    5. Blockbuster (music/video/whatever.. they all steal)

    Consumers have a right to now, and freedom of speech even includes the ability to bitch about something.

    Aren't we still human anymore?

    1. Re:Unless this stops, it could be MS vs /. or..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for SBC internet (PacBell, SWBell, Ameritech, SNET, and Prodigy). We often frequent forums like DSL Reports to keep on top of issues that are affecting customers. We've always found online forums where people talk about our company to be a very positive thing, even if now and then complaints are raised publicly. This gives us a chance to correct the situation, and often pushes us to work even harder to prove ourselves.

      (Of course I choose to remain Anonymous to avoid legal hassles at work.)

  117. Pets Warehouse Really Harmed THEMSELVES by ausoleil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Robert Novak had listened to Resler's criticism, responded positively and made some effort to make amends to the APD community at large, then this whole never happens and it is never heard of outside of the APD community.

    But the fact is that Robert Novak had thin skin, sued for amounts of incredible proportions and basically paper-bullied people into settling...and now the WHOLE online community knows about it. And that can only hurt his business.

    Novak needs to learn one golden rule of customer service: The Customer Is Always Right.

  118. Re:But what do you do when he adds you to the suit by donutz · · Score: 1

    Dude, that's a heck of a story you got in your journal. You know, I just had a vision of heaven: it's not a place with halos and harps, not loose women or riches or food....heaven is no stupid people. Or at least not having to deal with them. You can probably still watch the stupid people on earth for amusement. Good luck with your auto troubles...for my part, I think I'm going to stick with my hand-me-down '85 Pontiac 6000 until it won't run no more.....

  119. Well Duh by quantaman · · Score: 2

    Novak saw the efforts to spread the word about the suit on the Web as a further infringement of his company's trademark, as well as the propagation of defamatory and libelous comments.

    Yeah, and his subsequent actions really helped the image of his company. Is this guy just a complete idiot or was he deliberatly pushing for a cash settlement the whole time?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  120. They reap what they sow by mbrubeck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Given that their bullying tactics have made the news in Salon and Slashdot, and been plastered all over various aquarium-related special interest sites, PetsWarehouse needs to ask whether they are decreasing or increasing negative publicity by continuing to press charges. Even if they get some cash by intimidating defendants into settling, they've also earned a permanent reputation as an abusive company that responds to criticism with ridiculous legal threats. And they did it all to prevent damage to their reputation?

    When will companies learn that you can't just squash criticism on the internet? When you try, you just create more and more publicity and sympathy for your critics.

    1. Re:They reap what they sow by alcmena · · Score: 2

      I seem to remember one of my business friends talking about the "one ten rule". It went something like: "If you make ten people happy, collectively they will tell one person about it. If you make one person mad, he will go out and tell ten others that you screwed him."

      The moral of the rule, at least according to my friend, is that it's not always good business to try and make everyone happy, but it's piss poor business sense to not try to resolve issues that upset people.

    2. Re:They reap what they sow by neonsam · · Score: 1

      I'd bet though, if anyone does ask, the owner of petswearhouse will grin and say "This is great for business. Our sales are way up! Great advertising!" Whether or not any of this would be true or not is anybody's guess.

    3. Re:They reap what they sow by alexo · · Score: 1
      Given that their bullying tactics have made the news in Salon and Slashdot, and been plastered all over various aquarium-related special interest sites, PetsWarehouse needs to ask whether they are decreasing or increasing negative publicity by continuing to press charges. Even if they get some cash by intimidating defendants into settling, they've also earned a permanent reputation as an abusive company that responds to criticism with ridiculous legal threats.

      Really? So far no printed publication has mentioned this case.
      A Google News Search returns zero (0) hits.

      The "power" of the internet (in this case salon + slashdot) is overrated.

    4. Re:They reap what they sow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that I went to the site, first clicking on a link to a 'chat room' and 'message forum' that didn't work. I ended up going to the main site area and spending a little time looking at stuff for my cat. Then I said 'wait a minute!' and closed the link. Anything I want to get for the cat, I can get at a local shop anyway. It isn't as if there aren't dozens of pet shops in any metropolitan area.

      Ecommerce in general has worn out it's sheen. It's not going anywhere, except in the case of specialty items. It'll core out and take over the whole catalog mail order business, but that's the extent of it.

    5. Re:They reap what they sow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If they are getting lots of $4000 settlements then they can jsut close up shop after that, or move to a new domain with their settlement millions.

      Why bother with expensive inventory if you can make lawsuits your main money earner.

      In fact the worse their service the more money the stand to make from lawsuits.

  121. One thing by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How many times have we heard about a person or company being sued by a corporation and settling because they run out of cash? Now there are still the employment costs and stuff but I would at least think there should be public defenders available for liable cases to help take off some of the financial strain. Court cases shouldn't be determined by last man standing.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  122. turn the tables? by blamanj · · Score: 2

    IANAL, of course, but I wonder if the defendants could move the case from civil to criminal court by charging Novak with criminal intimidation.

    That seems like a reasonable description of what he's done, essentially saying "Pay me a few thousand or I'll make sure you pay even more court fees."

    Whether you use a tire iron or the court system is pretty much irrelevant.

    1. Re:turn the tables? by slykens · · Score: 2
      That seems like a reasonable description of what he's done, essentially saying "Pay me a few thousand or I'll make sure you pay even more court fees."

      First, IANAL, but, if the person/entity making the threat of legal action has a legitimate claim then this is perfectly legal, this is how you entice someone to settle so that you don't have to spend the time and money to actually sue them to get what you want.

      Now, if the person/entity threatening lawsuit have no legal basis for a claim you tell them to piss off. If they file suit you file a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, or in some jurisdictions harrasment by barratry.

  123. Why is defense so expensive? by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    I haven't had the pleasure of being sued yet, so I just don't have a clue: how does a $15000 fund get eaten up before a trial? Exactly what are the expenses? I just can't see how even a $200/hr lawyer's bills would eat this up, since it seems there would be so little for him to actually spend any time on. I'm obviously missing something big, but what?

    Does a lawyer really spend 75 hours reading mailing list messages and thinking about them, that a normal person spends 15 minutes on? If so, then lawyers are overpaid. ;-)

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Why is defense so expensive? by taustin · · Score: 1

      Does a lawyer really spend 75 hours reading mailing list messages and thinking about them, that a normal person spends 15 minutes on?

      Yes, actually, they do. Then they go do research, to dig out case law relevant to the case at hand, and then cross-reference all that to other case law, and so on. Also, you've got things like discovery and depositions, all of which cost money, money, money. Especially depositions, for which you have to hire a certified court reporter.

      If so, then lawyers are overpaid

      Can't argue with that.

    2. Re:Why is defense so expensive? by Robert+Crawford · · Score: 1

      In this case, defense was especially expensive because only a limited number of lawyers are allowed to practice in front of this court, AND it's in one of the most expensive areas of the country.

  124. Death to Smoochy by richlb · · Score: 1

    Dear Mr. Ebert,

    Due to your slanderous and libelous review of the obviously wonderful movie "Death to Smoochy", we are hear by serving you with this lawsuit. We seek in damages $100 million, the anticipated box office take for this wonderful comedy staring the ever-funny Mr. Robin Williams. We hope this will not affect your judgement on the upcoming smash "Scooby Doo" staring Matthew Lillard.

    PS - We could dismiss this suit if you revise your review to at least 3 stars. Oh, and a thumbs up.

