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.
... 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...
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.
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.
Fight Spammers!
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!
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.
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!
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.
Does that mean Novak will sue Salon? And then slashdot for linking to Salon?
[o]_O
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
In case it get's S'dotted.
...
... it was one of the selling points for me. Then the
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
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
--
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.
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
$666.66/hour.
Best Slashdot Co
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.
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
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
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!"
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)
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..."
$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
Go here:l timateb b.cgi
http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/U
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
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)
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.
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
... 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.
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.
Um, Novak has no attorney. He's representing himself. RTFA.
Their intelligence rivals my elbow.
Let their customers know about this practice, or at least tell them about the Salon article go to:i mateb b.cgi
http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ult
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
...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?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
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...
(*SIGH*) If only that were a joke.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
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.
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.
"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?
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.
A B849AC- DBB0-42C5-B048-5A3CC89706BF}
Don't believe me? Go here.
http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id={6
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
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
>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!
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.
I mean, sure, the added karma's nice, but this guy obviously has no hesitations about suing people...
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
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
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?
Hell, I'm already getting sued, I'll add on to it.
PetsWarehouse.com ATE MY BALLS!
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
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.
There's also the fact that he might be telling the truth about bad service.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
There is a chat forum on his site:
Chat forum
--- witty signature
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
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.
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
Unfortunately, The Plaintiff only has to file his suit to drain your pockets.
Doesn't the court appoint you a lawyer if you cannot afford one?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
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
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).
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
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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
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.
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!
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.
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
http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimateb b.cgi :"Sorry, this bulletin board is temporarily unavailable, while we perform some routine maintenance. Please try back again later."
Could it be in any way related to somebody having posted the address here ?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...
--
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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.
Is it a sole proprietorship? Don't assume it's a corporation or something.
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 . . .
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.
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
"...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.
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
From what I understand, a number of homeowner's insurance policies provide coverage for slander and libel lawsuits.
i sin/
quoting http://www.iii.org/individuals/homei/hbasics/what
"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:
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
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
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.
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".
I predict falling sales revenues for this guy. Wonder who he'll sue next to make up for that?
Capitalism?
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
Ascii artist &
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.
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.
PetsWarehouse.com ATE MY BALLS!
You know... really stupid statements like this aren't really helpful to your case.
Not for long. PetWarehouse is now www.drfostersmith.com.
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.)
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.
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.
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...