Startup Threatened Into Settling Over Hyperlinking 333
An anonymous reader writes "A tiny startup that was threatened by a massive law firm over nothing more than a humble hyperlink has been forced to settle and change its linking policies, handing Goliath the win in this gratuitous trademark case. Under the agreement, real estate startup BlockShopper can no longer include hyperlinks anywhere on its website to Jones Day, a massive Chicago law firm, except explicitly on URL text. Essentially, jonesday.com is okay, but not blah blah blah." I wonder if the owners of jonesdaysucks.com feel the same way.
oh yizzo (Score:5, Funny)
frist psot beeoches [jonesday.com]
Re:oh yizzo (Score:5, Informative)
Let them know how you feel via their contact page at:
JonesDay's Contact Us page [jonesday.com]
Re:oh yizzo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:oh yizzo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:oh yizzo (Score:5, Funny)
Jonesday.com sucks [jonesday.com] Jones Day sucks the farts out of cows' asses [jonesday.com] They suck bad [jonesday.com] They are miserable failures [jonesday.com] They suck donkey cock [jonesday.com] JonesDay.com sacrifices Chinese babies in the name of Satan [jonesday.com] Jones Day still sucks [jonesday.com] Jones Day sucks, sucks, sucks [jonesday.com] jonesday.com wishes they had just shut the fuck up [jonesday.com]
Re:oh yizzo (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the feeling that they are soon to learn about what is called The Streisand Effect - You know, it's where you fuck up on the Internet and the entire fucking Internet takes a moment to let you know about it.... lol
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I [jonesday.com] get [jonesday.com] the [jonesday.com] feeling [jonesday.com] that [jonesday.com] they [jonesday.com] are [jonesday.com] soon [jonesday.com] to [jonesday.com] learn [jonesday.com] about [jonesday.com] what [jonesday.com] is [jonesday.com] called [jonesday.com] The [jonesday.com] Streisand [jonesday.com] Effect [jonesday.com] - You [jonesday.com] know, [jonesday.com] it's [jonesday.com] where [jonesday.com] you [jonesday.com] fuck [jonesday.com] up [jonesday.com] on [jonesday.com] the [jonesday.com] Internet [jonesday.com] and [jonesday.com] the [jonesday.com] entire [jonesday.com] fucking [jonesday.com] Internet [jonesday.com]
takes [jonesday.com] a [jonesday.com] moment [jonesday.com] to [jonesday.com] let [jonesday.com] you [jonesday.com] know [jonesday.com] about [jonesday.com] it.... [jonesday.com] lol [jonesday.com]
Too bad slashdot has so many annoying filters or else I wouldn't have to type these additional comments to bypass them.
Re:oh yizzo (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not taunt happy fun Internet.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:oh yizzo (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly this is just an exercise in reverse psychology:
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
4. Bunch of idiot lawyers underestimate this "bandwidth" thing and their server gets hammered so hard that it changes its network name to "JAMES_HETFIELD".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Come now. Seriously. "In Soviet Russia, Streissand affects you!"
Was it that hard?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really, every link to them on slashdot has [jonesday.com] next to it which is what they wanted from the website they sued. Perhaps if slashdot changed the site so that [jonesday.com] didn't appear.. maybe..
Re:oh yizzo (Score:5, Interesting)
Im surprised that blockshopper settled out of court here.
I had a similar experience, with regard to unpaid domains from a place I was doing contract work for.
When the bills went unpaid, I posted a link to the county courthouse that listed all the current and pending cases said company had against it.
Almost a year later, I got what is best known as a "Cease and Desist" letter in the mail from an attorney. The letter claimed all sorts of things, that I was knowingly committing libel, along with trademark and copyright violations as well. The threats included if I did not comply were restraining orders, fines, and CRIMINAL charges being filed against me.
So what did I do? I never responded to the letter, and I posted the letter on my website, for all to read. So now, something that had about 1-2 hits a month, went up to being seen by 10,000+ people. And the lawyer who attached himself to this attempt, is forever associated with it.