    Sincerely,
    Warner Brothers Legal

  125. Thanks! And look what I found :-) by BLKMGK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google Search finding

    Seems there was a time when he thought beating up other companies was okay. Not anymore? Shoe on the other foot now?

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  126. Anti-SLAPP in NY... by durocshark · · Score: 1

    Doesn't apply because the NY statute only covers speaking against government, not private business.

    --
    Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
  127. Action? by Darth+Maul · · Score: 2

    There is a chat forum on his site:

    Chat forum

    --
    --- witty signature
  128. What's the deal with Schildt? by schmaltz · · Score: 2
    I read his C books years ago. He was maybe opinionated, but pretty informed and I found his work useful.
    Herb however, acknowledges the "points" of his critics in his later books, but continues doing what he feels like.
    So what? Don't buy his books. End of story. He's may write as he pleases, and there are plenty of excellent C/C++ writers out there, so it's no sin to ignore someone if you find them oafish.
    He is almost the "abusive boyfriend" of programming books.
    Yeesh. You have a problem if you keep coming back and struggling with somebody you plainly don't like. Just walk away... like... this.
    --
    Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?
  129. Re:Digging a little further ... new article on Nov by Kintanon · · Score: 2, Informative

    OMG, does he have ANY idea what the BBB does to business that fuck with them?! He's going to get blasted to hell and back. If he thinks 'Unsatisfactory' is the worst they can do he's in for a nasty surprise. This sleezy antique dealership near lexington complained about the BBB after they got a poor rating because half of their merchandise was bootleg. The BBB had them shut down within 2 weeks. It was killer.

    Kintanon

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  130. The story is not at all odd. by chipotle_pickle · · Score: 1

    Bad things happen when people back down in the face of bullies. Nothing new here. But it's still good to be reminded.

  131. None of this would happen if... by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 1


    ...Corporations had inferior legal rights in comparison to natural, real human beings.

    In my perfect world of the future, corporations can only sue other corporations and corporations that seriously violated laws would be subject to a "Corporate Death Sentence".



    At any rate, Robert Novak is, in my opinion, absolutely THE most shameful example of an American I am aware of. I feel the need for a shower just knowing my feet rest upon the same soil as his.

    --
    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
    GeneralEmergency
  132. Re:Digging a little further ... new article on Nov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    BBB of Metropolitan New York, Inc.
    257 Park Avenue South
    New York, NY 10010-7384
    (900) 555-4222

    PETS WAREHOUSE
    1550 Sunrise Highway
    Copaigue, NY 11726
    View Location Map

    Local Phone Number: (631)789-5400
    Fax Number: (631)789-9340
    Type of Business Code: 00086
    TOB Classification: PET SHOPS

    Nature Of Business

    This firm is a pet shop. The Bureau's file opened on 02/01/1995.

    Customer Experience

    This firm has an unsatisfactory rating, which is the Bureau's lowest rating.

    The firm operates an affiliated business on the internet offering products through its Copiague location.

    The company's size, volume of business, and number of transactions may have a bearing on the number complaints received by the BBB. The number of complaints filed against a company may not be as important as the type of complaints, and how the company handled them. The BBB generally does not pass judgement on the validity of complaints filed.

    Closed Complaints
    Total number of complaints processed by the BBB in last 36 months: 23
    Total number of complaints processed by the BBB in last 12 months: 8

    Complaints Concerned (Please understand that complaints may concern more than one issue)
    Credit/Billing Issues: 11
    Delivery Issues: 11
    Defective/Damaged Merchandise: 3
    Failure to Provide Service: 4
    Delayed Service: 2
    Failure to Provide Promised Adjustment: 3
    Selling Practices: 4

    Outcome of all complaints
    Full Adjustment: 9
    Partial Adjustment: 4
    Disputed: 7
    No Response: 3

    Report as of: 4/4/2002

    Copyright: 2002 BBB of Metropolitan New York, Inc.

    As a matter of policy, the Better Business Bureau does not endorse any product, service, or company. BBB reports generally cover a three-year reporting period, and are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information contained in this report is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy. Reports are subject to change at any time.

    The Better Business Bureau reports on members and non-members. Membership in the BBB is voluntary, and members must meet and maintain BBB standards. If a company is a member of the BBB, it is stated in this report.

  133. Free lawyer? by acoustix · · Score: 2

    Doesn't the court appoint you a lawyer if you cannot afford one?

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Free lawyer? by nytes · · Score: 1

      In the US, you can get a court appointed lawyer for a criminal case. This case would have been a civil case.

      IIRC, if you are economically disadvantaged (poor), sometimes you can apply to programs that will help you with a civil case, but I think that is usually done only for certain cases (like if you are being evicted from your home).

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    2. Re:Free lawyer? by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      only if you are being sued by the government

  134. Pets Wharehouse SUCKS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right. I said it. You gonna sue every person that thinks your company is bad?

    Microsoft's legal team would have a hell of a time!

  135. I RTFA'd! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    Even though it got too expensive, they backed down!


    I'm not saying that it was right or wrong of them. I am saying that bullies like this only succeed when people don't fight. If you back down during a fight, it doesn't count when dealing with bullies!


    I have the stones, I have been fighting SCUM. But, when Mattel was asked by a judge at a summary judgment motion hearing as to what was libelous, Mattel moved to dimiss.

  136. [OT] Re:I Love The USA by RatOmeter · · Score: 1

    Bzzzt!

    I own 3 firearms, all unlicensed, all perfectly legal. Two are rifles and 1 is 44 Magnum pistol. Had to go through the waiting period for the pistol, however.

    -

  137. Watch out, and fight back! by DogOfKnowledge · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's true. But I figure if this ever happened to me, I'd start several ad campaigns to raise public awareness, and eventually the entire country would be in an uproar over their first amendment rights.

    This isn't the first time this has happened, where big business wins out against what is good and right. Monsanto sued Radiance Dairy, a small farm (or maybe several farms) that produce organic milk, for labeling their milk as coming from RBGH-free cows. Radiance settled because it wasn't worth it to them to keep defending themselves.

    Don't let this happen! There should be an organization to deal with these things -- to provide funds for obvious cases like Microsoft vs. Lindows, Monsanto vs. Radiance Dairy, and Pets Warehouse vs. APD!

    1. Re:Watch out, and fight back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would support such an organization. These types of lawsuits shouldnt happen to people.

      Also a fine against frivilous lawsuits is also great idea.

  138. BOOOOO ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very Punny indeed.

  139. Re:But what do you do when he adds you to the suit by Xerithane · · Score: 1

    Good idea with your Pontiac :)

    Amen to your vision of heaven. The way I figure it, even if I lose the suit, it's an experience and I've learned. I trusted someone in a profession known for lying, and I got burned.

    I'll still trust, but I'll be much more apt to cover my bases in the future.

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  140. Re:But what do you do when he adds you to the suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got sued by some over zealous company, and burned off all my bad karma, and even put me into the black on the karma balance sheet.

    So I got that going for me, which is nice.

  141. Cool... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    ... this guy has a store where I live, that means I can choose not to go there in resopnse to this lawsuit. I will say his store is a dump compared to PetSmart

    Jaysyn

    (go ahead, try and sue me)

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  142. ...and advertise for us, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As part of the settlement, the posters must place banner ads advertising for PetsWarehouse.com on their sites and ensure that only "factual statements" be posted to maling lists, message boards, etc. that they operate.

    While I don't think enforcement of the latter is quite possible, I refuse to be swayed by the increased visibility this gives PetsWarehouse. I'm simply going to go elsewhere now for ALL my aquatic plant needs.

