I wish you would have saved it as well. It seems to be a well kept secret of how often this type of intimidation is used under the guise of 'legal threats'.
A year ago, I received a Cease and Desist letter about some domains that I owned. The level of accuracy was similar, as it was addressed to my name but a different address, apparently pulled from the phone book. The letter was threatening all sorts of off the wall things; civil charges, punitive damages, and CRIMINAL charges among others. You can read the letter here sent by Caton Commercial
Sure, I could have played along and used the same legal system to smack down the lawyer for making such unfounded threats(it would fall under ethical rules of the bar assn), but instead I decided to post it for all to read.
In that period of time, when searching for the name of the company who sent it, the letter comes up in the top 4 results, along with a link to all the court cases the company is involved in in the local county courthouses publishing of cases. According to my logs, almost 10,000 people have read the letter since its posting.
oops...
In most real life situations, the data older then 6 months generally gets purged from the system... This generally mean Email goes
And herein lies the root of problem. Your level of experience is so incredibly lacking, that you think 6 months is a long time.
About a year ago, I was involved in some work regarding a contract arbitration case. Records were successfully pulled form 5 years before, that specifically related to this case, and a settlement was reached out of court.
But please, tell me again how important your data is that you wipe it out after 6 months? Why are you even backing it up in the first place? If you handle even a single piece of financial data, I would HIGHLY recommend that you do not admit to your backup methods in public anymore, as YOU will be the one held accountable when it goes missing. Because guess what, there's a backup of your words in this thread freely admitting to such. Wouldnt that be irony?
Like I said, Im sorry that you also are in an environment where you think this is normal.
Personal attacks aside, the point is that 700 days of email server records dont just vanish. If your job is to make backups and ensure data integrity, then that is your job. Period. Its quite easily doable, and there are options available other than 'tapes'. It all depends on your personal cost/benefit profile.
If you arent willing to do what it takes to ensure your data integrity, then it isnt very important data. It is not wise to apply your life experiences to the rest of the world. What you are describing sounds like some backwards office in a strip mall. Im just guessing here, but I would think the requirements for U.S government duties when it comes to backing up and insuring integrity of data are spelled out pretty clearly in a law somewhere. I wont quote Title/Section for you, as Im sure you can look it up yourself if you so desire.
I liked this line the best;
"A lot of times, this doesn't go back further then 6 months because it is expensive to keep large volumes of unneeded data sitting around" Unneeded data? Your choice of words betrays your mindset, as it applies to your understanding of the subject at hand.
Maybe in your company it is, but believe it or not, there are places where that just isnt true!
For example, for me and my domain of users, an important file may be deleted by accident by someone. But that is why we have backups where the oldest file is no more than 12 hours old.
To try and claim that this much EMAIL went missing, when it is so trivial to accomplish that even a govt employee could do it with their eyes closed, is a bit too much slack to give.
"Real" IT people DONT get it wrong all the time. In fact "Real" IT people dont get it wrong at all.
I feel sorry for you if your environment has led you to believe that level of competence is normal. I wish you the best of luck in your quest to find a place to work at that shatters your surroundings of incompetence
And since inflation runs around 3% / yr right now, thats not exactly a 'lost' cost in regard to ROI. And I mean real inflation, not that garbage number that the BLS spits out every month. I suppose you think the unemployment rate is in the 7% range too. Hint: U3 is not as relevant as U6, but that would be too depressing to report, wouldnt it?
Seriously, some people actually CARE that they are reducing the emissions they generate, the cost in $$$ is a secondary benefit. If you have $40K for a solar install, odds are pretty good that pinching pennies isnt your primary concern.
Thank you for pointing these things out for those who are unable to understand. In my course of research and discussions with lawyers, I learned a great deal of information about these types of cases.
I really dont feel the need to defend my actions, because they were made in good-faith. And other than a piss-poorly worded letter, no further action has been taken in regard to those accusations. To me, AND TO ANY COURT, that demonstrates BAD FAITH on the part of the accuser.
The fact is, some of the domains in that letter are still to this day sitting unregistered. How exactly is that 'domain-squatting'? Dont I actually have to own them for it to be squatting? To prove copyright, dont they actually have to attempt to protect it after making those accusations?
