Slashdot Mirror


Magicjack Loses Legal Attack Against Boing Boing

An anonymous reader sends word that USB VOIP company Magicjack lost a lawsuit against Boing Boing when the judge declared the legal action a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation). Magicjack must pay more than $50,000 in legal costs. Boing Boing has posted a page linking and summarizing all the legal documents relating to the lawsuit.

42 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Well, MagicJack succeeded in by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    convincing me to not buy their product. Too bad, I was considering getting hold of one to play around with it. But I try not to support companies run by litigious pricks with no sense of humor.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      According to the linked article:

      After the dismissal of the lawsuit, MagicJack CEO Dan Borislow apologized and told us that his lawyers, Arnold & Porter, did not fully disclose to him the weaknesses in his case or properly analyze California law. During negotiations, we were surprised when MagicJack agreed to a settlement of our legal costs, then backed out. We would not agree to keep the actual legal dispute confidential under any circumstances. However, we offered not to publish details of our legal costs or their settlement if Borislow would donate $25,000 to charity. MagicJack, however, offered to pay our legal bill only if we'd agree to keep the whole dispute confidential; when we refused, Borislow wrote that he would 'see us in court.' Nonetheless, we're happy with the outcome. The irony for MagicJack is that the proceedings are public record, so the silence it sought was effectively worthless.

      To some extent it looks like they weren't litigious pricks as much as having gotten very bad legal advice and then not backed out when they should have. So this may be more in the category of "too stubborn" more than anything else.

    2. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful


      To some extent it looks like they weren't litigious pricks as much as having gotten very bad legal advice and then not backed out when they should have.

      So the lawyer thought they could win and was wrong. That somehow excuses them from being pricks by suing in the first place? You make it sound like the lawyer somehow forced Magic Jack to sue.

        So this may be more in the category of "too stubborn" more than anything else.

      I'd say stubborn pricks describes it quite well. Who sues someone for a factually accurate article that describes something the company publicly posted on their site, but hoped nobody would notice? I hadn't heard about the lawsuit or the spying behaviour of magic jack before. (Though I had heard of magic jack). You better believe I'll tell people that they reserve the right to spy on people based on who they call, then decide to sue people who tell anybody.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      convincing me to not buy their product. Too bad, I was considering getting hold of one to play around with it. But I try not to support companies run by litigious pricks with no sense of humor.

      I ordered two of them but when I tried to activate the service it dropped the web link midway through. I wound up stuck in a limbo of not being able to activate them. I tried to contact tech support but all they offered is that bloody chat support. Every time I do that I end up typing for a half hour to an hour to solve a five minute problem. They said that was the only option so I canceled the service and warned others. Crappy service cost them a customer. Add $20 to the price and high actual support people! Nice idea bad execution.

    4. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No Ubuntu client. Jerking us around ad infinitum. Convinced me not to touch them a loonnnnng time ago.

    5. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the lawyer thought they could win and was wrong. That somehow excuses them from being pricks by suing in the first place? You make it sound like the lawyer somehow forced Magic Jack to sue.

      Yes. A good lawyer should have told them they had no chance of winning the lawsuit. Prosecuting a libel case in the US is extremely difficult even when the plaintiff has a legitimate case to make.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    6. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the lawyer thought they could win and was wrong. That somehow excuses them from being pricks by suing in the first place? You make it sound like the lawyer somehow forced Magic Jack to sue.

      Yes. A good lawyer should have told them they had no chance of winning the lawsuit. Prosecuting a libel case in the US is extremely difficult even when the plaintiff has a legitimate case to make.

      But that lawyer would have walked away with less money.

    7. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by plover · · Score: 3, Funny

      MagicJack are indeed stubborn pricks.

      But take it no further: "Litigious bastards" is still a phrase best reserved for SCO.

      --
      John
    8. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      DO NOT EVER TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AWAY FROM THE MOVANT and PUT IT ON THEIR LAWYERS.

      If you hire dicks to sue people, it means you hired dicks to sue people.

      It makes me angry because I've been on the receiving end of such dickishness.

       

    9. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To some extent it looks like they weren't litigious pricks as much as having gotten very bad legal advice and then not backed out when they should have.

      Or, their litigious pricks who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, and our now blaming their lawyers.

    10. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by nudicle · · Score: 3, Informative
      The problem with this whole line of thinking is that we don't know what Dan Borislow's lawyers said to him. We only know what Dan Borislow says about his lawyers.

      Trust me, every day good lawyers say to their clients the equivalent of "if things blow up, just blame it your lawyer". They often do this when their clients say "I don't care about the probability of getting what I want, I want to got for it. How can I do damage control?"

    11. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by douglips · · Score: 3, Funny

      Waste of time, really. All you have to do to get a BoingBoing post taken down is to somehow link the story to the words "Violet Blue."

