Slashdot Log In
PetsWarehouse vs. Mailing List
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Apr 04, 2002 12:05 PM
from the just-a-bizarre-story dept.
from the just-a-bizarre-story dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
PetsWarehouse vs. Mailing List
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 643 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
dot coms ran out of VC's to screw... (Score:4, Funny)
someday they'll hafta make profit the old fashioned way... sell a good/service that ppl want at a decent price...
Link to Legal Defense Fund Page (Score:5, Insightful)
now you've done it (Score:5, Funny)
Oops! With this post, *I'm* a defendant.
I've dealt with this kind of behavior before from those who represent themseloves. Yes, it can be expensive to handle along the way.
But guess what, punk: I *am* a lawyer, and my hourly is $400. If you want to start this, go for it; my kids want to go to college, and I'll have your inventory and 25% of your paycheck for the next 20 years . .
hawk, esq., hoping the frivolous papers come his way . . .
It worked because..... (Score:5, Informative)
New York has an anti-SLAPP [casp.net] statute. I wonder why this was not used to kick out the case.
Some of these fights have to be taken and some of these SLAPPERs [barbieslapp.com] have to be hit with large enough damages to make others think long and hard before bringing another SLAPP [sorehands.com] action.
It's federal... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's federal... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It worked because..... (Score:4, Informative)
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:It is not just standing, it's ruining for it (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.
PetsWarehouse = Satanism (Score:5, Funny)
You are welcome to post your agreement below.
Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism (Score:5, Funny)
Wow...Satan represents himself...he must not be a very good lawyer...I would have thought he'd get a call from the "devil's advocate."
Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism (Score:5, Funny)
Re:PetsWarehouse = Satanism (Score:4, Funny)
I agree : everyone should know that Robert Novak is performing gruesome experiments involving duct tape and small rodents, infecting baby animals with various assorted viruses before shipping them to unsuspecting american youths, selling pools specially fitted for seal clubbing contests, and selling aquarium rocks that are in fact the bones that remain from their daily slaughter of cute fury critters that they eviscerate before eating their still beating heart.
And they are terrorists (but then, who isn't these days...).
petSWEARhouse, buy from them and you'll be swearing!
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...
History repeats itself (Score:5, Informative)
The moral of the story here is that giving up on what you believe in gets you nowhere. If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court. If you stand up for your rights when you know you're correct, justice will prevail and you will know you've made a difference for netizens everywhere. What would you rather be - a victorious hero or an unprincipled loser? Don't answer here - save your response for the judge.
Re:History repeats itself (Score:4, Interesting)
She was suspended from school for successfully practicing witchcraft. She allegedly cast a spell which made a teacher sick. The ACLU is taking it to court.
Yeah, it's offtopic, but it is interesting.
Re:History repeats itself (Score:5, Informative)
If you cave in to corporate pressure, you will lose your money, your good name, and your credit rating when you settle out of court.
Very few people know just how bad it is for your credit rating to lose or settle a lawsuit against you. It basically destroys it - if you cave in to or lose a lawsuit then nobody will loan you ANYTHING - you probably will have trouble getting an apartment, non-pre-paid cell phone or even a job or insurance.
If you cave in you might not lose that much money - but you'll lose everything else. People won't trust you - they'll think you must've been at fault to some degree.
Heck you are better off representing yourself if it truly is frivolous - at least you have a chance at not having your life ruined - if you settle, kiss having a decent life goodbye forever.
Of course, the DeCSS case proves that even people who are innocent (the judge ignored fair use, the US Constitution, and all the exemptions listed in the DMCA itself) can and sometimes do lose, even when they do have good lawyers. And if you lose, you will be required to pay damages and sometimes even be required to pay for the court and/or the plaintiff's lawyers. This is just like in some countries where when someone is executed, the family is billed for the cost of the bullets that were shot into his/her head.
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.
PetSwearhouse not PetWarehouse (Score:5, Informative)
A new way to make money ... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I found exceptional about this article is that the guy from Pets Warehouse was representing himself. His costs out of pocket were court fees. It doesn't appear that he paid anyone to serve most of the summons'.
The most striking question I have is why didn't everyone who was sued band together? I see the reference to the defense fund, but no mention of targeting the suit's validity in front of a court. Wouldn't that be the first step?
Between this and "recollecting" memories of being abused by priests, one could make a nice living.
Digging a little further ... new article on Novak (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249
"Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York. The BBB gives Pets Warehouse an "unsatisfactory rating," the organization's lowest. Novak said some of the complaints were from another business that licensed the Pets Warehouse name and that he didn't get adequate opportunity to respond. "
Shoot for the stars
Original Message that started the whole thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't.