And you know what? Every time I can contribute to a discussion that is similar, I will recount my story and share it with others. I will post the link to the letter, and I will not do so in fear.
Had I gone about purchasing those domains in bad-faith and using them for commercial purposes of my own, or attempted to sell them in an underhanded way, then yes it would have been squatting. Since that time, the domains have expired from my ownership, and some have been purchased by other 'domain-farms' and are just being used to run ads. And, some of them are still to this day unregistered.
This behavior is the reason I stopped working for them, as most of their cases were arbitration cases involving contract disputes. I make no claim as to the legality of what was involved, only that when I discovered this, I ceased doing any business with them based on my own personal decisions.
I was more than a little irritated that the letter demanded me turning over to them for free, and under the threat of criminal prosecution, domains they had not purchased in the first place. And like I stated above, the domains have lapsed out of my ownership, and the ones that havent been 'sniped' by others the second they expired, are STILL sitting available to purchase this very day.
So with the above information, I hope you are more clear on this. I appreciate you using the word 'if' in your question. The fact that some of those domains are now available, and have been for almost a year, shows to me that they were more interested in getting something for nothing rather than any claims of copyright.
The domains are unregistered and available right now, for them to purchase. They have been for almost a year. Do you still think they were interested in the domains?
Its amazing how often this kind of thing happens, and I think the only reasonable response to this kind of behavior is to PUBLISH it.
I did some contract work for a company once, and during the course of the work, found out that there were quite a few court cases against them in my local county. I decided to stop any further business dealings with them.
After not being paid for services rendered, I posted a link to our local county courthouse showing all the court cases they were currently involved in.
About 9 months later, I got a letter in the mail from an attorney, claiming all sorts of things like you described; libel, copyright, and CRIMINAL violations. The letter however was addressed to someone else in the phonebook of my small town who had the same last name as myself. I only received it after it had been sent back to the post office numerous times for an incorrect address. It should be pointed out here, that at no point was I trying to hide my identity or make it confusing as to exactly who was posting this court information. At this point it became obvious the level of professionalism I was dealing with that wouldnt even do the most basic fact checking on their accusations. The wording of this letter seemingly bordered on blackmail. To make a long story short, I posted the threatening letter for everyone to read, and havent heard another peep since.
It honestly amazes me that a business would send such a spurious letter to someone who is already publishing the questionable ethical practices of said company. And yes, now when you search their company name, Caton Commercial in a search engine, the second result is the courthouse website listing their cases, and the third is a copy of that letter. I cant imagine that was the intended result they were after, when they first had the idea to intimidate someone for publishing already public court information.
Thats because its so much easier to just post the insane threats of lawsuits online. Most of the time, it ends there. After all, when you shine a light on cockroaches and their actions, they all scatter and run their separate ways.
Example A: Caton Commercial wanted to make threats of a criminal lawsuit, slander and copyright because of a domain that published their publicly available court appearances. The threatening letter was then posted Here. Although it would have been amusing to hear the 'plaintiff' stand before the judge and try to argue the information of the very same judges county courthouse website, was ALSO subject to these threats. The information in question was published online by the county first.
Something tells me the lawyer who wrote it, and the company who hired the lawyer, really wish they could put that toothpaste back in the tube.
Long story short, some people dont think through their actions.
I dont think their intention when writing that letter, was for these threats to come up in the third spot on google, when searching for their company name - "Caton Commercial". Second spot, is the courthouse website publishing the same info.
Before they sent this letter, the courthouse link was not on the first page of results, or the second, or the third....
The CEO all made the decisions that were in the best interest of their company
If that was actually true, we wouldnt be here. The word you are looking for in that sentence isnt 'company' the word you are looking for is 'bond-holders'.
The free market does not exist, its a concept invented and held onto by irresponsible people who need something to point at when they fail. Because, its not THEIR fault afterall...
Since they can't see what every other CEO is doing behind closed doors, they can't factor that in.