You can read the incompetent attempt at a Cease and Desist Letter [demystify.info] here. The company who felt this was an ethical approach was Caton Commercial [willcounty...tcourt.com]
And now, one year later, I have not heard a single response to that letter. Although, in all honesty I wish that I could have gone into a court room, and heard the lawyer who wrote that letter try to explain his case to a judge that the county was publishing libelous information by posting the schedule of its own cases online publicly.
Re:oh yizzo (Score:4, Insightful)
Im surprised that blockshopper settled out of court here. I had a similar experience, with regard to unpaid domains from a place I was doing contract work for. When the bills went unpaid, I posted a link to the county courthouse that listed all the current and pending cases said company had against it. Almost a year later, I got what is best known as a "Cease and Desist" letter in the mail from an attorney. The letter claimed all sorts of things, that I was knowingly committing libel, along with trademark and copyright violations as well. The threats included if I did not comply were restraining orders, fines, and CRIMINAL charges being filed against me. So what did I do? I never responded to the letter, and I posted the letter on my website, for all to read. So now, something that had about 1-2 hits a month, went up to being seen by 10,000+ people. And the lawyer who attached himself to this attempt, is forever associated with it. You can read the incompetent attempt at a Cease and Desist Letter [demystify.info] here. The company who felt this was an ethical approach was Caton Commercial [willcounty...tcourt.com] And now, one year later, I have not heard a single response to that letter. Although, in all honesty I wish that I could have gone into a court room, and heard the lawyer who wrote that letter try to explain his case to a judge that the county was publishing libelous information by posting the schedule of its own cases online publicly.
You did what people need to do in this society... fight back against the bullies. If you don't, the freedoms we have in our society will be gone in the blink of an eye.
Re:oh yizzo (Score:5, Insightful)
Small things make base men proud (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget about the scum-sucking sack-of-shit judge John Darra [wordpress.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Formatting is thus:
<a href="http://INSERT.URL.HERE">Insert text here</a>
The above example appears like this:
Insert text here [url.here]
All those lawyers... (Score:5, Interesting)
...and not one memo to a tech guy for a technological solution? I mean, if you don't like a site deep-linking into your own, isn't it a trivial one-line change to the server setup to block referrers?
Re:All those lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
When the only tool you have is a hammer...
Re:All those lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
..then you are bound to hit your finger.
Re: (Score:2)
...you're about to drive a nail between your own eyes and complete a self lobotomy.
Re: (Score:2)
... every customer thinks he's the Messiah.
Probably going to burn in hell [jonesday.com] for that one.
RTFA, it's not about hot linking (Score:5, Informative)
.. the firm presumably wasn't thrilled about having its attorneys' home purchases broadcast [slate.com] ..
The firm's got a point if you ask me.
This is an overkill, but I'm sure they just meant to teach these boneheads a lesson - don't fuck with lawyers.
Re:RTFA, it's not about hot linking (Score:4, Insightful)
Good point, but trademark infringement is meant to protect against domain spoofing, and RL equivalents.
It's not just an excuse to sue someone who uses your name, right?
Re:RTFA, it's not about hot linking (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Re:RTFA, it's not about hot linking (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFA, it's not about hot linking (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, but the judge in this case is the even bigger idiot.
Thing is, judges always say things like that -- to both sides. It doesn't tell you how they're ultimately going to rule.
Unlike on television, where every case goes to trial in 3 days, the reality of litigation is that the Courts do not have the resources for every case to go to trial. The Courts would need to be a hundred times their present size to accommodate that many trials.
In today's world of modern litigation, one of the functions of a judge is to get rid of the case, which involves arm twisting of BOTH sides. The judge tells each side why they're stupid not to settle.
So if the judge said that, you can't draw any conclusions as to how the case would ultimately wound up.
Re:All those lawyers... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if you don't like a site deep-linking into your own, isn't it a trivial one-line change to the server setup to block referrers?