    1. Re:...and advertise for us, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much money do you annually spend on your 'aquatic plant needs'??

      I would predict zero dollars, but thought I should give you a change to answer.

  143. DoS lawsuit? by UnhandledException · · Score: 1

    And now www.petswarehouse.com is being slashdoted. We'd all better find some good lawyers.

  144. CONGRATULATIONS!fuckpetswarehouse.com is available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.netsol.com/en_US/name-it/searchresults. jhtml?_requestid=2257415

  145. Interesting court system ... by jopet · · Score: 1

    Interesting court system the most civilized country on earth has. Tailor made for people who have money to spend. Who cares about people who don't? Lets face it: they suck, they are loosers! Why should they have a right to get a fair judjement when they can't even raise a few thousand dollars? Uncivilized countries all over the rest of the world have still to learn from this ...

    1. Re:Interesting court system ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitmen are suprisingly cheap compared to lawyers. Something to think about.

  146. The punk is a career litigator by yorgasor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you've read the experiences people posted about doing business with him, you have to wonder if he's really worried about losing business. One guy tried for a couple of years, ordering regularly and only got one order placed. It makes you wonder if he's really trying to make a profit off his business. From the sounds of it, he's driving people to complain about his business so he can spend more time with his self proclaimed hobby: filing lawsuits.

    The aquatic plant growing community is fairly small and relatively easy to keep tabs on the entire community. All he has to do is give enough bad customer service and monitor all the message boards waiting for someone to complain. Then he can move in and start making some real money by filing lawsuits (notice that he doesn't use a lawyer, so he's not losing any money doing so).

    He tries to post messages to defend his honor, but for some reason they were getting blocked. Note here that he is a regular poster to these message boards and is well aware of how to use them. But this time he decides to include MIME attachments to his posts, which I would assume he knows very well would bounce. Now he can claim that they're trying to censor him!! That's worth at least another couple of million dollars!

    From the sounds of things this guy hides behind a pathetic business just to drum up people he can sue and make some real money from. Sounds like one of the lowest life forms out there. It's sad that he's making so many lives miserable, and that he seems to enjoy it. Heck, he's made a career out of it. He's probably riding high now, but it will all come back to haunt him in the end. He who lives by the lawsuit will die by the lawsuit. One way or another, he'll get the reward he so richly deserves.

    --
    Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
  147. Novak also claims Resler "hacked" their site by PackMan97 · · Score: 1
    From the article linked by the parent

    In July, PetsWarehouse.com's computers were "hacked" by Resler. Resler's version is that the invoice he received for his order had a URL on the bottom. When he typed the URL on an Internet browser and changed one letter, he got an in-house version of the invoice that included his credit card information.

    In an updated filing dated Sept. 15, Novak added charges related to the computer hacking and named additional defendants. The lawsuit says Novak suffered "headaches, nausea, nervousness, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation and mental distress." The filing also charged that Resler and others altered password protections, allowing access to PetsWarehouse.com's databases.

    "They opened the back door to the computer," Novak said.


    sounds more like bad programming instead of hacking. I'm a web dev, I know how EXTREMELY challenging it is to restrict "admin" features to the 10.1 addresses. Oh, it's so hard to do that!
    1. Re:Novak also claims Resler "hacked" their site by Skapare · · Score: 2

      I've been encountering many bugs and strange errors accessing his site. There have also been many "connection refused" errors, which I assume are due to the /. effect. Sometimes I get 500 errors (again, /. effect can run it out of RAM). But I'm also getting 403 and 404 errors, and strange CGI error messages. There are definitely some bugs here. And if he stores CC numbers on the server, Bob has a VERY SERIOUS SECURITY PROBLEM. Considering the attitude of this guy, I'm not surprised.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Novak also claims Resler "hacked" their site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if he stores CC numbers on the server, Bob has a VERY SERIOUS SECURITY PROBLEM.

      To the extent that if the numbers were accessed and published he might find himself on the losing end of lawsuits by the CC owners?

  148. Here's your answer by drew_kime · · Score: 2

    I predict falling sales revenues for this guy. Wonder who he'll sue next to make up for that?

    According to the article:
    Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York.

    --
    Nope, no sig
    1. Re:Here's your answer by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York.


      right.. whats he gonna do, sue them out of existance.. I hardly see that happening.

  149. He's been /.ed by gosand · · Score: 2

    I am sure that everyone (else) who tried to go to petswarehouse to get an email address and send this fool a bit-slapping (my new term - he he), has discovered that his site has been slashdotted. Oh, let the lawsuits begin for that one...

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  150. Re:Digging a little further ... new article on Nov by dbc001 · · Score: 1

    So if the Better Business Bureau case gets thrown out of court, will the people who settled be able to countersue? I mean, at some point a judge is going to get pissed at this jerk. Does that mean that all those who already settled are just screwed with no chance of getting their settlements back?

    dbc

  151. the bbb by Suppafly · · Score: 2

    I hope they are filling complaints against this company with the better business bureau.. It might not do a lot, but if a company has several complaints filed against it, it doesn't look good.

    1. Re:the bbb by elbuddha · · Score: 3, Informative


      Actually according to this article at the Long Island Business News, Mr. Novak has stated that he intends to target the BBB with legal action as well.
      • Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York. The BBB gives Pets Warehouse an "unsatisfactory rating," the organization's lowest.

  152. Too angry to think straight right now... by Saeger · · Score: 0, Troll
    First, I want to strangle - with extreme vengence - that motherfuck'n, anal-retentive, super-litigious fascist Novak.

    Second, I want to bitchslap all the motherfuck'n lawyers out there who thrive on frivelous lawsuits like this; and will never lift a finger in the direction of a fairer legal system where its possible to defend yourself without going bankrupt!!!

    Ahh!!! I hate litigious assholes! DIE DIE DIE! ......... just had to get that out.

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  153. stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like they'll be out of business in a few months. This has to be a guy working out of his garage. No way a real company could be this stupid.

  154. google is not nice to them... by RatOmeter · · Score: 1

    Do a search on petswarehouse on google. After the first hit, it ain't pretty.

    -

  155. Hypothetical situation- by Mu*puppy · · Score: 1
    Now, if a bunch of people such as, say... /.'ers, joined onto the forum at Pets Warehouse and made numerous defaming remarks about a news service such as, oh, I don't know, maybe... /. for coverage of this news story, couldn't this guy be held responsible for the remarks of people on his board, were said news service to go after him, as he himself is doing? I'm sure plenty of people have had 'bad experiences' with /. they could cite, so it certainly wouldn't be lying, and the forum is free for you to join and be a member of, right?

    Granted, this is merely a hypothetical situation (and probably wouldn't work against someone like Pets Warehouse (aka. 'it's hard to con a con-man')), but how would something like this work in real life? Say, there is no 'evidence' of some kind of 'conspiracy' beyond a statement that is clearly stated to be nothing more than hypothetical and the author goes on to make a disclaimer about use of said hypothetical (btw, I take no responsibility for how others may use the ideas presented in this post, I am merely posting to present a hypothetical situation in order to explore the legal ramifications of the actions resulting from following said hypothetical situation).

    Could things be twisted around enough so that the prosecuting party has to prove the poster is legit, and not just someone from that hypothetical situation? I mean, could it really be considered to be 'libel' or something that would lead to 'a loss of money' if the poster has never bought anything from the company in the first place (anyone know enough about law to provide some enlightenment on this point)? Now imagine burdening the company with producing 'proof' that the poster is even a valid customer to begin with, and let's see how it would affect people who want to try stuff like this. And if the company has to provide such 'proof', how easy would it be to take it a step further and make the records 'talk' in court? If the records show poor performance on the company's side (as it would appear with Pets Warehouse), how would that look to the judge...?

