Software Company Sues Popular Australian Forum

Pugzly writes "In a recent announcement on the Whirlpool front page, it appears that accounting software maker 2clix is suing the founder of the forums as the founder "allowed statements 'relating to the Plaintiff and its software product that are both false and malicious' to be published on the Whirlpool forums."

Comments

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[peter_gzowski]

Oops, Australian forum. Nevermind, I was overcome by the possibility of a first post...

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[simong]

Congressional law doesn't apply in Australia. Or anywhere else apart from the USA. Just thought I'd remind you.

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada is the 51st state you insensitive clod!

Appliances?

[macshome]

I'm sure I won't be the only one, but on first read I thought the summary was about an appliance company.

Took me a second to realize my mistake.

Re:Appliances?

[dp3n3tr8]

Guess who's mums got a whirlpool!

Thread Links

[Anonymous Coward]

Links to the threads in question:

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=628356
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=479484

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[bailey86]

Wonder if 2clix realise that what the combination of terrible publicity and lawyers bills have done to SCO? Here's a wild idea for them ... ummm... crazy I know but here goes.... IMPROVE YOUR PRODUCT! Still - this is what competition is all about I suppose.

It happens

[clickclickdrone]

I had someone make derogotory comments about some training firm on one of my sites and said firm emailed to ask we pulled the comment otherwise they might need to get legal on us. We pulled it. The firm were fairly reasonable about the whole thing given it took a week or so (ahem, the admin for the forum section had forgotton his pw).
There was no real reason not to comply - it was a silly comment with nothing to back it up, from memory 'anyone know a good IT trainer? I tried xxx but they were crap and tried to fleece me out of more money'.
Wouldn't have minded but when I looked it up, it had been there 3 years.

Re:It happens

[davidmwilliams]

One of the many flaws in 2Clix is that you get an unhandled division by zero exception when reprinting payslips if a certain non-mandatory field is zero or empty. Now, surely division by zero is the most basic and fundamental example of error handling used in any programming course or book or tutorial or other. To my mind, 2Clix are receiving negative criticisms for having software which is poorly-written and unreliable in its behaviour and outputs. To then attempt to silence critics by demanding censorship of unpalatable comments is nothing short of arrogant, bullying and reprehensible. I can barely imagine 2Clix or its lawyer considered how massive and widespread the publicity would become! People worldwide now know of this tiny accounting software package - and not for good reasons. Whirlpool.net.au is a well-respected forum, frequented by many IT professionals and decision-makers. I think 2Clix will find that Simon Wright has far more credibility and supporters than they do.

Re:It happens

[Ajehals]

The comment as you have described it seems perfectly fair (it is someone's opinion of someone else..) and potentially quite useful to other users of the forum, especially if others add their views. I would be doubtful that it is illegal in almost any (sane) country to express a negative opinion of something. I haven't read the thread so I don't know what comments were made in this case, but in the case you describe I would be more inclined to put the company complaining and the complainant in contact and have them sort the issue out between them, any company that tries to fight negative opinions (however they are formed) about themselves with legal action, is not going to gain any confidence from its potential customers.

Clearly it would be different if someone is claiming something as a fact but is in fact lying i.e. "CarMaker A is EVIL, they skin kittens to make their upholstery!! - Don't buy from them", but an opinion i.e. "I don't like CarMaker A" or "CarMaker A's Cars are not as nice as CarMaker B's" or even "CarMakerA is crap", is always valid (if it is an honest one, and its not really practicable to distinguish an honest opinion from a dishonest one).

The real problem comes when companies can have negative opinions removed from sites under threat of legal action (whether it has merit or not). It gives corporations far too much control over what the public can and do see or read about them. Of course for a small website owner, a hobbyist or simply an enthusiast of some sort, the threat of legal action is almost always poses too much of a risk and the reaction to remove offending material is clearly understandable.

What is needed is a mechanism whereby any person or organisation who receives a legal threat is able to evaluate its merit, and if it is totally worthless and/or malicious, to take action against the originator.

Re:It happens

[PJ1216]

way to go. now 2clix is gonna sue slashdot.org. i hear they're planning on suing the internet too.

Re:It happens

[funkdancer]

Man, you nearly made my LCD screens become soaked with coffee. That was too funny. :D

Fwiw I'm one of the many who chipped in a small sum. Just the cost of one lunch, but given the numbers of users, if a few get in on it it will quickly become enough to provide the support that we require.

I believe this case is very important to the Australian online community. Therefore we are taking it quite seriously, as we should.

Now to something completely different; is anyone taking bets on how long 2Clix will stay in business after this? They really must have had just about zero connection with reality when they went up against Whirlpool and thus in effect pretty much the "educated masses" of the Australian online community.

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[simong]

Actually, with Australia's history of ill-considered legislation over the Internet, expect forums to be made illegal in the next six months.

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[Daimanta]

Well, that's what "liberation" of countries is for, right?

Now I Will Remember 2clix

[GaryPatterson]

I'd never heard of them before, but now I have. I now know that they're overly sensitive to criticism and resort to litigation as a way of resolving complaints.

I'll be certain to avoid them in future and recommend against such a dangerous company if ever I get the chance.

Thanks 2clix, you've revealed your true colours.

(I'm an Australian, living in Melbourne)

Australian Defamation Laws

[Hellsbells]

Australian Defamation Laws are ridiculously powerful.

A failed restaurant recently successfully sued a major newspaper for a negative review in the Australian High Court.

Re:Australian Defamation Laws

[Spy der Mann]

Australian Defamation Laws are ridiculously powerful.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZT! Defamation alert! Lawsuit!

Re:flame war == profit?