Think about it even more: was this even a real startup? Who is this kid? Could it possibly be a shill case to establish some kind of precedent so that Jones Day can start shaking down other small companies in an economic downturn?
Perish the thought. This is Jones Day we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the politicians. Sure, lots of politicians are lawyers, but you're leaving some of those folks out. Just being a bit pedantic.
Cue the Streisand effect in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole blah blah blah [jonesday.com] linking scandal is just so blah blah blah [jonesday.com] stupid. Heck maybe we can cue a blah blah blah [jonesday.com] Googlebomb to demonstrate just how bad Jonesday is with the handling of this blah blah blah [jonesday.com] issue.
BTW: Jonesday, if you're thinking of suing me don't bother, I've got no money and know plenty of lawyers who will work for me anyways. It's not so much blood from a stone as it's blood from a raging inferno.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I [jonesday.com] wanted [jonesday.com] to [jonesday.com] do [jonesday.com] this [jonesday.com] one [jonesday.com] letter [jonesday.com] at [jonesday.com] a [jonesday.com] time [jonesday.com] but [jonesday.com] decided [jonesday.com] all [jonesday.com] the [jonesday.com] link [jonesday.com] marks [jonesday.com] would [jonesday.com] make [jonesday.com] it [jonesday.com] impossible [jonesday.com] to [jonesday.com] read.. [jonesday.com]
This just in.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why not just link to all the turtle [jonesday.com] s at onces. i have to say as much as these guys are stupid idiots, Id quite like a link to the judge who made this ridiculous ruling too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the name of this judge needs to be publicly spread around. He needs his share of the Streisand effect.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
yeah but only because they are cunts [jonesday.com], plus I'd hope that links in Slashdot comments are ignored by search engines.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some words that are easy to google bomb. There are some words that have so much SEO already in place that even slashdot's readership would struggle to get it to #1. The word you suggested has wikipedia ranked #6, so I think it's fair to say that you are not going to get #1.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This just in.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You want goatse.fr
It is the only currently running second-level domain for goatse (As per the Wikipedia article).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot litigious bastards [jonesday.com], or is that just the SCOundrels who are litigious bastards [sco.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean we need to post in blogs, or forums that require registration?
Apropos of nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
It really sucks [jonesday.com] that the little guy got screwed [jonesday.com] by a bunch of litigious bastards [jonesday.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when the little guy gets screwed [jonesday.com] by a bunch of litigious bastards [jonesday.com] it most certainly does suck [jonesday.com].
Re:Apropos of nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it would be unfair to call them "micro-dicked weasels" [jonesday.com].
After all, micro-dicked weasels [jonesday.com] is a pretty hurtful term, don't you think? What if one of their potential clients see that all these people are calling them that (i.e. micro-dicked weasels [jonesday.com])? That would reflect poorly on them and we wouldn't want that.
.
.
...
.
.
(micro-dicked weasels [jonesday.com].)
Re:Apropos of nothing (Score:5, Funny)
The micro-dicked weasel [jonesday.com] (Mustela diem) is a small mammal of the family Mustelidae. In Europe it is known as the cockless weasel [jonesday.com] or short-dick weasel [jonesday.com].
Physical Description
The micro-dicked weasel [jonesday.com] is a member of the family Mustelidae, which includes martens, mink, otters, ferrets, and wolverines. The micro-dicked weasel [jonesday.com]'s low legs, wide hind-quarters, and poor diet give it a pronounced waddle. The micro-dicked weasel [jonesday.com]'s skin secretes a thick, syrupy oil which gives it's coat a greasy sheen.
I wonder how long a wikipedia page would last...
Re: (Score:2)
grasp of technical matters fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:grasp of technical matters fail (Score:4, Interesting)
I was under the impression that Jones Day is a law firm. Lawyers generally don't strive on the reputation of being likable.