    Now, that might not have been worded the best and I feel like I'm rambling, but you should get general underlying ideas...

    --
    There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
  156. Be afraid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under Novak's thinking, Salon, Slashdot and any other news site that reposts this information is now libel as well.

    I think it's about time we had a new law to interpret worthless lawsuits.

  157. fuck pets warehouse by cxgd · · Score: 1

    I know for a fact that pets warehouse is a front for a drug peddling business, and they steal all of their pets from small children. Robert 'I fuck my customers' Novak, sue me if you can find me....

    --
    just my 2 cents worth. you now owe me 2 cents.
  158. Don't Blame Lawyers! by McChump · · Score: 1

    This guy Novak is acting pro se. He's not a lawyer, yet he's representing a company in federal court. If the court had been on the ball, it would have rejected his attempts to file, since he's representing an entity other than himself. The only thing I can't figure out is why the list's attorney didn't file a summary motion to strike all of his pleadings on that basis.

    --
    I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
    1. Re:Don't Blame Lawyers! by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      Is it a sole proprietorship? Don't assume it's a corporation or something.

    2. Re:Don't Blame Lawyers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not clear if it's a sole proprietorship or not -- The Plaintiff claims it is in the lawsuit, but has claimed it's incorporated in emails, Usenet posts, and on his site. Some of the lawyers involved are digging into the details of the six or so corporations that may have been connected to the site.

    3. Re:Don't Blame Lawyers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is claiming that he as a individual owns the trademark - not the corporation.

  159. petSWEARhouse.com error by Skapare · · Score: 2

    I tried to go to http://www.petSWEARhouse.com/ but there seems to be no site there. Oh wait, it's not even registered. I wonder who will be the first slashdotter to register it and point it at ... well, you know where :-)

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  160. Re:Digging a little further ... new article on Nov by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2

    Quite likely. If you settle, well, you settled. A lawyer might know of ways to get out of it, but it probably won't be easy if it is possible.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  161. Didn't stand up and fight... or couldn't??? by prairieson · · Score: 1

    These guys got backed into a corner by yet another 500-pound corporate gorilla.

    Just do the math, you're making $30-$40K a year, family to feed, car and house payments, the typical stuff. And you basically have two options:

    1. Fight the suit, it's gonna cost you better than a year's salary... if you win. You don't even want to think about the ramifications of losing.
    or...
    2. Give the gorilla a few grand, run a banner ad, and say you're sorry.

    I don't say it's good and I don't say it's right, I'm just saying it's reality in today's society.

    Geez, I even read the other day that the Hatfield's were suing the McCoys over access to a family cemetery in Kentucky.

    --
    Quomodo cogis comas tuas sic videri?
    1. Re:Didn't stand up and fight... or couldn't??? by quonsar · · Score: 2

      "...with liberty and justice for all." (for all who can afford it.) money needs to be removed as a barrier to equal access to justice. having recently bent over for both dullbert and nascunt my ass is still sore. free speech? right up there with santa claus and the easter bunny.

    2. Re:Didn't stand up and fight... or couldn't??? by sethdelackner · · Score: 1

      Reading your links I have to say I'm damn impressed. After your sharp replies you didn't hear anything? Makes me imagine a whole room of people sitting around surfing the web looking for things they can sue for their parent company. Of course, since they are using pigeon technology, they seem to sue the wrong sites...

  162. Re:Why they porobably hate item/char/money auction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is more coverage of the story on the Long Island Business Review. In that article, Novak admits that he's filing these suits because it doesn't cost him anything, but the defendants have to pay travel expenses to NY.

    He also mentions that filing harassing lawsuits is "kind of a hobby" for him.

    I'm posting this as AC because I've received threatening emails from Novak in the past.

  163. Re:Original Message that started the whole thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't.

    And, he followed up later correcting the company's name to Pets Warehouse.

    Pet Warehouse was declared OK.

  164. Their forum is now closed... I wonder why by BigJim.fr · · Score: 2
    1. Re:Their forum is now closed... I wonder why by Darth+Maul · · Score: 2

      That's beautiful.

      I guess they can't take the heat! As they say; make speedy egress through kitchen door.

      --
      --- witty signature
  165. Pets Warehouse by pavera · · Score: 1

    Sign me up as a defendant!
    What on earth is this company thinking?
    Scare tactics like these are horrid!
    Pets Warehouse has to be the worst company I've seen.

  166. EFF? by robstercraws · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have any idea if the EFF is aware of this case, and if so, are they considering taking it? This case is perfect for them. If ever there was a SLAPP happy jerk, this PetsWarehouse.com guy is it.

    Darn ... I notice that BoycottPetsWarehouse.com has already been snatched up. Hope they do a good job with it.

    1. Re:EFF? by TheMonkeyDepartment · · Score: 1

      "Robstercraw? What the fuck is a robstercraw??"

    2. Re:EFF? by robstercraws · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't happen to have any hermaphroditic monkeys in your department, would you?

  167. Re:Original Message that started the whole thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks - a friendly reminder that sometimes bureaucracy does work for the little guy. This Pets Shithouse is a great example. If Dan used a credit card and has a receipt [preferably itemized] he does not have to put up with the merchant's BS about changing the shipping fees. All the major crdit cards and the banks that issue them will support their customers legitimate and semi-legitimate grievances against merchants. It's commonly referred to as charge back. If you ain't happy with a product or service, ask your card company about charging the merchant back...

  168. Your leaving something out. by Kalabajoui · · Score: 1

    Yes, Petswarehouse does have the two things you mention in common with scientology. However, they lack one important commonality; unlike the Scientologists, Petswarehouse doesn't have billions of dollars and fanatical supporters on their side. Novak's barratry is going to blow up in his face, and I can't wait to read all of the gory details when it happens.

  169. Slashdot Sued for Posting about the Posts of "PW" by lordmage · · Score: 1

    From the Daily Legal Ass Report:
    "Today, Popular Website Slashdot.org was sued for Trademark infringements for posting about a company we will not reveal for fear of being sued ourselves"

    Rob Malda, in a statement to us, said "We will not back down from this attack on individual rights"

    In a followup interview after Slashdot pulled all references and settled with this unnamed company, Malda states "Jon Katz made me do it"

    We will let you know at a later time, the lawyer is at the door stating to even refer to an unnammed company is putting us in trouble.

    --
    I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
  170. I am sooooo happy.... by phlawed · · Score: 1

    ...for not living in the U.S.

    --
    Dag B
  171. Give them a call. Its kind of funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sue happy company who I won't mention by name for fear of violating their trademark has a 800 number. Give them a call and ask if they are the ones involved in the lawsuit against people on a mailing list....it is kind of funny. 1 800 991 3299

  172. Some thoughts on the legal system that allows this by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    I had all sorts of thoughts about this law, or that law, that if passed might put a stop to nonsense like this. All were bad ideas, either putting more burden on those that might have a legitimate suit, which is bada, or allowing nutcases like this to even twist things further. At the very least, would just feed more lawyers... which is always bad. Kinda like giving M&M's to that cute rat living under your porch, pretty soon there are 10,000 of them, and they aren't so cute any more.

