PetsWarehouse vs. Mailing List 643
klaun writes "Salon is running a story about a federal suit against members of an Internet mailing list. Seems a company got a bad review on the list and the owner sued the person that said it and everyone who agreed. But the case grew bigger from there, including a suit against the legal defense fund set up to support members of the list being sued and anyone who linked to the defense fund. The ultimate rub of it all is that it basically worked. Most of the defendants have settled." This is a truly bizarre story.
Link to Legal Defense Fund Page (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too bad, but this is a common tactic (Score:3, Insightful)
You have the right to a day in court, but unfortunately, too many nowadays want to just cough up some cash and make the problem go away, rather than fighting. It's really a shame.
Something fishy... (Score:2, Insightful)
But anyway, this is simply unbelievable. The idea that if someone says something bad about their own experiences can somehow justify suing them for 15 million dollars. And then to sue a defense fund! WTF is going through people's mind?
Instead of wasting their time with such frivalous legal actions, they should perhaps try to improve their aquatic plants division.
But I guess trying to serve customers is a harder way to get money than just sueing people.
Bad Sport! (Score:4, Insightful)
programmer/book-author Herbert Schildt.
This gentleman has been slammed by the members of BOTH the C and C++ standardization
commitee, Academia, Usenet, and just about anyone old enough to write an Amazon review.
Herb however, acknowledges the "points" of his critics in his later books, but continues
doing what he feels like.
He is almost the "abusive boyfriend" of programming books. You know "I am sorry baby,
I don't spend as much time with you as I used, I know I have cheated on you, but BITCH,
get off my back".
It is best for this company to acknowledge the inferriority of their products, but keep
making them anyways. People wont notice it, just ask the millions of heart broken girlfriends
with black eyes.
--
But the people can do this, too (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the American justice system does allow a sufficiently large number of people to do this straight back. And I'm not talking about class action suits, from which only lawyers benefit, anyway.
It's called small claims court. Pay the filing fee (typically less than $100), bring a sufficiently plausible gripe that your case won't get dismissed, represent yourself. If you win, you can even get the filing fee reimbursed, and even if not, rest assured that the company has spent more on paying their lawyer to show up than you were asking for in damages.
Think of it as the legal equivalent of DDoS.
Re:It's too bad, but this is a common tactic (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people, given the rock/hard place choice of spending X to settle and spending 5X to prove they're right, will be forced to settle.
Countersuits (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts have ruled time and again that the public welfare requires that discussion of civil and criminal cases trumps ALL other rights. There is absolutely no way any suit for "trademark infringement" against a defense fund because it bore the trademark name of the company suing would last 5 seconds before a judge.
What's the alternative - "We're collecting money for unnamed people to fight an unnamed company in an unnamed state for reasons we can't discuss (and can't warn you to avoid repeating). Please be generous!"?
The ONLY reason this even got before the court was buried deep in the article - Novak was representing himself. Probably because no lawyer would touch this case with a 10-foot pole.
I'm a firm believer in the right of people to represent themselves (and equally hostile to the "YANAL, shut up!" posts we see here). Countries where access to the courts are restricted to a privileged few who must always fear the possibility of having that access revoked tend to be less free than countries where the courts are open to all. But that must come at a price - you use this access to trample the rights of others, either as a pro se asshole or a corporate SLAPPer then you need to pay a hefty price for it.
Re:watch out /. (Score:3, Insightful)
The store owner should have handled this better. Sueing everybody in sight is not good PR. At this point, he should go out of business because who will want to buy anything form him now? Sueing a defense fund? Is this person insane?!?!
I am tired of all these stupid lawsuits being allow to go foreward, or at the bare minimum allowed to reach a settlement! Somebody make sure Microsoft doesn't hear about this because they may find that this will fund the new revenue stream they've been looking.
Damage limitation my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Their intelligence rivals my elbow.
The REAL Issue here.. (Score:1, Insightful)
A message board is NOT a conversation. It's a public forum. Saying a company is dishonest on a message board is equivalent to having it printed in the newspaper or broadcast on radio/tv.
Like it or not, libel laws usually make this distinction, so the law against libel does apply here.
Saying you think a company is dishonest in a conversation usually is not actionable. But publishing something like that in a newpaper or on the internet is.
I have no opinion on this particular case, but I do think that people fail to make the distinction between a converstaion and a message board.
Post in their forums (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.petswarehouse.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ult
create an account and post in the forum of whatever pet you have. They have a few thousand members of their forums, and it looks pretty active. Spread the truth.
-Chuck
Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism (Score:3, Insightful)
I know pw@petswarehouse.com will get there... any body else have some exec's email?
Re:History repeats itself (Score:3, Insightful)
This entire story seems to surreal to be true, even for US. Saw some bits about emails with threats directed at the supplier, and claims that some criticism went from just reviews to open hostility on personal level. Still doesn't justify the lawsuit, but explains why someone would go into a frenzy to even sue the fund.
Regardless of which side is right... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is horrible. It's like saying "I didn't do anything wrong but if I try to defend myself I'll ruin my life". It's redicilous to think that you only have a right to a fair trial if you have the money to do so. So I guess it's liberty and justice for those who can afford it. Hah.
Post something on their messages board. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a forum owner, I'm not surprised. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, according to the article, the guy's posts were bounced because they contained mime attachments. I'd guess that the moderator had long ago gotten tired of dealing with attachments and had started rejecting anything that came in containing them. If the store owner had bothered to follow directions his postings probably would have been accepted. But then to run to a lawyer because your postings were rejected... that's a little like me shouting from the rooftop about how someone posted something I didn't particularly like and then, when they don't respond or don't respond in a way that gives me everything I want, then filing a lawsuit. A few postings doesn't (IMHO) constitute much of an effort on the store owner's part. I mean, heck, after the first posting didn't appear on the forum, wouldn't you try to figure out why? Apparently, Mr. Store Owner just got ticked off and called a lawyer.