Actually the plants I received were average to maybe a bit below
average, but they'll pull through in my tank. What is crappy is their
service! And they're maybe even a bit dishonest.
Way back in the beginning of April (April 10th to be exact) I was
seduced by the huge list of plants for sale on their web site. I
ordered 4 types of plants, all quite common. Though it states on their
web site that they directly import their plants, I didn't realize that
they'd import the plants you ordered *after* you placed your order! Or
at least that's the way it seemed
I received my order today, May 15th. It only took them 4.5 weeks. And
this is after 6 phone calls. Twice they promised they'd be shipped on
a certain date, then nada. And dealing with them on the phone is,
well, let's just say they stick to their pat answers and work very
hard at getting you off the phone as quickly as possible. My 6th call
was last week, and when they realized I was calling about a plant
order they proclaimed "They will be shipped on Monday". Click. And I
didn't even give them my name or order number! Maybe *all* orders
finally went out on Monday?
There was never a "sorry for the delay" or any sign whatsoever that I
was the valued customer and they were the business providing a product
that I was paying for.
Though I found all of this very annoying, it wasn't what annoyed me
the most. On my order confirmation I was quoted a shipping price of
$7.50. Nice
order arrived complete with an invoice stating that shipping was
$18.50! When I called them today to straighten this out, they
informed me that the original quote was wrong and that I was stuck
with the $18.50. Again, no "sorry for the mixup" or any indication
that they would fix the problem (with the web site and order
confirmation system).
Another hassle - their shipments *require* a signature. I quote their
email notice telling me the plants had been shipped: "You must be home
to sign for it. We guarantee live arrival if the order is accepted on
the first delivery attempt." Yikes. This was the first I knew of this
policy. So I actually had to take a half day off work in order to be
there to receive the order! These plants are getting *very* expensive.
The whole organization has the feel of someone who started yesterday
out of your neighbors garage. It even sounds that way when you talk to
them on the phone.
Maybe I expect too much?
Though I have a few gripes about Arizona Aquatics as well, they're
light years ahead of this outfit as far as service.
As always, your mileage may vary.
dan
--
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:But the people can do this, too (Score:5, Informative)
We did not make use of a lawyer, even though we were facing a moderately large company. Amazingly, they failed to appear (perhaps they did not take us seriously) and the judge awarded the full amount to us.
It works.
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.
Here's the message that started this all: (Score:4, Informative)
More links to primary source info on lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.aquaria.net/lawsuit.html [aquaria.net]
And the archive of the infamous mailing list is at:
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/index.php [actwin.com]
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Damage limitation my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Their intelligence rivals my elbow.
What damanges?? (Score:3, Interesting)
What the heck does that mean? So I guess everyone on the mailing list was about to buy $6 million worth of plants from this store until someone else on the mailing list complained about the store?
tragic... (Score:3, Funny)
I can see it now...
Jutkers News Service:
In a ruling today, the federal supreme court ruled that opinions are now all illegal. The justices were split, with half saying "I'm not prepared to issue a statement at this time that might be construded as something libel" the other justices had this to say reading from a prepared statement. "Citizens who engage in 'opinions' now must be ready to be held accountable for those 'opinions' in a court of law. The willy-nilly saying what you think will only bring you trouble. They should keep their mouths shut and enjoy the free open society they are lucky to have"
A press conference that was held later, the justices were asked what they thought this meant for free speech. Their response, reading from a prepared statement "Free speech isn't so free anymore... people just opening their mouths is bad business. If any person can just go out and do 'free speech' stuff including opinions and observations, what kind of world would we live in. Companies spend millions on marketing campaigns just so some person can go on a website and say 'I had bad service' thus ruining millions of dollars of advertising. Suddenly that free speech isn't so cheap anymore. What happens when that company goes out of business and all those people lose there jobs! Don't you see, by that person opening their mouth once it ruined a whole company"
The reporter countered asking "What if the company really had bad service?" Justice millhouse responded slowly, reading through a couple of pages. "It has been our observation that businesses never treat a customer poorly, because it would be bad business. If someone has bad service, they've brought it upon themselves, and they are to blame."
Pretty much the rest of the press conference went on with the same thing. I'd like to comment more on this but I feel my opinions would land me in a lawsuit, or worse jail.
God Bless America, the home of the free and brave...
Nature's defense (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called 'mobbing'.
