Google sued as PetsWarehouse Lawsuit Continues. 988
Ikari Gendou writes "In April, Slashdot reported that Robert Novak, owner of Internet pet store Pets Warehouse filed a $15,000,000US lawsuit against several individuals who made comments about his company's poor service on an Internet mailing list. Also named in it and in the suit that followed were the owner of the mailing list, the owners of several informational sites about the lawsuit, the owners of other forums where the lawsuit was discussed, the attorney for the defense, and several sites that merely ran banner ads promoting the defense fund set up for the lawsuit. Some defendents settled out of fear, and were forced to pay cash, transfer their personal domain names to Novak, or even run banner ads for Petswarehouse on their websites. Now, the attorney for the defense has announced that in round three of the lawsuit, Google has been sued, as well as several other sites that have carried news about the lawsuit, such as search engine Judge-For-Yourself.com and pet stores DoctorDog.com and FerretStore.com. Robert Novak is representing himself in this lawsuit, and thus it is effectively costing him nothing to persue this campaign of harassment. He's already gotten several thousand dollars from settlements and cost the defendents considerably more than that in legal fees. More details should be posted soon here, including court documents that tell why Google was added to the suit."
It's not much, but just in case... (Score:2, Informative)
Plaintiff:
Robert Novak,
d/b/a Pets Warehouse.com
Defendants:
Overture Services, Inc.
Google, Inc.
Innovative Marketing Solutions, Inc.d/b/a Kanoodle.com
Neeps, Inc. d/b/a Theferretstore.com
John Holdefehr d/b/a Judge-for-yourself.com
Biochemics, Inc. d/b/a Doctordog.com
COURT DOCKET - Third Lawsuit
09-24-2002 (1) Complaint filed and summons issued as to defendant(s) Biochemics, Inc., Google, Inc., John Holdefehr, Innovative Marketing Solutions, Inc., Neeps, Inc., Overture Services, Inc. Filing fee $150.00. Receipt number: 7370. Jury trial demanded. filed by pro se Robert Novak. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Romano, Daniel) (entered: 09-26-2002)
09-26-2002 (2) Notice of Report on the filing of an action regarding a patent orTrademark Infringement sent to Washington DC (Romano, Daniel) (Entered: 09-26-2002)
Re:Minor point (Score:2, Informative)
Robert Novak is representing himself in this lawsuit, and thus it is effectively costing him nothing to persue this campaign of harassment.
Mistake in comments (Pet vs. Pets Warehouse) (Score:5, Informative)
The comments are about "Pet Warehouse", which is here [petwarehouse.com] while the link is for Pets Warehouse.
What happened, according to the Salon article, linked in the original /. article is that the "s" was left off.
More understandable since Pet Warehouse is a reputable outfit predating the dotcom boom. I've dealt with them lots of times.
Re:"It's unrealistic" (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a relavent quote from an article [libn.com] on the case:
Resler said his lawyer was confident they could defeat Novak in court. But, Resler said, when the lawyer told the defendants how much it would cost, "we said, 'Settle.' "
My hope is that after Google finishes with this case, they counter-sue the guy's ass off.
Re:Does anyone have a link to the story about... (Score:5, Informative)
The kinds of suits are called SLAPPs. Many states are attempting to pass anti-SLAPP [thefirstamendment.org] laws, notably California [casp.net]
Re:Does anyone have a link to the story about... (Score:5, Informative)
The case got so much attention all over the world that the dealership dropped the case - it was never tried in court (except the court of public opinion, which was pretty damning). Whether or not the dealership had a leg to stand on is questionable - there may have been slander in the thread, but the original poster may not have been the one to do it.
Mr. Novak has probably bitten off more than he can chew, at least if Google actually goes to court and doesn't just yank the references like they did with Scientology and Operation Clambake [xenu.net].
I've never dealt with Mr. Novak's business, and I know I certainly would not in the future given his legal tactics. I have dealt with Jim Ellis though, and will not in the future because of my experiences with them.
Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak (Score:2, Informative)
obligatory http://www.petswarehousesucks.com/ (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Minor point (Score:3, Informative)
Nice, but not to be confused with... (Score:5, Informative)
In my experience, they are a very reliable source for all kinds of supplies, and it would be a shame for people to associate their site with this litigation crazy moron.
Actually, it IS PetSwarehouse.com (Score:3, Informative)
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.20010
I made a rather unfortunate typo in my last message - I was referring to *Pets* Warehouse, not Pet Warehouse. My apologies (to you and to Pet Warehouse!).
Re:Is SlashDot on this list? (Score:1, Informative)
The main ways to deal with frivolous suits:
1) Motion to dismiss/Motion for Summary judgment: In the former, you argue to the judge that even if the facts are as plainitff has alleged, there is no legal claim, or that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. In the latter, you can argue the facts, and demonstrate that if there is no real dispute over the facts, plaintiff cannot support his or her legal claims. The latter is more expensive, because usually you must conduct discovery inorder to substantiate your version of the facts. (Note: the above is a broad simplication of somewhat complicated legal manuevers)
2) Move for santions under Rule 11: a plaintiff (or attorney, if represented by counsel) has an obligation not to file fraudulent or frivolous suits. Courts tend to err of the side of not sanctioning pro se plainiffs (don't want to appear to be denying access to the courts to the poor), but they will sanction if provoked.
Probably the biggets problem is touched upon by our Canadian friend -- unless the case involves a statute that so provides, the default rule in the US is that each side is responsible for their own costs. Once again, if the court wishes to sanction a party, it has the power to assess the other side's costs, but that's rare -- probably too rare. Nevertheless, the courts don't want to be seen as discouraging the "little guy" from seekig redress through the courts.
will he be suing the BBB next? (Score:5, Informative)
The Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York, Inc. has provided an unsatisfactory rating, the Bureau's lowest, for PetsWarehouse. The BBB site states:
"This firm operates an affiliated business on the internet offering products through its Copaigue location. This firm has received 21 complaints in the last 36 months, of which 11 of those 21 complaints were filed in the last 12 months. Complaints to the Bureau have alleged: 1) nondelivery of ordered merchandise and 2) credit or billing problems. This firm has a pattern of not responding to complaints to its attention by the Bureau."
Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak (Score:3, Informative)
Re:slapback (Score:2, Informative)
I'm afriad you've got it mixed up. The tactic is called "SLAPP" - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation [casp.net] - and it's widely used by large corporations to silence their critics.
Only if you consider an outcome whereby corporate wrongdoers can operate without fear a positive outcome...This is almost why "loser pays" is a horrible idea. Amalgamated Profits, Inc. is poisioning your town? Under loser pays, if you try to sue and their high priced lawyers beat the ones you managed to scrape enough pennies together to hire, not only are you poisoned and broke from your own legal fees, you've got to pay Amalgamated Profits, Inc.'s fees. So you don't dare sue.
Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! (Score:3, Informative)
Using an ad-filtering proxy [alfter.us] will keep him from deriving that benefit from a slashdotting. Running something like while true; do lynx -dump http://www.petswarehouse.com >/dev/null; done will also result in no ad views.
Security issues w/ petswarehouse.com (Score:1, Informative)
I tried for about two weeks to get a hold of anyone at the company that could patch the server, and everyone I spoke to directed me to Robert Novak. He never seemed to be there, and never bothered to return my calls/messages. I eventually gave up, deleted my logs, and hoped that noone would use the same hole that I found to steal CC numbers. I checked back a couple months later, and the hole still wasn't patched. It looks like they finally took care of it, though.
I guess the point of the story is: if Robert Novak being a litigious jerk isn't a big enough reason to refuse to buy from his company, maybe his lack of concern for his customer's private/financial information is.