That line of thought can certainly be called many things, but logical is not one of them. Do you really think being a CEO involves simply wearing a suit and having a good smile? There are actually numbers that get put in those 'behind closed doors' formulas. When it comes to the bottom line, EVERYTHING is a known. To think that this all just came up out of the blue and took all these people by surprise is the height of ignorance. What those idealistic CEOs actually saw when looking at the numbers was EXACTLY what was going on behind closed doors, and they thought 'hey if that place can do that and get away with it, so can we.' and so on... and so on... and so on... well you get the idea. Greed isnt a difficult concept to grasp, and I think you know that. Unfortunately, we are now 'enabling' those who got caught up in greed. As if to say 'dont worry, we know you just made some bad choices and none of this was really your fault'. If the free market existed, the idea would be to eliminate those whos choices caused a problem in which the company would fail. But thats not what we are doing, and it really is the height of irony that we are proclaiming to be supporting the free market, by taking away one of its supposed fundamental pillars. That of the best wins, is no longer true. It is now, that of the biggest wins.
Now, these CEO's who took the risks and failed, have the feeling that there is no longer any risk. They didnt feel the needed reprecussions of a bad decision, which means they didnt LEARN what the failure was. If that is to be our countries reaction to this type of situation... then we can just consider the past 18 months 'practice'. You take a little while to think about that, and I mean REALLY think about it, and come back and tell me where you think it ends.
That's the part of that business model that you have a problem with?
No. thats the part of the patent attempt I have a problem with. I dont recall saying a single thing about the business model, much less that I had a problem with it.
Had I chose to point out the flaws in the business model I would have done so, instead of pointing out the flaws that relate to filing a patent.
it's hard to see how they could make this work as a business model.
I think your confusion come from applying your own reasoning to the world at large.
But if I may give a reprieve to your doubts about the viability of this, may I suggest you introduce yourself to a few more CEO's. You may find their approach somewhat 'illogical'. But then again, just look around. Do you think the financial crisis we are facing now was based on 'logical' decisions by these same CEO's?
To many in 'business', being free means cheap. There are people who honestly believe that simply by paying more for something, it means its 'better'.
Money( a medium of exchange for items) and Wealth(the actual items or quality of services themselves that are deemed 'of value') are NOT the same thing, but there are many people who cant tell the difference.
While 'fanboyism' is certainly an interesting way to spend your thinking hours, getting upset at people who express their opinions for no other reason that to push back at them, is certainly much more entertaining.
The Chain:
1) Widget A
2) FanBois of Widget A
3) The dust behind my toilet
4) Those who dont get how funny they look telling group #2 that they should 'get a life' (hint: this one is you)
Nice touch, adding in that 'normal adult life' line. You have a firm grip on the concept of irony, sir!
What kind of place would the world be if there wasnt a certain amount of self-absorbed adults who are unable to define themselves any other way than by being the opposition to someone elses thoughts?
I was doing some contract work for a company when i found out they were being hauled into court on an almost weekly basis, for such things as contract breaches, etc... and decided it was time for me to move on.
When I left for that exact reason, still knowing many people who worked there, it eventually got back to me that they were saying that I was involved in illegal activities in regard to their business. Needless to say, everyone who heard them say this had to keep a straight face so as to not laugh at them.
However, instead of dealing with the headaches of a slander case, I simply decided to post all the information about their activities that were publicly posted on our counties courthouse website.
Caton Commercial was the company who did this, and decided it would be a good idea to then have a lawyer send me a letter threatening to sue me and file CRIMINAL charges for posting this info(they were calling it slander).
Not surprisingly, I have never heard from these cockroaches again since the light has been pointed on what I see as their Unethical Business Practices
So, if I link the name of a specific company, say Caton Commercial, to a website of the courthouse of the county they are located in, that shows their current court cases, that would be an acceptable use of hyper-linking?
I just want to make sure, so that they aren't able to craft some sort of streisand-effect based Cease and Desist letter that would make them look unprofessional.
Not surprisingly, when you do a google search for 'caton commercial' the second result(for me, may differ by geography) is a link to the courthouse, with the 'title' of the link being caton commercial.
P.S. It helps greatly if your linked text, is actually in the page you are linking to somewhere.
You are correct. However, instead of actually looking up the name of the owner of these domains using a WHOIS, the lawyer who wrote the letter seemingly just opened up a phone book and found the same last name as me, and sent the letter there first. This was not my address.
The letter was sent to SOMEONE ELSE first, then back to the attorney, who then finally figured out he had the wrong address. This took almost 2 months before it finally made its way to me. That is why on the letter I posted online, the address is blacked out, since it is one of a completely unrelated party. The only similarity was that they have the same last name as myself.