    12. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      So they aren't litigious pricks, they are just court-happy jackasses?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Damn you are so right, but for Magic Jack it's just a cost of quelling free speech. They will probably keep doing this to blogging sites, especially those that aren't as big as Boing Boing. In most other states you can't sue them back either. I think that might be a good idea anytime someone looses a civil suit. Make them pay cost if their was no reasonable way they could win period in all the states in all cases.

      I mean is $50,000 really enough to slow them up? They could stand that all day long and some smaller sites may not last it out that long. What a shame.

    14. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by MoralHazard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're dead right about that. Big Law doesn't like quitters. Firms like A&P, Skadden, etc. are staffed & partnered by the top 10-20% of law school grads, who are the worst kind of Type-A, hypomanic, aggressive, need-to-win kids. (They're also pretty damn smart, but that's orthogonal.) The attitude is like a boot-camp drill instructor: If you didn't kick the other guy's ass, you weren't trying hard enough, even if "hard enough" means working 100-hour weeks for months on end. It's unreal.

      I have a bunch of friends from college that went to the good law schools and ended up taking Big Law offers before the diploma ink was dry. Most of them left before the 5-year mark, got their lives back, and are much happier. The few still climbing the partner-track cliff are some of the smartest, most dedicated people I know, but they have no family life and I only see them about twice a year.

      Of course, they start at $150k+ salaries and move up to $200k and $300k range by their 5th year, so I don't feel too sorry for them. And for the rare few who do manage to hold on all the way to the brass ring (making partner), the annual compensation gets into the low 7-figure range. If they ever get tired of that, they can pretty much pick their next jobs in the corporate world at the $1M+ level.

    15. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      if he could use a hardware weapon

      Well, if you count the apparently rather thick skull of his lawyer as hardware, I'd say that's exactly what he did.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    16. Re:Well, MagicJack succeeded in by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with this whole line of thinking is that we don't know what Dan Borislow's lawyers said to him.

      Doesn't matter. Lawyers are just tools to get what whoever pays them wants, and he wanted Boing Boing to shut up.

      This Borislow character went after a site that was publishing factual material. As it happened, this was information that he didn't want his customers (or potential customers) knowing about. In other words, he wants to do whatever he wants without any consequences and he's only apologizing because he had is ass handed to him on a Sterno-fueled platter.

      Furthermore, if you want to mistreat your customers, and use attack lawyers to silence any criticism of your actions, then you're exactly what I originally called him: a litigious prick.

      Of course, a large number of people that had never heard of Magic Jack now know that the company is owned and operated by a complete jerk. That can't be good for sales ... I mean, cripes if there was ever a prime example of the Streisand effect, this is it. You'd think that someone who runs an Internet communications company would have a bit more on the ball. I guess that just makes him a stupid jerk.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Soooo.... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 5, Funny

    MagicJack SLAPPed a Boing Boing? Sounds dirty to me.

  3. A little background please? by dido · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary could have put in a word about how MagicJack sued for defamation after Boing Boing made a post highly critical of their EULA, before explaining how the judge shot their suit down as a SLAPP...

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    1. Re:A little background please? by hldn · · Score: 3, Funny

      this is their ploy to get us to read the articles.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    2. Re:A little background please? by value_added · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sued for defamation? That's not the half of it!

      In the lawsuit ... MagicJack alleged that these statements were false, misleading, and had irreparably harmed MagicJack's reputation by exposing it to "hate, ridicule and obloquy".

      Someone's got to say it ...

      Our three weapons are ... hate, ridicule and obloquoy!

  4. Great tech, shitty business by bguiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even BoingBoing agrees that MagicJack's hardware is great stuff... Too bad their marketing/management/legal department seems to think it can get away with shady practices like their crappy EULA.

    1. Re:Great tech, shitty business by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Informative

      The hardware is NOT great stuff. It's a cheap china usb soundcard -> Phone interface. Granted you cant screw that up too badly, but it's not cisco enterprise quality Voip hardware.. it's very low cost consumer hardware.

      Which means what in terms of use? Bad gain? Untenable echo? Impedence problems? Crackly sound?

      Walt Mossberg's review said people he was talking to couldn't tell he wasn't on a landline, though I doubt Walt ever gets a random box off the warehouse shelf.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. So MagicJack probed their ports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Option number two looked warm, they took it, and it wasn't as clean an approach as they thought?

    I give...

  6. FUD about Blogging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article;

    In the lawsuit... It also alleged that I am a professional blogger.

    I knew that bloggers were disreputable sources for Wikipedia, but I had no idea that being a blogger could be used against you in a court of law.

    1. Re:FUD about Blogging by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Elite blogging is an oxymoron, like military intelligence or Microsoft Works (tm).