    But how about this? Allow these people to appear in court electronically. A simple conference call would do. If identity is an issue, there are at least 2 or 3 fair and cheap ways to handle it. When you petition for electronic appearance, you have to submit a notarized cassette recording of your voice. Or perhaps, you have to show up at the local courthouse, be sworn in there, and allowed into a booth where there is a fairly secure phone line, and where it's a given that you've been positively ID'd as the one called to appear before court. Hell, maybe even videoconferencing could be arranged. I wouldn't mind my tax dollars paying for something that makes things fairer for all (who knows, the next nutcase might sue me).

    Not having to buy plane tickets just to appear, would equalize things just a bit.

    Also, there should be both state and federal laws prohibiting lawsuits against legal defense funds. No exceptions.

  173. Don't forget Bally Total Fitness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out what they're doing at WWW.MWNS.COM and BallySucks.net What are they going to do, sue me for posting links to complaint sites?

  174. I'm scared to e-mail them by Caractacus+Potts · · Score: 2


    I'd like to send those people a nasty message, but those sneaks have their trademarked name embedded in their e-mail address! That address is pw@[insert their precious trademark here].com

    1. Re:I'm scared to e-mail them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, why not just call petswarehouse direct at 1-800-991-3299 since their website is down. If it was up, you could use their website forms email.

  175. why /. ads? make them rich this way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    god knows they could use the extra $$

    just post a reply. to get the ball rolling ...

    Hemos and Taco suck. /. sucks. OSDN sucks. JonKatz sucks off other men.

  176. Looks like they switched servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got curious and decided to look on Netcraft. It looks like they were running on NT4/IIS4 until today, and then suddenly switched to Win2K/IIS5. Perhaps they decided to throw some new hardware at the problem?

  177. Dialing 1-800-991-3299 frivolously would be wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If someone were to go to a phone booth or dorm phone, avoiding the use of their home phone (which would show up on the WATS billing statement, even if line-blocking or *67 were on), and were that person to dial PetsWarehouse at 1-800-991-3299, they would discover that the call is free to the caller, yet Long Distance to Pets Warehouse.

    If one were to call them a bunch of times, it would cost PetsWarehouse more. If many people were to call them many times, it would be kind of a huge phone bill for them. A phone ringing off the hook a whole lot with no business coming in would really be bad for PetsWarehouse's business, too.

    To do this, of course, would be wrong. Terribly, terribly wrong. Perhaps Congress should create a law that prevent the Internet and the phones from being abused in this manner.

  178. Re:Why they porobably hate item/char/money auction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I am posting this as AC because Novak raped my 15 year old daughter and we've had to move away and into hiding. Can you believe he sued the sexual abuse counselor she went to?!?

  179. Effect on Business? by BkrStMuse · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much their sales dropped since this incident. I'd be interested to see the numbers. Another thing I thought was interesting was it says on their website (www.petswarehouse.com) that they're ranked #2 by Yahoo.com. I'm sure Yahoo yanked any links or references to petswarehouse by now. I wonder if other sites have done the same...

    BkrStMuse

  180. Maybe we should make an Overture to PetsWarehouse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go here (currently the third link on the page) and you can click on a link that will cost em 7 cents. Yeah, it's not that much, but if we all do it .... Remember, this only works once per day.

  181. A side effect..... by Technician · · Score: 2

    I hate to point it out, but the more hot water that is stirred up, the more people will be cautious of buying anything online. I know for the most part I stick with brick and mortar shopping. I can see if a plant is healthy before I take it home. The only thing I have bought online in the last 3 years is bulk inkjet ink. My favorite printer (no names, no lawsuit) uses ink that is twice as expensive per mL as the prior model. Not every retail shop has the 16 oz bottles of ink. For printing photos I'll fill at $30 per 16 oz instead of $52 per 38 mL.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  182. Re:Why they porobably hate item/char/money auction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes they have. PetSwarehouse has the worst rating the BBB offers.

    But novak claims the negative comments are for some OTHER petswarehouse that just so happens to be run from the exact same address and phone number.

    There are about 10 different legal entities that novak has created to hide the true identity of the company so that he can simply claim "thats not us"

  183. Re:Dialing 1-800-991-3299 frivolously would be wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This site (slashdot.org) will eventually find itself in trouble for hosting conspiracys to sabatogue businesses in the way you suggested.

  184. Re:Dialing 1-800-991-3299 frivolously would be wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Suggested"??? He said it would be wrong! WRONG! Whatever you do, don't do what he said would be wrong to do!!

  185. Russia, China and USA by 1gor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This story reminds me of Soviet times in Russia, say, in the 70s. For those who doesn't know - there where no Stallinist terror in the 70s in Russia, you could tell jokes about communists and nobody would ship you to Gulag for this. In fact, there was a constitution with all the right words in it, a parliament, courts, subsidized appartments and plenty of newspapers. And there were no laws forbidding critisising the Party and the state. But when you were becoming a real threat to the system, like organising movements - you would lose your job, appartment, social benefits - all perfectly legally. For most of us then economic intimidation was enough to keep quiet in public.

    Chinese communists are smarter than Russians. They allow private enterprise and pursuit of happiness, as long as everybody shuts up and don't question political interests of the elite. Eeeeeh.... And you shouldn't threaten economical interests of Politbureau family members either.

    USA seems to have developed (with all good intentions) a deadly mechanism to shut people up and potentially destroy them for speaking and acting freely. Legal system can be and is used as a weapon of intimidation. The fact that mechanism of protecting less wealthy citizens against legalistic intimidation by more wealthy citizens (corporates) is explicitly lacking is interesting. What would you say of a state that wouldn't protect you against physical intimidation by a local warlord? Why doesn't it protect you against legal intimidation by the guy with deeper pockets?

    Now, this is sad, because America used to be a democratic ideal for us (imperfect, but better than others). It is visibly getting more Chinese by the day. First we see how an interest group or monopoly can intimidate potential competitors by slapping multimillion lawsuits left and right. Then we could expect US state trademarking the word "Freedom" and...

    --
    --
  186. Product Owerview by rhiorg · · Score: 1

    The board appears to be down for "maintenance", but you can always check out their "Product Owerview"

  187. Since I don't have the wallet to say anything bad by PhipleTroenix · · Score: 1

    This Novak guy probably has a lot of expertise from dealing with his family members. If I had the family that he does, I'd probably buy from him.

    http://www.petswarehouse.com/Reptile.htm

    --
    When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
  188. Spread this story around..... by jsimon12 · · Score: 2

    Hell, spread this story around, if I had any idea that a company I buy from MIGHT sue me if I say anything negative about them, I would simply NOT buy anything from them. Reguardless of the quality of the product I personally avoid people who run their buissnesses in this manner. I don' t know how other people would feel, but they have the right to know that this guy doesn't play fair or ethically, in my opinion.

  189. Re:It's not even a registered trademark! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BTW, PetsWarehouse is NOT a registered trademark.

    They have applied for trademark status, but it will likely be rejected because it is too generic. This is only a small part of why this lawsuit is insane! Check out the Defense Fund website for more info.

  190. punch line: by ethereal · · Score: 1

    So he has a fool for a client? Although I suppose that's already a given in this case...

    --

    Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    1. Re:punch line: by WNight · · Score: 2

      It's a shame that we think that when people represent themselves. If only we had a system designed to be usable by the people...

      But in this case it looks like sounds strategy. When you're just filing harassing lawsuits you don't want to waste money on a lawyer. Keep that for when you get countersued. If anyone actually mounts a credible defense, find some technicality and "let them off", while maintaining your case against the people who can be bullied.