I have to wonder -- along with some of the other people posting here -- what effort the store owner made to inquire into the alleged rip-off. His entire reaction to this isn't going to sit very well with his other customers. Who wants to do business with someone who takes you to court if you have a dispute with them? How concerned is he (really) about his business's image and reputation if he runs to the courts to fix his customers reactions instead of fixing the broken business practice that caused that reaction in the first place? (IMHO, not very.)
I predict falling sales revenues for this guy. Wonder who he'll sue next to make up for that?
Sad...
Scientology (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Link to Legal Defense Fund Page (Score:3, Insightful)
We've all written a review or two... (Score:2, Insightful)
I for one would have been cautious about this merchant after hearing about their poor customer service. But Novak's responding by suing instead of cleaning up the attitude that brought on complaints in the first place, well, in the real free-market economy, he'd be out of business. Kinda like Bill Jones, who would never get my vote for anything ever again after spamming people. Take the high road, guys...
It is not just standing, it's ruining for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Justice MUST be free, or it is not justice, it becomes just another good, which can be acquired of higher quality and quantity by the wealthiest.
That's my very humble opinion, of course.
Re:The REAL Issue here.. (Score:2, Insightful)
There's also the fact that he might be telling the truth about bad service.
Where are the script kiddies? (Score:1, Insightful)
Are the script kiddies are too busy DoSing EFNET servers or something else completely meaningless?
Here's a real chance for Internet Vigilante Justice.
Pets Warehouse Really Harmed THEMSELVES (Score:2, Insightful)
But the fact is that Robert Novak had thin skin, sued for amounts of incredible proportions and basically paper-bullied people into settling...and now the WHOLE online community knows about it. And that can only hurt his business.
Novak needs to learn one golden rule of customer service: The Customer Is Always Right.
They reap what they sow (Score:5, Insightful)
When will companies learn that you can't just squash criticism on the internet? When you try, you just create more and more publicity and sympathy for your critics.
Re:History repeats itself (Score:3, Insightful)
"...the injustice takes on an even more serious tone when it no longer seems to matter whether or not you're found guilty or innocent - whether you win or lose. If you're even brought into the game, you lose regardless of whether or not you win. Sounds crazy? It is. And it's what the American justice system has turned into...
Every time we find ourselves in a court of law, we seem to have lost by default, something even a victory can't seem to change. Not that we don't relish the idea of standing up to any of the bullies who put us through this hell. But every time we do, it costs us and not just financially. We have to devote tremendous resources into the act of simply defending who we are and what we've been doing for all these years."
Re:History repeats itself (Score:1, Insightful)
So, you have a house, you have a family, you have a retirement fund and a kids' college fund?
What assets do you have that you would be unwilling to lose fighting such a case?
It's all very well to spout off about "giving up on what you believe", when you've got nothing worthwhile to lose in the first place OR aren't the one being threatened by the eventual loss of worthwhile things during the long fight.
Please, feel free to post a negative opinion of PetsWarehouse on one of those aquatic sites, to deliberately draw a lawsuit, and then you can report on how well you do, and how much it costs you to fight the good, LOOOOOOOONG fight. There was a very good reason why those folks settled - and if you'd RTFA you would know it.
(Clue: they couldn't afford to keep fighting. The spirits were willing, but the personal economies were weak.)
Russia, China and USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Chinese communists are smarter than Russians. They allow private enterprise and pursuit of happiness, as long as everybody shuts up and don't question political interests of the elite. Eeeeeh.... And you shouldn't threaten economical interests of Politbureau family members either.
USA seems to have developed (with all good intentions) a deadly mechanism to shut people up and potentially destroy them for speaking and acting freely. Legal system can be and is used as a weapon of intimidation. The fact that mechanism of protecting less wealthy citizens against legalistic intimidation by more wealthy citizens (corporates) is explicitly lacking is interesting. What would you say of a state that wouldn't protect you against physical intimidation by a local warlord? Why doesn't it protect you against legal intimidation by the guy with deeper pockets?
Now, this is sad, because America used to be a democratic ideal for us (imperfect, but better than others). It is visibly getting more Chinese by the day. First we see how an interest group or monopoly can intimidate potential competitors by slapping multimillion lawsuits left and right. Then we could expect US state trademarking the word "Freedom" and...
Re:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:History repeats itself (Score:4, Insightful)
When a corporation and an individual go to court, they aren't putting the same risk up on the block. And they *can't*, because the corporations aren't really people - get rid of their ledgers and money and they cease to exist as an entity.
If a corporation's software gathers information off your home computer without asking you, they might face a fine at the most. If an individual views information on a corporation's computer without asking, his whole life's pursuit is over - his entire career, not just his one job he holds at the time, is over and he's never allowed to touch a computer again.
You can't punish a corporation as severely as you can a person. This is what makes them not be accountable for their actions.
What's the solution? Stop treating corporations like people who can be found guilty or innocent. If the people in a corporation do something wrong, then go after the PEOPLE. Keep the corporation as a convenient tool for consolodating funds and organising the business, but stop letting it be used as a sheild against personal responsibility. Let the people at the top know that if they engage in illegal activities that *THEY* are the ones who will be responsible for it if they get caught, NOT the imaginary person called "The company". Get them to treat their lives with the same sense of responsibility and personal risk the rest of us have to deal with, and then maybe for once they'd get some semblance of fair play.
Re:This happened to me years back in the days of B (Score:2, Insightful)
Chances are, they were just sabre rattling anyway and would have left you alone. But instead, you caved. And you, like so many others, have helped erode free speech for ordinary people.