Well, Ive had the same experience. A local real estate company sent me a Cease and Desist Letter in regard to domains that they wanted, but did not want to offer compensation for.
The letter consisted of threatening to sue me, file CRIMINAL charges against me, and restraining orders. It also bordered on libel, as it stated for a fact that owning these domains was libelous and slanderous, without any court of law coming to that finding. The company who hired the, in my opinion, unethical attorney to send this letter was Caton Commercial
Since they sent that letter, and I published it on-line for my lawyer to read, the results seem to have been that their company name 'Caton Commercial' now comes up with the second result in google pointing to the Will County website which lists all the current and pending legal cases they are involved in personally, and because of their business practices.
Is there something about real estate where the blinders to the outside world are so intense, that they stop the line of thought the prevents a company from considering the 'law of unintended consequences'?
1) In the 1700's some French guy starts a list of objects that are in the sky that resemble comets, but are not. They are assumed to be relatively nearby objects. One has the name M31.
2) In the early 1900's some American guy comes along and looks a little closer at those objects, and finds not only are they not nearby, but they are entire islands of stars, and we live in one of those islands too! And M31 ends up being over 2 million light years away.
3) In the later part of the 20th century, an astronomical space based telescope, discovers the background variations in the left overs of the big bang, that led to the eventual location of these things now called 'galaxies'
Charles Messier, Edwin Hubble, and the COBE satellite would like to have a discussion with you about the scientific method.
In other words, yes. The theories on planet formation will change the larger the sample size gets. Just the same way the awareness and eventual theories of galaxies changed as they were observed more often and became part of a larger sample size - the known visible universe
Slashdot Mirror
I wish you would have saved it as well. It seems to be a well kept secret of how often this type of intimidation is used under the guise of 'legal threats'.
A year ago, I received a Cease and Desist letter about some domains that I owned. The level of accuracy was similar, as it was addressed to my name but a different address, apparently pulled from the phone book. The letter was threatening all sorts of off the wall things; civil charges, punitive damages, and CRIMINAL charges among others. You can read the letter here sent by
Caton Commercial
Sure, I could have played along and used the same legal system to smack down the lawyer for making such unfounded threats(it would fall under ethical rules of the bar assn), but instead I decided to post it for all to read.
In that period of time, when searching for the name of the company who sent it, the letter comes up in the top 4 results, along with a link to all the court cases the company is involved in in the local county courthouses publishing of cases. According to my logs, almost 10,000 people have read the letter since its posting.
oops...
CQ, this is W9GFO, do you copy?
In most real life situations, the data older then 6 months generally gets purged from the system... This generally mean Email goes
And herein lies the root of problem. Your level of experience is so incredibly lacking, that you think 6 months is a long time.
About a year ago, I was involved in some work regarding a contract arbitration case. Records were successfully pulled form 5 years before, that specifically related to this case, and a settlement was reached out of court.
But please, tell me again how important your data is that you wipe it out after 6 months? Why are you even backing it up in the first place? If you handle even a single piece of financial data, I would HIGHLY recommend that you do not admit to your backup methods in public anymore, as YOU will be the one held accountable when it goes missing. Because guess what, there's a backup of your words in this thread freely admitting to such. Wouldnt that be irony?
Have a nice day.
Like I said, Im sorry that you also are in an environment where you think this is normal.
Personal attacks aside, the point is that 700 days of email server records dont just vanish. If your job is to make backups and ensure data integrity, then that is your job. Period. Its quite easily doable, and there are options available other than 'tapes'. It all depends on your personal cost/benefit profile.
If you arent willing to do what it takes to ensure your data integrity, then it isnt very important data. It is not wise to apply your life experiences to the rest of the world. What you are describing sounds like some backwards office in a strip mall. Im just guessing here, but I would think the requirements for U.S government duties when it comes to backing up and insuring integrity of data are spelled out pretty clearly in a law somewhere. I wont quote Title/Section for you, as Im sure you can look it up yourself if you so desire.
I liked this line the best;
"A lot of times, this doesn't go back further then 6 months because it is expensive to keep large volumes of unneeded data sitting around"
Unneeded data? Your choice of words betrays your mindset, as it applies to your understanding of the subject at hand.