  191. After looking at the site..... by jsimon12 · · Score: 2

    I just realized I have actually been to this site before and they had a couple things I wanted to order (Saltwater items). But after reading this story I have NO INTENTION of EVER buying ANYTHING from these guys, PERIOD. On top of that I am going to tell all my other aquatic friends of this whole debacle (by refering them to the Salon article).



    VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS, BOYCOTT THESE GUYS IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY DO BUISSNESS, IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRUELY GET THEM TO CHANGE!!!!

  192. Just to point out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every one of Schildt's Java books has a 4 star or higher rating at Amazon.com. I taught myself Java using his "Java : The Complete Reference" book 4 years ago and am now gainfully employed as a Java programmer. It's still probably the Java book I reference most even though it only goes to Java 1.1.

  193. This happened to me years back in the days of BBS. by lordmage · · Score: 1

    When stating an opinion about a company, you can get sued. In my case, I stated that the lack of scanning the uploads directory and still allowing it to be able to be downloaded could provide a way for trojans and viruses to move around.

    I was then threatened with a lawsuit and had to print a retraction in order to prevent it. It was rather stupid, but these things have been going on for a long time.

    If anyone would care to back me, I will state who and what for a lawsuit but I cannot afford one myself.

    Sad isn't, "He who has the gold, makes the rules"

    --
    I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
  194. How To Fix The US Legal System (part 1) by bee · · Score: 2

    About 2.5 months ago, I wrote an article in my livejournal about how to solve the problem where Big Company spends money forever on a case, draining the Little Guy. Check it out.

    --
    At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
  195. Muhahahaha by durocshark · · Score: 1

    I think the guy at the 7-11 who sells them coffee is getting sued for "supporting" the slanderous comments.

    Muhahahahahahahaah

    --
    Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
  196. So is Gomez.com unbias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The trademarked web site in question claims to be gomez.com certified for, among other things, 24-hour email responce time. What does gomez.com do to confirm that their certified web-sites continue to live up to the certifications that they award?

  197. Truth is the best defense by durocshark · · Score: 1

    But, anyone using the term "vicious lies" is probably bs'ing anywayz. :-)

    --
    Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
  198. now you've done it by hawk · · Score: 5, Funny
    With that post, slashdot is now a defendant!


    Oops! With this post, *I'm* a defendant.


    I've dealt with this kind of behavior before from those who represent themseloves. Yes, it can be expensive to handle along the way.


    But guess what, punk: I *am* a lawyer, and my hourly is $400. If you want to start this, go for it; my kids want to go to college, and I'll have your inventory and 25% of your paycheck for the next 20 years . . .


    hawk, esq., hoping the frivolous papers come his way . . .

  199. I think Pets Warehouse Sucks!! by CamelTrader · · Score: 0, Troll

    Doh. Im screwed now..

    --
    Your .sig is important to us. Please hold.
  200. Not only opinions, but.. by durocshark · · Score: 1

    The posters were describing ACTUAL EVENTS AS HAPPENED TO THEM.

    If I say, "I got a cup of bad coffee from Starbucks," does Starbucks have a case to sue me?

    Of course not.

    But that's just what happened here.

    --
    Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
  201. or . . . by hawk · · Score: 2
    Uhh, lesseee . . .


    God's #1 arch-angel and right-hand (right halo?) being. #2 in all of creation, lives in heaven, and rebels and is cast into hell.


    sounds more like the "fool for a client" category . . .


    :)


    hawk, esq.

  202. Is overlitigiousassholes.com taken yet? by TheMostBob · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long you could run that site before being sued.....

    --
    -- Bob
  203. Re:He is a fudgepacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't think you'll need lube with THAT big a-hole.

  204. Re:Maybe we should make an Overture to PetsWarehou by Skapare · · Score: 2

    But can I do that with each of my 8128 different IP addresses every day and ding them for near $4000 a week?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  205. Important! Not a TradeMark! by dex22 · · Score: 1

    The cheek of this guy! He hasn't been GRANTED the trademark. You cannot infringe a trademark that hasn't been granted yet. This one hasn't even been assigned to an examiner!

    PETS WAREHOUSE Status: New Application - Record Initialized Not Assigned to Examiner
    Primary Class: 31 - Natural agricultural products
    Classes: 31 - Natural agricultural products
    Goods & Services: RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND E-COMMERCE SALE OF PET LIVESTOCK AND RELATED PET SUPPLIES
    Serial No: 76216568
    Reg. No: 0000000

    Filed: February 27, 2001
    First Use: December 4, 1974
    First Commerce: December 4, 1974

    ---------------

    Original Applicant
    Name: Novak, Robert
    Address: 1550 Sunrise Hwy
    Copiague
    Entity Type: Individual

  206. psw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have any of ya'll checked out the psw website (namely the forum - there is a specific area for the legal issues)? http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimateb b.cgi

    he plays all innocent like really really well *scoff*

    get spammed by them, and you get the 'customer service' reps telling you you need a life... *sigh*

    methinks he (Novak) likes to sue for fun..

  207. Homeowner's Insurance and Libel by emad · · Score: 2, Informative

    From what I understand, a number of homeowner's insurance policies provide coverage for slander and libel lawsuits.

    quoting http://www.iii.org/individuals/homei/hbasics/whati sin/

    "You can purchase an umbrella or excess liability policy which provides broader coverage, including claims against you for libel and slander, as well as higher liability limits. Generally, umbrella policies cost between $200 to $350 for $1 million of additional liability protection. "

    Often times this coverage may already be included in the insurance policy. For those of you in a position to purchase these policies, I don't see a reason not to negotiate the libel protection. It sure would have helped these guys.

    --
    Famous Last Words:
    1. Re:Homeowner's Insurance and Libel by Anonnymous+Coward · · Score: 1
      Generally, umbrella policies cost between $200 to $350 for $1 million of additional liability protection.

      I'm savoring the thought of this prick finding out he filed suit against a guy who has a $1MM liability umbrella, and that his insurance company has broken out the O.J. defense team and mentioned a countersuit (insurance companies don't take kindly to extortionists).

  208. 1 4|\/| 31337 L3X0R by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    F34R D4 31337 13>0RZ!

  209. Well, one positive note for pet warehouse :) by Propagandhi · · Score: 1

    I've ordered a few aquatic plants, as well as a filter, light, aqaurium hood, and a few other things from them and all in all I've been pretty satisfied by their service. Wouldn't really be surprised if they did have quite a few problems though, just seem like the kind of company that would :)

  210. Re:PetSWEARhouse are a bunch of Pedophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was it nailed to the perch?
    I mean, if they hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

  211. Naughty Slashdotters! by CosmicEntity · · Score: 1

    Did you notice that their chat forums are down for "routine maintenance"? I'll bet none of us had anything to do with that, now? Did we?

    --
    Error loading humorous sig.
  212. How will the settlers feel in a few years? by mikosullivan · · Score: 2

    I'd be interested to know how the people who settled will feel in a few years. I suspect they will regret their decision. I was bullied when I was a kid. I never fought back, and I regret it every day. I'm not judging the peole who settled... it's a tough and wildly unfair situation. However, I suspect that they will find that the choice they made ends up costing them more than they thought.