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
  7. I lo;ve MagicJack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I continue to be amused by the power switch on the MagicJack: MagicJack On. MagicJack Off.

  8. Re:Alternatives? by Jeff321 · · Score: 2, Informative

    SkypeIn

  9. Re:"Magicjack Loses Legal Attack Against Boing Boi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Facebook is not social interaction, no matter how many times you say it is.

  10. Re:Why the black ops stuff? by Itninja · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have also read that, despite being advertised on those 'as seen on TV' ads that everyone hates, the product actually does what it says. Even stodgy old Consumer Reports says it's a winner.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  11. Re:Why the black ops stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    But their business model is unsustainable. There are real, FCC-mandated costs to terminating calls on the PSTN. Those costs are more than $20/year if you terminate even a few hours of calls in rural areas, and can easily exceed $20/year even if you only ever call metro numbers.

    The only way MagicJack can make a go of it is by becoming a CLEC, preferably in areas with high termination fees, then collecting those termination fees on inbound calls and hoping that they get enough inbound traffic to pay termination fees on all their outbound calls. Presumably most of their outbound calls are to low-rate metro areas, which makes things easier, but it's still playing an arbitrage game. They also stack they deck by explicitly block some high-termination-rate areas -- mostly those used by other companies with the same business model -- meaning you simply can't connect with some people or services in high-tarrif regions.

    The long and the short of it is real phone companies won't put up with this for long if they see it as a real threat. They'll either start doing it themselves and the mandatory termination fees will be restructured, or they'll find some way to make it illegal/convince their lawmakers and regulators that it already is illegal.

  12. Re:Why the black ops stuff? by toadlife · · Score: 2, Informative

    My Dad bought one over a year ago. He still uses it and has been happy with it.

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  13. Parallel with Google AdSense by bguiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It just struck me that the main bone BoingBoing had to pick with MagicJack's EULA is that its users' calls are monitored, and are played targeted ads (obtained from said monitoring). How is this really much different from Google's adsense inside of gmail, where ads containing keywords found in your email's body are displayed next to your emails?

    Not that I am supporting MagicJack or Google in anyway, but what really was the difference? Did it boil down to Google's better wording or selling of its adsense, or are we just more sensitive when it is done to audio/ voice as opposed to when it is done in text/ email?

  14. This company is horrible by gargeug · · Score: 5, Informative

    So my boss bought these for our office, and as the tech guy I had to actually deal with them. The device itself is actually quite good, but their company is an abomination of a decent business. One of the jacks stopped working, and so I figured that it should be replaced with the option of transferring our old number to the new jack. Their customer service jerked me around for hours until one of them finally sent me a link to their terms and hung up on me. Basically, once they have your money they will jump through hoops to not help you at all. It is such a sleazy company and I hope nobody here gets fooled by them and actually buys it. Pay more for your service just to deal with a reputable company.

    1. Re:This company is horrible by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Wow, your boss is pretty dumb. Why the hell would he buy those for the office? is he that clueless or cheap?

      Let me guess, none of you have laptops, everyone is using the cheapest netbooks he can find, you all have card tables for desks, and the pens and paper you have all have different hotel names on them.

      only a complete idiot would use magicjacks for business.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  15. Re:Why the black ops stuff? by Itninja · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, but they're not doing that at all. All it is doing to opening (in the background) something similar to MSN Live Messenger (or Yahoo, or any other major chat client) voice chat. There's no compression to speak of and certainly no QoS stuff. LIke recording yourself in a WAV file and emailing it to someone...only really fast. And then there's a small rj-11 jack to plug in a handset. As far as I know web based voice chats are not regulated at all.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  16. OF COURSE they're litigious pricks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    To some extent it looks like they weren't litigious pricks as much as having gotten very bad legal advice

    How did they find themselves in a situation where they were receiving legal advice, unless they were already committed to assholery? When you're just sitting there minding your own business, lawyers don't just call you up out of the blue and spout advice at you before you can hang up.

    Someone made a statement about MagicJack that MagicJack knew was true. MagicJack decided, "fuck the truth, I wonder if there's a way we can use force to shut them up." Ok, at that point a foolish lawyer might say, "Yes, I think I know a way that you can be a total motherfucking litigious asshole and successfully use force against this totally innocent party in order to suppress the truth," and a gullible MagicJack might believe that the lawyer was telling the truth.

    But anyone who isn't evil, upon hearing that advice from their lawyer (let's ignore the fact that they had already proved themselves evil by even bothering to seek that advice), would say to their lawyer, "Well, that's interesting, Mr. Lawyer. I hope you enjoyed this intellectual exercise, but of course since I'm not a total mother-stabbing new-age-witchcraft-practicing father-raping puppy-shredding nun-strangling terrorist hippie racist moronic flat-earther sexist heretic robber-baron asshole Republican innocent-attacking bastard litigious prostitute kitten-poisoning jerk gay Scientologist thieving SCO homophobic Democrat shit-eating Nazi stupid criminal cocksucking evil Communist odious pig-fucking Christian pedophile nu-metal-wigger Romulan poo-head, I couldn't possibly actually proceed with such a case against a totally innocent party, even though I could successfully work my evil to advance the general cause of harming society and making the world a worse place. As much as I'd really like to, because I really do like injustice."