It is?
Maybe in your company it is, but believe it or not, there are places where that just isnt true!
For example, for me and my domain of users, an important file may be deleted by accident by someone. But that is why we have backups where the oldest file is no more than 12 hours old.
To try and claim that this much EMAIL went missing, when it is so trivial to accomplish that even a govt employee could do it with their eyes closed, is a bit too much slack to give.
"Real" IT people DONT get it wrong all the time. In fact "Real" IT people dont get it wrong at all.
I feel sorry for you if your environment has led you to believe that level of competence is normal. I wish you the best of luck in your quest to find a place to work at that shatters your surroundings of incompetence
Fuck Alpha Centauri?
And since inflation runs around 3% / yr right now, thats not exactly a 'lost' cost in regard to ROI. And I mean real inflation, not that garbage number that the BLS spits out every month. I suppose you think the unemployment rate is in the 7% range too. Hint: U3 is not as relevant as U6, but that would be too depressing to report, wouldnt it?
Seriously, some people actually CARE that they are reducing the emissions they generate, the cost in $$$ is a secondary benefit. If you have $40K for a solar install, odds are pretty good that pinching pennies isnt your primary concern.
Inconceivable!
Yes, I became very familiar with that case -
TaubmanSucks.com
Thank you for pointing these things out for those who are unable to understand. In my course of research and discussions with lawyers, I learned a great deal of information about these types of cases.
I really dont feel the need to defend my actions, because they were made in good-faith. And other than a piss-poorly worded letter, no further action has been taken in regard to those accusations. To me, AND TO ANY COURT, that demonstrates BAD FAITH on the part of the accuser.
The fact is, some of the domains in that letter are still to this day sitting unregistered. How exactly is that 'domain-squatting'? Dont I actually have to own them for it to be squatting? To prove copyright, dont they actually have to attempt to protect it after making those accusations?
And you know what? Every time I can contribute to a discussion that is similar, I will recount my story and share it with others. I will post the link to the letter, and I will not do so in fear.
To answer your question;
YES
Except it wasn't domain squatting.
As I said, non-payment of services rendered.
Had I gone about purchasing those domains in bad-faith and using them for commercial purposes of my own, or attempted to sell them in an underhanded way, then yes it would have been squatting. Since that time, the domains have expired from my ownership, and some have been purchased by other 'domain-farms' and are just being used to run ads. And, some of them are still to this day unregistered.
This behavior is the reason I stopped working for them, as most of their cases were arbitration cases involving contract disputes. I make no claim as to the legality of what was involved, only that when I discovered this, I ceased doing any business with them based on my own personal decisions.
I was more than a little irritated that the letter demanded me turning over to them for free, and under the threat of criminal prosecution, domains they had not purchased in the first place. And like I stated above, the domains have lapsed out of my ownership, and the ones that havent been 'sniped' by others the second they expired, are STILL sitting available to purchase this very day.
So with the above information, I hope you are more clear on this. I appreciate you using the word 'if' in your question. The fact that some of those domains are now available, and have been for almost a year, shows to me that they were more interested in getting something for nothing rather than any claims of copyright.
The domains are unregistered and available right now, for them to purchase. They have been for almost a year. Do you still think they were interested in the domains?
Its amazing how often this kind of thing happens, and I think the only reasonable response to this kind of behavior is to PUBLISH it.
I did some contract work for a company once, and during the course of the work, found out that there were quite a few court cases against them in my local county. I decided to stop any further business dealings with them.
After not being paid for services rendered, I posted a link to our local county courthouse showing all the court cases they were currently involved in.
About 9 months later, I got a letter in the mail from an attorney, claiming all sorts of things like you described; libel, copyright, and CRIMINAL violations. The letter however was addressed to someone else in the phonebook of my small town who had the same last name as myself. I only received it after it had been sent back to the post office numerous times for an incorrect address. It should be pointed out here, that at no point was I trying to hide my identity or make it confusing as to exactly who was posting this court information. At this point it became obvious the level of professionalism I was dealing with that wouldnt even do the most basic fact checking on their accusations. The wording of this letter seemingly bordered on blackmail. To make a long story short, I posted the threatening letter for everyone to read, and havent heard another peep since.