    --
    Miko O'Sullivan
    1. Re:How will the settlers feel in a few years? by GGooden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mike, some of us aren't going to rest until the "settled" folkes get back what they lost.. :)... JoAnn should NOT have lost her plantedtank.com domain ONLY because she has 3 kids to put through college and couldn't afford to defend her rights (and she was never even SERVED as a defendant!). Gregory www.thedefensefund.org

  213. Re:PetSWEARhouse are a bunch of Pedophiles by connorbd · · Score: 1, Troll

    That bird wouldn't VOOM if you put 50000 volts through it.

    Still, lovely plumage, the Norwegian Blue. Though I understand they tend to pine for the fjords.

    /Brian

  214. Another reference article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Novak fans will love this...

    http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249

  215. Lol look @ some of the stuff he says. by Encomium · · Score: 1

    The plantiff says: "Some of you have read comments in this and other chat rooms to the effect I "sued for someone having posted critical comments about this business" or that customers are sued for voicing there opinions relating to the companies products or services. Not the true story! That is a "spin" the defense fund and their supporters would like to have you believe. It is in fact another lie by them. Their attacks, to champion themselves and to raise the profile of their cause so their proponents would keep financially supporting a supposed "successful" group. This would allow them to continue the concerted efforts to harm the company. Their ultimate goal is to raise money in their pursuit to harm." According to this guy they are all in on a conspiracy against his company. I love the line: "Their ultimate goal is to raise money in their pursuit to harm." I don't see how this could possibly be true given that he initiated the need for the fund when he sued them. Plus as far as I know all the money in the fund went to lawyers defending the plantiffs... not exactly harming him or his company.

  216. Gomez no longer certifies merchants by chipotle_pickle · · Score: 3, Funny

    The perswarehouse site still notes its Gomez certification. However, as of March 31, of this year, Gomez has figured out that it does not know how to or can't afford to certify merchants. As of April 1, Petswarehouse is using the Gomez trademark without permission. LOL. See Gomez note here http://gomez.com/certification/single_firm.asp?fir m_id=1507&industry_id=35

  217. You're hired! by fm6 · · Score: 2

    You mind working on 100% contingency? I don't want any money from this bozo -- I just want to deter people who consider the first amendment a legal technicality.

    1. Re:You're hired! by hawk · · Score: 2
      One of the early rules to learn is *never* work on a 100% contingency--the client has no real incentive, and it's usually already a pissing match when it's offered.


      But no, I really don't have the time to land in another state to do this, anyway. If he wants to sue me, he has to come to a court with jurisdiction.


      hawk

  218. Illogical Justice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh this is like saying women are human. Socrates is human, therfore socrates is a woman. What they teach in school these days? Justice should be an equality. One shouldn't have one class of justice for those who can afford it, and another kind for those who can't.

  219. MSNBC has story (and cute gagged fish) by jbridges · · Score: 3, Informative

    Web talk lands some in hot water

    My favorite is the Long Island Business news article about how filing lawsuits is this guy's "hobby".

  220. Movie:"Death to Tourism Industry" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Besides, I'm in Brazil, and not planning to set foot in the USA anytime soon (never if the CBDTPA passes..."

    The first casuality of CBDTPA. The tourism industry! As if 9/11 wasn't bad enough.

  221. Re:This happened to me years back in the days of B by Anonnymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Or you could have strapped a pair on, moved any assets out of your own name, called their bluff, and told them to bring it on. The worst that would have happened is that they would win, you'd laugh at the judgement, and file Chapter 7.

    Chances are, they were just sabre rattling anyway and would have left you alone. But instead, you caved. And you, like so many others, have helped erode free speech for ordinary people.

  222. google adwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe it's time to throw some money at some google adwords? A few catchy phrases comes to my mind.

  223. A question for Slashdot editors. by Faux_Pseudo · · Score: 2

    Where was the YRO story when they filed suit to stop the legal defence fund? This seems like a moster sized issue compared to some of the YRO stories. I most definitly want to know when steps are taken to see to it that not only is my right to free speach on the net infringed but to add insult to injury they wanted to stop the defendants from paying for a defence? Please let us know the next time insult is added to injury on free net speak.

    1. Re:A question for Slashdot editors. by asonthebadone · · Score: 1

      I submitted this story to Slashdot a month ago but it was rejected.

      "2002-03-08 04:12:16 Aquarium Hobbyist Mailing List Under Attack (articles,news) (rejected) "

  224. A clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent post is a comment on the sad state of a system that gives people a strong financial incentive to seek justice through illegal means. It is not a recommendation. That should be obvious.

  225. PetsWarehouse = Al Qaeda front group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were the ones who set up the logistics which allowed 9/11 to happen. Also, they were the ones who armed the hijackers with their box cutters and sent out the anthrax mailings. Robert Novak is best friends with Osama bin Laden and is building him a suitcase nuke in PetsWarehouse's basement HQ. Finally, he also wears a cheerleader outfit while taking it up the ass from Michael Jackson. Fuck PetsWarehouse.

  226. Wrong target? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...the reason he's so litigation happy is his son is a lawyer

    Is what this son doing actionable, or even enough to get him disbarred? For that matter, most law firms don't like bad publicity. Can't someone appeal to his sensibilities?

    You guys are pickin' the wrong enemy, or so it seems to me. I mean, if my dad's misdeeds were getting me in hot water, I think I'd get struck sensible by a thunderbolt of ethic proportions (irony/puns intended).

    Man, I sure hope I don't regret posting this non-anon... screw it... I'm anon. I'll make a stand when I'm out of debt enough to be a bastard back at someone like this.

  227. And he's still in one piece? by dswan69 · · Score: 1

    They know where the little bastard lives and he didn't even suffer an unfortunate accident? That's sad.

  228. RN sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RN sucks

  229. Back up by fourmat · · Score: 1

    Looks like his bulletin board is backup and running. He got /.ed yesterday and had to take it down.

    1. Re:Back up by fourmat · · Score: 1

      Just checked again, and they aren't accepting any new registrations on their BB. Gee, wonder why?

  230. I did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did. But, I took on Mattel and won, and will win again. I read his brief and the docket, it reminds me of a guy I used to work for. He thinks he was such a great legal mind, but he is a joke and an idiot. Before he was criminally convicted, he threatened the Assistant District Attorney.

  231. Re:This happened to me years back in the days of B by lordmage · · Score: 1

    You fail to recognize the truth of Free Speech, Free Speech is not CHEAP. Free Speech comes at a price and the company I represented, while acknowledging my RIGHT to state those things, would not go to court over it.

    Your right to free speech is only a criminal right or have you not heard? You can get sued for saying things all the time. Since you said I erode your rights, I can sue you and you would have to prove it in order to show that you did not slander my good name.

    You live in the Golden Times, where Gold means you have the Time.

    Its very simple, If I had the money, I can keep the rights I have with a good lawyer. No one eroded the right, it still exists.. we just cannot afford to pay for our "FREE SPEECH"

    --
    I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
  232. Thanks.... by Pezito · · Score: 1

    I submitted this story about 6 months ago and it was rejected. Clearly Salon has more influence than I do....

  233. Re:But what do you do when he adds you to the suit by Rakarra · · Score: 2
    Hell, I'm already getting sued, I'll add on to it.

    PetsWarehouse.com ATE MY BALLS!

    You know... really stupid statements like this aren't really helpful to your case.

  234. Pool for Bankruptcy Court Date... by fourmat · · Score: 1

    Anyone want to start a pool to guess on what date Mr. Novak will have to show up in court for a PWhse bankruptcy hearing?