Crows hate owls and hawks and cannot possibly ever hope to win a fight with one, no matter how many crows there are. So, rather than hiding, if crows see a hawk, they will fly around it at a safe distance and SCREAM at it. Caw! Caw! More crows will come and join. If the hawk goes for any one crow, goodbye crow, and the rest will scream even worse. Result: good luck finding prey with a lot of crows tirelessly screaming around you, hawk!
Thus, the hawk is 'mobbed' by crows, and that is the defense I mean.
I read this story in Salon, from a link on CNet. The first thing I thought of was 'slashdot oughta cover this!', and then when I came to Slashdot, it was the top story. Good job, all the people who no doubt all submitted it at once... because nothing quite rivals Slashdot as a 'mobbing site'. Many, many people read Slashdot- many people who are NOT FOND OF BARRATRY.
The fact is, as things stand right now, legal attacks of this nature ARE beyond what most people can withstand, whether they are justified or not: it's unsurprising that people are forced to settle because they cannot destroy their lives just to be an example.
That's why 'mobbing', like crows mobbing hawks, is the best answer: if you have no defense and can't possibly win a fight, it CAN still be possible to make things so unpleasant for an attacker that it gives up. I would love to see this 'petswarehouse' guy bankrupt: judging from the Salon story, I think he is a danger to society, all the more because his behavior may be imitated by others realizing, "Hey, you don't HAVE to be a multinational corporation to wreck ordinary people's lives with baseless lawsuits!".
I am no more capable of this than the original victims were: but I hope I have expressed the 'mobbing' defense adequately that it may turn out useful. People do this already- the point is, rather than being whiny bitches who can't win, they are sounding the alarm in a disorganized but determined way, about a deadly threat.
Re:Nature's defense (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Dialing 1-800-991-3299 frivolously would be wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
If one were to call them a bunch of times, it would cost PetsWarehouse more. If many people were to call them many times, it would be kind of a huge phone bill for them. A phone ringing off the hook a whole lot with no business coming in would really be bad for PetsWarehouse's business, too.
To do this, of course, would be wrong. Terribly, terribly wrong. Perhaps Congress should create a law that prevent the Internet and the phones from being abused in this manner.
Scientology (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless this stops, it could be MS vs /. or..... (Score:3, Informative)
But what would happen if this dude continues to win, setting precendences for companies like Microsoft to sue slashdot for example on how slashdot user continue to bash windows/microsoft products.
I use DSLreports constantly to express my opinions of products from routers to broadband service and i KNOW it can get nasty on there. What would happen of COmcast sued dslreports and everyone on there? What if lucent got sick of hearling complaints about companies products or services and did the same?
Heck EPINIONS.COM does a fantastic job keeping the consumer aware of products and scams, we should go rate this company on epinions.com as a horrible company to do business with.
My list of companies to stay away from is.
1. Cross country bank
2. Verizon
3. Southwestern Bell
4. Apex collections.
5. Blockbuster (music/video/whatever.. they all steal)
Consumers have a right to now, and freedom of speech even includes the ability to bitch about something.
Aren't we still human anymore?
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.
One thing (Score:3, Interesting)
The punk is a career litigator (Score:5, Interesting)
The aquatic plant growing community is fairly small and relatively easy to keep tabs on the entire community. All he has to do is give enough bad customer service and monitor all the message boards waiting for someone to complain. Then he can move in and start making some real money by filing lawsuits (notice that he doesn't use a lawyer, so he's not losing any money doing so).
He tries to post messages to defend his honor, but for some reason they were getting blocked. Note here that he is a regular poster to these message boards and is well aware of how to use them. But this time he decides to include MIME attachments to his posts, which I would assume he knows very well would bounce. Now he can claim that they're trying to censor him!! That's worth at least another couple of million dollars!
From the sounds of things this guy hides behind a pathetic business just to drum up people he can sue and make some real money from. Sounds like one of the lowest life forms out there. It's sad that he's making so many lives miserable, and that he seems to enjoy it. Heck, he's made a career out of it. He's probably riding high now, but it will all come back to haunt him in the end. He who lives by the lawsuit will die by the lawsuit. One way or another, he'll get the reward he so richly deserves.
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...
Gomez no longer certifies merchants (Score:3, Funny)
MSNBC has story (and cute gagged fish) (Score:3, Informative)
My favorite is the Long Island Business news article about how filing lawsuits is this guy's "hobby".
Re:I don't know (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't know (Score:5, Informative)
Hope that helps your evaluation of the plantiff. Most people get lawyers to sue. This plantiff did not. Most people don't talk about a suit in progress. Certainly, they don't try to browbeat the defendant without lawyers present. What do you think now?