    We know they're motherfuckers, and bad legal advice is totally beside the point. Accepting bad legal advice only means they're gullible motherfuckers.

    1. Re:OF COURSE they're litigious pricks by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      total mother-stabbing new-age-witchcraft-practicing father-raping puppy-shredding nun-strangling terrorist hippie racist moronic flat-earther sexist heretic robber-baron asshole Republican innocent-attacking bastard litigious prostitute kitten-poisoning jerk gay Scientologist thieving SCO homophobic Democrat shit-eating Nazi stupid criminal cocksucking evil Communist odious pig-fucking Christian pedophile nu-metal-wigger Romulan poo-head

      remind me to use that more often in coversation...

      --
      FGD 135
    2. Re:OF COURSE they're litigious pricks by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      a total mother-stabbing new-age-witchcraft-practicing father-raping puppy-shredding nun-strangling terrorist hippie racist moronic flat-earther sexist heretic robber-baron asshole Republican innocent-attacking bastard litigious prostitute kitten-poisoning jerk gay Scientologist thieving SCO homophobic Democrat shit-eating Nazi stupid criminal cocksucking evil Communist odious pig-fucking Christian pedophile nu-metal-wigger Romulan poo-head

      I think you're being a little unfair to the Romulans.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  17. Ran their EULA through EULAlyzer... by WidgetGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...and it concluded: "The license agreement above has a high calculated interest ID. It's extremely long, and there were a high number of detected 'interesting' words or phrases." That means Eulalyzer thinks its a bad EULA. The interesting words or phrases are listed and can be viewed in context: (1) Advertising, (2) Emergency Calls or Services, (3) Third Party, (4) Web Site Address, and (5) Without Notice. I've never seen a EULA with that many "'interesting' words or phrases" called out by the program.

    EULAlyzer is a free (download: http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/downloads.html). If, like me, you don't have the time to read through the EULA's for software you're thinking of purchasing, this is just the program for you. At the very least, it will give you a "heads up" and point you to the 'interesting' parts of the EULA where you can, then, read as much "legalese" as you can stomach..

    --
    One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
  18. Can you use them with Asterisk? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's all I care about, not their shitty SIP service, or their shitty customer service, but using them with Asterisk as an interface.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Typical Corporation. by DarthVain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This had nothing to do with MagicJack as a product, nor was anyone saying that it was inherently bad, a ripoff, or a scam.

    This was simply BOING BOING pointing out, that like MANY corporations, their EULA is ridiculous. Like so many others, it is A) almost impossible to find, and B) absolutely ridiculous in its content. You have to promise your first born son for sacrifice to the telecommunication gods by buying their product, and you don't really find this out, until you have already bought their product. Move along, nothing to see here. The demands corporations TYPICALLY put in EULA's are above and beyond reasonable and are pretty much crazy. IANAL however I would bet MOST of these EULA's would not stand up in court as binding (though they may give weight for intent or something of that nature).

    Having said all that, MagicJack could have easily amended their stupid EULA to something a bit nicer, or tried to appease their POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS another way. However in true corporate form they would rather hire a bunch of lawyers and duke it out in court to avoid giving consumers what they want. Re-read that statement. Crazy. Not only that, I bet if you pulled the stats as to how many times a EULA like this would even be USED, particularly for a 50$ product with a 3$ subscription fee, it would be minute to the point of non-existence. As we all know while some people may put up a big stink about this sort of thing (and they should) most if faced with the actual situation either are too lazy or don't care enough about it to make any kind of stand anyway.

    In all a stupid move by MagicJack, but one that seems about par for the course for any corporate identity.

    I applaud BOING BOING for its work however, as the basic principle is if you don't like it, or agree with it, simply don't buy it. However in this case and many like it, you would never have found out about it until after you bought the product (if then) so it is already too late, they already got your money.

    This is why it is important what BOING BOING did (particulary when they didn't really have to, other than feeling slighted for being pushed around by lawyers), and why the SLAPP is a good idea, as it keeps the public informed. It isn't saying that MagicJack must change what it does, or fining them for bad behavior. It is just a decision that says, BOING BOING has a legitimate right to inform people about this information, and that MagicJack doesn't have the right to try and use the courts as its thugs to try and prevent it, thus they can pay for most of BOING BOING's legal fees. Thats all.

    Anyway good for BOING BOING, and shame on MagicJack.