The company who did this was the small real estate company, Caton Commercial. You can also read the Cease and Desist Letter they sent.
It honestly amazes me that a business would send such a spurious letter to someone who is already publishing the questionable ethical practices of said company. And yes, now when you search their company name, Caton Commercial in a search engine, the second result is the courthouse website listing their cases, and the third is a copy of that letter. I cant imagine that was the intended result they were after, when they first had the idea to intimidate someone for publishing already public court information.
Thats because its so much easier to just post the insane threats of lawsuits online. Most of the time, it ends there. After all, when you shine a light on cockroaches and their actions, they all scatter and run their separate ways.
Example A:
Caton Commercial wanted to make threats of a criminal lawsuit, slander and copyright because of a domain that published their publicly available court appearances. The threatening letter was then posted Here. Although it would have been amusing to hear the 'plaintiff' stand before the judge and try to argue the information of the very same judges county courthouse website, was ALSO subject to these threats. The information in question was published online by the county first.
Something tells me the lawyer who wrote it, and the company who hired the lawyer, really wish they could put that toothpaste back in the tube.
Long story short, some people dont think through their actions.
I dont think their intention when writing that letter, was for these threats to come up in the third spot on google, when searching for their company name - "Caton Commercial". Second spot, is the courthouse website publishing the same info.
Before they sent this letter, the courthouse link was not on the first page of results, or the second, or the third....
The CEO all made the decisions that were in the best interest of their company
If that was actually true, we wouldnt be here. The word you are looking for in that sentence isnt 'company' the word you are looking for is 'bond-holders'.
The free market does not exist, its a concept invented and held onto by irresponsible people who need something to point at when they fail. Because, its not THEIR fault afterall...
Since they can't see what every other CEO is doing behind closed doors, they can't factor that in.
That line of thought can certainly be called many things, but logical is not one of them. Do you really think being a CEO involves simply wearing a suit and having a good smile? There are actually numbers that get put in those 'behind closed doors' formulas. When it comes to the bottom line, EVERYTHING is a known. To think that this all just came up out of the blue and took all these people by surprise is the height of ignorance. What those idealistic CEOs actually saw when looking at the numbers was EXACTLY what was going on behind closed doors, and they thought 'hey if that place can do that and get away with it, so can we.' and so on... and so on... and so on... well you get the idea. Greed isnt a difficult concept to grasp, and I think you know that. Unfortunately, we are now 'enabling' those who got caught up in greed. As if to say 'dont worry, we know you just made some bad choices and none of this was really your fault'. If the free market existed, the idea would be to eliminate those whos choices caused a problem in which the company would fail. But thats not what we are doing, and it really is the height of irony that we are proclaiming to be supporting the free market, by taking away one of its supposed fundamental pillars. That of the best wins, is no longer true. It is now, that of the biggest wins.
Now, these CEO's who took the risks and failed, have the feeling that there is no longer any risk. They didnt feel the needed reprecussions of a bad decision, which means they didnt LEARN what the failure was. If that is to be our countries reaction to this type of situation... then we can just consider the past 18 months 'practice'. You take a little while to think about that, and I mean REALLY think about it, and come back and tell me where you think it ends.
No. thats the part of the patent attempt I have a problem with. I dont recall saying a single thing about the business model, much less that I had a problem with it.
Had I chose to point out the flaws in the business model I would have done so, instead of pointing out the flaws that relate to filing a patent.
In other words....
WHOOOOSHHHH!!!
it's hard to see how they could make this work as a business model.
I think your confusion come from applying your own reasoning to the world at large.
But if I may give a reprieve to your doubts about the viability of this, may I suggest you introduce yourself to a few more CEO's. You may find their approach somewhat 'illogical'. But then again, just look around. Do you think the financial crisis we are facing now was based on 'logical' decisions by these same CEO's?
To many in 'business', being free means cheap. There are people who honestly believe that simply by paying more for something, it means its 'better'.
Money( a medium of exchange for items) and Wealth(the actual items or quality of services themselves that are deemed 'of value') are NOT the same thing, but there are many people who cant tell the difference.
Know your place in the chain!
While 'fanboyism' is certainly an interesting way to spend your thinking hours, getting upset at people who express their opinions for no other reason that to push back at them, is certainly much more entertaining.