*** Note: Many times, I have notified companies about security holes without "proof", and often have been brushed/laughed off. However, when you give them a list of thier customers, they suddenly take you very seriously, and the hole is usually patched within a day or two. In the worst case, I was flat-out accused of lying by a company's CEO, until I sent him the last four digits of his credit card number. The hole was patched that night
Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! (Score:3, Informative)
It's a shame really, I was kind of curious about that hamster thing...
Re:my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com (Score:3, Informative)
Fun, but not a bright Idea... (Score:1, Informative)
Here's one beauty from his messageboard... (Score:2, Informative)
In case of slashdotting, here is a comment from the petswarehouse.com website that I saved:
Re:-=Insert Subject =- (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Costing him nothing? (Score:1, Informative)
Lets call and ask him (check out WHOIS): (Score:3, Informative)
Administrative Contact
Robert Novak-> bob@petswarehouse.com
Pets Warehouse
1550 Sunrise Hwy
Copiague, ny 11726
US
Phone 631-789-5400
Fax 631.789.9340
This is not what it looks like! (Score:4, Informative)
I hate to say it, but Mr. Novak may actually have a valid trademark suit here!
Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to say it, but Mr. Novak may actually have a valid trademark suit here!
Use your public law library if you have one (Score:2, Informative)
Directors of County Law Libraries ususally have both
a JD and MLIS. May or may not have active bar membership. The staffs usually have paralegal and/or Library school trainings. They can provide assistannce in your research but not providing legal advice. Please be understanding if the library staffs want to stay from that very fine line. They can tell you which form book may have the form you need. But they can not tell you exactly which form you need to use. Etc.
I am currently working at one of those law libraries while putting myself through library school. About 60% of my patrons are attorneys and 30% are Pro Se/Per Pro litigants. (Researchers/Students make up the rest) Some patrons had great result using our service. Even if you hire an attorney, research on your own can make you a better legal advice consumer.
Go to American Association of Law Libraries
http://www.aallnet.org
Go the chapters, find the regional chapter in your areas to see if there are public law libraries in your area.
And more!! (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget to check out his message board's terms of use [infopop.cc]. Oddly enough, you're not allowed to mention the fact that the owner of the company sues his customers (and everyone else, for that matter). Any mention of the lawsuit that makes it onto his board is deleted very quickly. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, though. Even if the message gets stuck in an approval queue and never get posted by a moderator, as seems to be the general case, one of his moderators will still have to take the time to delete it. And I get the feeling that his moderators might not even know about the lawsuit, or else they won't associate with him.
One piece of advice to those attacking his message board: if the goal is to warn his customers about what his company is up to, linking to Petsforum [petsforum.com], TheDefenseFund [thedefensefund.org], or this Slashdot story would be MUCH more effective than linking to goatse.cx [petswarehouse.com]. Our goal is to bring his behavior into public light, not to gross people out. That's what we have Slashdot for. I know old habits die hard, but this is a chance for us to put our trolling/crapflooding skills to good use, and work for a higher goal.
It's funny how after the lawsuit business started, Bob [mailto] Novak [mailto] changed the name of his message board to "The Civilized Pet Forum." Yeah, right.
Then there are the requistite requisite [mailto] mailto [mailto] links [mailto]. What good would this post be without the requisite [mailto] mailto [mailto] links [mailto]? Keep these requisite [mailto] mailto [mailto] links [mailto] in mind for future use. These requisite [mailto] mailto [mailto] links [mailto] make the world go round!
Archived mirror of PetsWarehouse page [archive.org].
Archived company info [archive.org].
Archived map to store [archive.org]
Domain registration info [betterwhois.com]
GNU Wget [wget.org] - a website downloading tool. Useful for accessing sites that are Slashdotted, by hitting the site over, and over, and over, and over, and over...
Netcraft Info for Petswarehouse [netcraft.com]
As a former employee... (Score:1, Informative)
It wasn't changed. :p (Score:3, Informative)