Indeed, if I ever want to stop a website from linking to anything of mine (and I don't know why I ever would), I may call jonesday. Apparently they know how to do it. I might also key their cars on my way into and out of their offices, but I might have done that anyway just because they were lawyers.
Re:grasp of technical matters fail (Score:5, Funny)
Lawyers generally don't strive on the reputation of being likable.
Now you tell me.
At the rate this article is going... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah. Like most forums, links in comments are given the rel="nofollow" attribute, which means google will ignore them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Someone made a reference up where JonesDay.com Sacrifices Chinese babies in the name of Satan [jonesday.com] and it's already been indexed.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1136379&cid=26946099 [slashdot.org]
Isn't having a website implicit permission? (Score:5, Interesting)
A website is a public-facing document. It explicitly exists to transfer information from the operators' servers to the computer of anyone who for whatever reason accesses that server.
It seems unreasonable to claim that there should be any sort of restriction on who can do what with the address that points people to your website. If you don't want people going there, then make your site password-protected.
Re: (Score:2)
No Justice, No Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA: "Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"
So, basically, here's a just saying, point blank, that he's not in the business of justice... that it's irrelevant if you are right in the eyes of the law, if you don't have enough money, you lose. It's refreshing to see a judge being so honest.
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to Chicago. We learn to deal with it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I somehow don't think that Jones Day could make their case against the poor guy if he had just represented himself.
Jones Day was so wrong that the whole thing would have amounted to about $150,000 in lost hours representing the firm instead of paying customers.
Re:No Justice, No Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Because he said exactly the same thing repeated day in and day out on slashdot? For saying what is not only conventional wisdom, but unarguably true? It would cost an absolute fortune to defend--even successfully--against this lawsuit. That's simple fact. After all, they're thinking about fighting a law firm. While the /. crowd loves people to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the good fight on their behalf, reality isn't nearly so kind. As it stands, they "settled" for only linking to this idiot company using its name. (In reality they'll probably just elect to not bother with them anymore.) Other than /. karma, what exactly do these guys win by financially ruining themselves to be able to do otherwise? The crapshoot chance of recovering some of that money in lawyers fees afterward? Underwhelming.
As far as the amicus brief issue is concerned, if Ars' one-line explanation of the situation was entirely accurate then that was indeed bogus. As is so often the case, however, the reality of the situation likely can't be wrapped up quite so tidily--if for no other reason than we can't know the judge's mind. This is a preliminary hearing; a lawsuit was filed, BlockShopper asked it be tossed out, and the judge said no. *shrugs* I don't like the ruling, but I fail to see the justification in attacking the judge like that. The entire legal system is fucked up and biased toward rich litigants, and courts more often than not choose to let cases actually play out rather than tossing them right at the start. It's just the way the legal profession goes. Based on that article, we don't even know what the specific lawsuit claims were. If you dig into the settlement agreement you can see that it was "for service mark infringement, service mark dilution, false designation of origin and deceptive trade practices." All the judge has said so far is "yes, this is permitted to go to trial" and "are you really sure this is worth it to you?"
Maybe he's a horribly biased, awful judge. Maybe he makes consistently horrible decisions. I really have no idea. There's damn sure not enough in this article for a reasonable person to make any of those claims though. If Slashdot wants to let loose the dogs of war, direct them at the party making the claims you find ridiculous. It seems to me THEY deserve the derision.
Re:No Justice, No Peace? (Score:5, Informative)
No, because that is not something the judge should concern himself with. When he does concern himself with that, it suggests bias.
wtf judge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the judge in the case refused to even look at the brief after Jones Day said the brief sided with one party (as most amicus briefs do); he also refused to dismiss the case at the request of BlockShopper. According to TechDirt, the judge even allegedly put pressure on BlockShopper to back down by saying, "Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"
I may not know much, but that's pretty low.