[mwvdlee]

I'll just post some slanderous lies about myself on /. as an AC, then sue /. for million$!

The more true it is the more liable you are.

[MrKaos]

At least in Australia, and free speech here is a joke, you are free to agree, go visit 2clix it might be enough to make a point that folks on the internet don't like being bullied by excessively litigous companies.

My real fear about this issue

[smegged]

I am very concerned about this lawsuit. There are two very real outcomes that could occur should whirlpool lose.

• Firstly, whirlpool are THE resource for finding out about ISPs in Australia. Their neutrality and open forums, should they be lost, would be very, very bad for consumers.
• Secondly, a ruling against whirlpool means a precedent would be set which basically ensured that forums in Australia would be practically eliminated. This is both bad for a lot of businesses and bad for users.

For these reasons I really really hope that whirlpool wins (well, for those reasons and the obvious moral reasons).

I'll take bullies for 200, Alex.

[Anne_Nonymous]

Is it true that 2clix eats puppies and kittens for breakfast?

Re:I'll take bullies for 200, Alex.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard the founder of 2clix can't orgasm unless he's strangling a puppy.

Re:I'll take bullies for 200, Alex.

[deniable]

It is now.

You couldnt Pick a Worse Crowd to pick on

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.. software developers.. just a word of advice... most people on whirlpool, are IT managers and admins... we are all just about to say NEVER to any 2clix software.

Re:You couldnt Pick a Worse Crowd to pick on

[deniable]

... or company decision makers who've asked us about ISPs for home. I've sent at least two MDs and one financial controller there for information.

Re:You couldnt Pick a Worse Crowd to pick on

[Manaz]

"most people on whirlpool, are IT managers and admins"

Oh please. Whilst I'm sure there are a lot of IT Managers and sysadmins on Whirlpool (I'm one of them), they're vastly outnumbered by kids and "enthusiast" internet users who's prime purpose on Whirlpool is to shop around for the most speed and monthly download capacity for their (parents) dollar.

A couple of facts about this situation

[Anonymous Coward]

The thread/s in question cited by the lawsuit are actually something like #2 and #3 for a google search of 2clix - under their official site.

So just to clarify, every time a potential customer searches for this company, they find a very easily accessible thread indicating user dissatisfaction.

I think most of us can agree that this type of thing will absolutely ruin a software company.

Not saying that they don't perhaps deserve repercussions but one can see how this has escalated when such a clearly damaging thread exists so easily discovered by sales targets.

I post this because a lot of people are getting on the bandwagon about how evil these guys are when infact this is probably the end of their business. Its a regretful situation for all and I'm glad that Simon is protecting free speech on his board but I can't help but be sorry for those people.

Maybe they deserve it.. who knows.

Re:A couple of facts about this situation

[Aladrin]

There were 2 ways to fix this problem:

1) Post a reasonable response with an attempt to fix whatever problems the user was having. (Actual attempt is optional, it just has to LOOK like they are trying.)

2) Lawsuit. A very public and damaging lawsuit that makes you scream 'EVERYONE THINKS WE SUCK BUT WE DON'T REALLY' to even have a chance at winning.

Yeah, smart. Assuming you are correct that this means the end of their business, they handled it exactly the wrong way. Nobody succeeds these days in covering up their stupidity with a lawsuit. Many companies HAVE succeeded by promising to fix the problem. Or at least looking like it. You can actually fail to fix things for years if you are nice enough when you promise to fix them. Eventually people will catch on, but you'll be richer by then and can sell the company and move to some nice beach somewhere.

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[deniable]

Well to quote their (website:

Sold Complete, Not Broken into Modules

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[simong]

No, that's to make sure that they get the right client government while letting their citizens kill each other in the manner of their choosing ;)

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[Nazlfrag]

Except, of course, where an Australian judge deems it fit. Extradition's a bitch.

Re:Australian Defamation Laws-USA still has issues

[Christoph]

Australian Defamation Laws are ridiculously powerful.

A failed restaurant recently successfully sued a major newspaper for a negative review in the Australian High Court.

I'm defending myself (and my website) at trial in federal court in two months (November, 2007) against "deceptive trade practices" and "interference with prospective contractual relations" (a defamation claim was dropped).

My webpage criticizes a corporation that published my stock photos without permission and refused to pay the licensing fee. The federal court ruled last month that they were, in fact, guilty of infringement. Yet the court is still allowing their claims against my webpage to proceed, apparently based on comments posted by other victims of the same corporation (which, under the Section 230 of the CDA, I'm not liable for anyway)

Next month is the TWO YEAR anniversary of the claims against me. Nothing on my webpage is specifically cited as factually untrue, no evidence the webpage is false has been produced, yet we are still going to trial -- ?!?. Although I expect to prevail, I'm not sure this is hugely better than the Australian case (which I read about previously and is pretty bad). I'm pro-se, doing this on my own (my webpage with a chronology). If I had a lawyer, my costs might be over $100,000 by now.

I've posted about my case here even though it could lead to MORE claims against me as I truly in my heart believe in freedom of speech, and I won't concede to a "chilling effect" because of baseless, SLAPP lawsuits.

This is what probably caused the action...

[Col Bat Guano]

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=628356&r=12820406#r12820406

The forum thread had been running for many months, but in late August there was some real action starting to occur on getting information for legal action against 2clix.

My guess is that they would like to shut the thread down and prevent more people from getting involved in suing them.

Tragic, but sensible.

[Sj0]

Now we all know why the Maytag repair man doesn't get internet access.

Re:Congress provided a shield for this

[Cozminsky]

Or you change your name so only the lunatic fringe recognize you as the same company.