    1. Re:Pool for Bankruptcy Court Date... by APD+Mary+Roe · · Score: 1

      Pretty fast would be my bet. Mainstream media has picked this up. This will eventually work it's way through all the mainstream media outlets. Not quite the 15 minutes of fame he'd hoped for. Textbook example of how to win the battle and loose the war.

      He's been subjected to the "slashdot effect" [thank you btw].

      Whoever is old enough to remember Ross Perot will understand this,

      I hear a great sucking sound...

    2. Re:Pool for Bankruptcy Court Date... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't get their website to come up...

      It's http://www.petswarehouse.com right?

  235. Bravo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What an excellent analogy, dead on...you shoulda been modded up

  236. Good point by WNight · · Score: 2

    I have to agree, it's sad but true.

    Truer even, if you realize that the ultimate backing of laws is force. Those lawyers are really just negotiators for the mercenaries, but if you don't play along, even in an outrageous case like this, you could be bankrupt and without prospects when they're through with you.

    There needs to be some way for people to defend themselves in these cases. I support the idea that the two sides be forced to pool money and share equally. That way you can't buy your way out in either case. Loser being forced to pay only up to double the ammount they put up... If A sues B, A puts in $5k and B puts in $50k, A should only be responsible for $10k, tops. (Otherwise you couldn't out-lawyer your opponent, but you could still hold the threat of huge legal bills, should they lose, over their head.)

  237. Re:But what do you do when he adds you to the suit by Xerithane · · Score: 1

    If I cared as much as I probably should, you may have a point. I seriously doubt that their lawyer browses slashdot, but if he does, Hey!

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  238. Re:Dialing 1-800-991-3299 frivolously would be wro by WNight · · Score: 2

    To call and harass them would be wrong, yes. But to call them and calmly explain to the representative that spurious lawsuits and scare tactics have cost them a potential customer, as well as leading you to warn all of your friends against ever shopping there... That wouldn't be wrong. In fact, I think it's the "right" thing to do. If you have a problem with someone, tell them up front. It's a business issue, so using the business line is appropriate.

    Just keep it honest, and non-harassing and it's a legit call. The fact that they can't be duping an innocent customer while taking complaints is just gravy... Really though, if this were a "bricks and mortar" store people could picket out front, there's no cyber-equivalent (except putting up opposing web pages) so this seems justified to me.

  239. Re:Dialing 1-800-991-3299 frivolously would be wro by APD+Mary+Roe · · Score: 1

    He does have a "brick and mortar" place: Pets Warehouse 1550 Sunrise Hwy, Copiague, NY 11726 Seems that he has disabled the link for the "Company Info" on a few pages. Wonder what that's all about?

  240. Look. . .you know. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . .I know you can't understand this, but we're not all cowards. Like you.

  241. Re:This happened to me years back in the days of B by Anonnymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    You didn't mention that you represented a company. Still, I hope you left since they weren't willing to back you for being right. Caving as a corporation is just as bad as caving as a man.

  242. Re:But what do you do when he adds you to the suit by Rakarra · · Score: 2
    If I cared as much as I probably should, you may have a point.

    Well, hehe... fair enough. :) It's your money. ;)

    I seriously doubt that their lawyer browses slashdot,

    Well I was thinking, even if he doesn't browse Slashdot normally, I would think he'd be reading this story. Slashdot has a lot of readers, and this was a relatively small story that suddenly got negative exposure on a fairly sizable site. In addition, if you're using the same email address for Slashdot and the besieged mailing list, it's very easy to just do a search on google for that address...

  243. Re:But what do you do when he adds you to the suit by Xerithane · · Score: 1

    Ohh, no, I'm not beign sued by them -- someone else. I really don't mind getting sued again, was my point :)

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  244. You decide, I am not commenting pro or con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I visited the petswarehouse retail location and found absolutely no plants in stock, except for one lonely Madgasgar Lace bulb. I went back a week later and no plants in stock. For the following 10 weeks the same thing. This was done over a twelve week period

    Each of these weeks, I called the store and ask if they had a certain plant or even any plant in stock. I was told yes to all. I asked if I could mail order and when would they be delivered. I was told on the phone they would ship the same week. The plants have also been on the website the entire period and no mention of stocking conditions or levels (which, by the way, adding this little piece of CGI scripting, would have saved them all this embarassment).

    According to the boxes that I saw from a shipment arriving at their store (I caught them on one occasion when they were stocking), they purchase their plants from a US based distributor. They apparently did not import directly as claimed, in this instance. This was over a year ago.

    These are facts and I will not comment on what this means pro or con. I cannot post my identity since I would be sued for revealing truth. I live ten minutes away and have never purchased plants from these guys. If you don't beleive me go there yourself.

    These are not my opinions, just observations of the truth that I witnessed. You decide the meaning.

    My only personal comment is that it is unfortunate that Mr. Novak cannot comprehend that in trying to protect the good name of his company and himself, he has done nothing but bring more negative press his way. He has succeeded in making his company look much worse in the consumers eyes. He now looks dangerous. His little "hobby" must be a higher priority than positive PR. A fool playing lawyer is only a fool in a suit. He should think more about his marketing, than his little hobby.

    Bob, if you read this, you're a fool. I've known you for years. I apologize for being harsh, but your actions are not smart for a man in business. You should drop this whole thing and cut your losses now, before you dig the hole too deep. The only problem is you have handed shovels to too many people now, and they may keep digging!

  245. Re:This happened to me years back in the days of B by lordmage · · Score: 1

    Of course I left! I found out though, what "party line" means in todays terms. You see, the real thing is that truth does not matter in the workplace, its the three letters: CYA (cover your ass).

    What was interesting is I had 2 bosses back then, 1 was stating what I did was a PART of my job and if I had failed to do it, why was I there? The other was afraid of litigation and would not deal. Some boss way up made the decision.

    I did not know that boss, and will not work for a company that I dont know the people making the decisions for me anymore. Think of all the Enron employees..

    So the mantra: CYA and damn the torpedoes, you sink anyways.

    --
    I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
  246. Not even "routine maintenance" now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been trying to get over to the forums at www.petswarehouse.com (to see what "Bob" has to say for himself this time) and it's not even "down for maintenance". It's just... not there.

    It almost looks as if they're dumping the forum altogether... except they didn't bother to remove the link from the main page. Oh, wait, do they even know HOW to remove the link from the main page?

  247. board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has anyone tried emailing them about this mysterious board nonexistance problem ? it doesn't come up for me either, and I was registered on his old board (for over a year). and I never got any email from them, notifying me of a board http address change.

  248. petswarehousesucks.com was Just a thought.. by Avantare · · Score: 1

    As I was driving home from work today I was thinking about making a banner that has a baby kitten (pet) followed by a person 'swearing' (i.e.: %$&@) followed by a house with money and the words 1st Amendment showing in the windows followed by a vacuum cleaner sucking up the house with the words petswearhouse on the hose being held by a man with the initials F.L.P. on the sleeve and $$ signs in the eyes. I'll put it as the entry page for the new petswarehousesucks.com site. Now, I would do this myself but an artist I am definitely not. If someone wants to do this or even do a Flash movie and donate it for the site you will be given full credit unless you wish to remain anonymous. Now that's COMEDY !!

    1. Re:petswarehousesucks.com was Just a thought.. by Avantare · · Score: 1

      opps... F.L.P. = Frivolous Lawsuit Person And, yes, I do own the petswarehousesucks.com domain. As soon as it propagates (supposedly by Tuesday, 4-16) you'll be able to get to it. What happens if it gets blogged bombed or waht ever that is that messes with the Google search engine? (hint... hint...)