The Chain:
1) Widget A
2) FanBois of Widget A
3) The dust behind my toilet
4) Those who dont get how funny they look telling group #2 that they should 'get a life' (hint: this one is you)
Nice touch, adding in that 'normal adult life' line. You have a firm grip on the concept of irony, sir!
What kind of place would the world be if there wasnt a certain amount of self-absorbed adults who are unable to define themselves any other way than by being the opposition to someone elses thoughts?
'Both users and suppliers benefit from this new business model'
Only Microsoft could try to call a business model 'new', when hotels and hookers have used it for centuries.
At least its obvious what they are now
Its not much different in business either.
I was doing some contract work for a company when i found out they were being hauled into court on an almost weekly basis, for such things as contract breaches, etc... and decided it was time for me to move on.
When I left for that exact reason, still knowing many people who worked there, it eventually got back to me that they were saying that I was involved in illegal activities in regard to their business. Needless to say, everyone who heard them say this had to keep a straight face so as to not laugh at them.
However, instead of dealing with the headaches of a slander case, I simply decided to post all the information about their activities that were publicly posted on our counties courthouse website. Caton Commercial was the company who did this, and decided it would be a good idea to then have a lawyer send me a letter threatening to sue me and file CRIMINAL charges for posting this info(they were calling it slander).
Not surprisingly, I have never heard from these cockroaches again since the light has been pointed on what I see as their Unethical Business Practices
So, if I link the name of a specific company, say Caton Commercial, to a website of the courthouse of the county they are located in, that shows their current court cases, that would be an acceptable use of hyper-linking?
I just want to make sure, so that they aren't able to craft some sort of streisand-effect based Cease and Desist letter that would make them look unprofessional.
There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark.
Yes, its called a 'google bomb'.
Check upthread where the technique is used to link to a county courthouse website list of cases, by including the link of the company for the text.
Caton Commercial
Not surprisingly, when you do a google search for 'caton commercial' the second result(for me, may differ by geography) is a link to the courthouse, with the 'title' of the link being caton commercial.
P.S. It helps greatly if your linked text, is actually in the page you are linking to somewhere.
Now go have yourself some fun ;)
You are correct. However, instead of actually looking up the name of the owner of these domains using a WHOIS, the lawyer who wrote the letter seemingly just opened up a phone book and found the same last name as me, and sent the letter there first. This was not my address.
The letter was sent to SOMEONE ELSE first, then back to the attorney, who then finally figured out he had the wrong address. This took almost 2 months before it finally made its way to me. That is why on the letter I posted online, the address is blacked out, since it is one of a completely unrelated party. The only similarity was that they have the same last name as myself.
These guys are on the ball, yes?
Well, Ive had the same experience. A local real estate company sent me a Cease and Desist Letter in regard to domains that they wanted, but did not want to offer compensation for.
The letter consisted of threatening to sue me, file CRIMINAL charges against me, and restraining orders. It also bordered on libel, as it stated for a fact that owning these domains was libelous and slanderous, without any court of law coming to that finding. The company who hired the, in my opinion, unethical attorney to send this letter was Caton Commercial
Since they sent that letter, and I published it on-line for my lawyer to read, the results seem to have been that their company name 'Caton Commercial' now comes up with the second result in google pointing to the Will County website which lists all the current and pending legal cases they are involved in personally, and because of their business practices.
Is there something about real estate where the blinders to the outside world are so intense, that they stop the line of thought the prevents a company from considering the 'law of unintended consequences'?
1) In the 1700's some French guy starts a list of objects that are in the sky that resemble comets, but are not. They are assumed to be relatively nearby objects. One has the name M31.
2) In the early 1900's some American guy comes along and looks a little closer at those objects, and finds not only are they not nearby, but they are entire islands of stars, and we live in one of those islands too! And M31 ends up being over 2 million light years away.
3) In the later part of the 20th century, an astronomical space based telescope, discovers the background variations in the left overs of the big bang, that led to the eventual location of these things now called 'galaxies'
Charles Messier, Edwin Hubble, and the COBE satellite would like to have a discussion with you about the scientific method.
In other words, yes. The theories on planet formation will change the larger the sample size gets. Just the same way the awareness and eventual theories of galaxies changed as they were observed more often and became part of a larger sample size - the known visible universe