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.
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.
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!
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.
--
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 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
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
Their intelligence rivals my elbow.
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?
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.
"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?
Looks like PetsWarehouse.com has a message board. Maybe all us slashdoters should go over there and post our opinions on the topic.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
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
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
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.
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.
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.
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...
--
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.