Re:wtf judge? (Score:5, Informative)
The Honorable John W. Darrah
United States District Court
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Contact: Kathryn E. Bianchetti
Phone: (312) 435-5619
I would expect such behavior from a big law firm, and to some degree it's to be expected if it's a real trademark action, but I'd expect a federal judge to use a little more discretion and not be so blatantly one-sided. This asshole frankly seems to be in Jones-Day's back pocket, and I wouldn't expect anything resembling a fair hearing from him based on his actions to this point.
Yes, Judge Darrah, I just said I believe you're either either incompetent or crooked. You can choose which one you think represents you best, but either way I don't think you're qualified to be hearing this case.
Re: (Score:2)
After the whole Blagojevich thing, Illinois is really giving Florida a run for the "state which has the most incredibly stupid news events originating from it" trophy.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly this idiot shouldn't be allowed to hear cases of bubble wrap popping... someone should limit this mongo to ruling on cases involving unflattering pet clothing.
And check to see if he's recently had any vacations for which he can't explain, and were paid for by some mysterious third party.
Re:wtf judge? (Score:5, Informative)
Or you can rate him here. This should get interesting:
http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1190
Reaaaaddyyyyyyy GO
LOL. He's now the words ranked judge on the site (Score:3, Interesting)
Go to the site's home page to see the top and bottom 10 judges: http://www.therobingroom.com/ [therobingroom.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Libel! (Score:5, Funny)
You know... (Score:5, Funny)
Scriptkiddies could finally be useful!
More information all over the web (Score:5, Interesting)
According to this blog [typepad.com] and many other sources, the lawyers in question were Dan Malone and Jacob Tiedt, who do indeed work at Jones Day according to their own [jonesday.com] web site [jonesday.com]. It's not clear to me what, exactly the issue is there. The names involved in sales of a property are ordinarily recorded as public information (unless it's done through an agent or something). The information about these gentlemen's employment is right on their employer's web site. Is Jones Day claiming that putting this information together is illegal?
The blog cites another article in a law journal about supposed concerns about privacy. Fair enough. But if that's the case then these guys have probably gone out of their way to keep all personal information private.
Wait, what's this? Jacob Tiedt is a pretty distinctive name. There can't be too many of those in Chicago. And, wow, that's strange. Why the heck does the guy's name appear all over the place in a Google search [google.ca] that simply uses "Jacob Tiedt" and "Chicago"? Heck, one of the web pages registers his political donations which ALSO indicates that his employer/occupation is "Jones Day/Attorney" and gives his ZIP code. Lexis Nexis gives all sorts of details too [lawyers.com], and (gasp) links directly to the jonesday.com web site. Horrors. And, strange, apparently he doesn't have an unlisted number, because his name is easy to find in the various on-line white pages. It's almost as if he hasn't made the slightest effort to remain incognito.
It looks like Jones Day is going to spend a lot of time in litigation if they want to expunge the web of any links to Jones Day and these guy's personal information, and half of the web pages are as a result of their initial attempts with Blockshopper. Hello? Streisand effect?
The apparent remedy in the settlement was to prohibit links like this: Daniel P. Malone Jr. [jonesday.com], while links like this: www.jonesday.com/dpmalone [jonesday.com] are acceptable. Huh? I don't get it.
What a farce.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only sense I can make of this is that Jones Day doesn't want the firm to be permanently associated with those two names. Hard to guess why. Do they have really bad reputations? Are they going to be fired soon?
Re: (Score:2)
So I added an article on my blog. :) http://knyshov.com/bad-business-practices/litigious-bastards-my-contribution-to-the-campaign-against-jones-day-v-blockshopper/ [knyshov.com]
Nice effort (Score:5, Informative)
The Judge Seriously Said That? (Score:5, Funny)
That sounds like bad dialog from a Lifetime network lawyer movie or something.
These guys have some serious IT department. (Score:2)
LOL (Score:2)
I love [slashdot.org] slashdot [slashdot.org]. You people [slashdot.org] always come up [slashdot.org] with the best little jibs [slashdot.org]. Fuck jones day dot com [slashdot.org]
Use of http protocol should be copyleft licensed (Score:2)
Tim Berners-Lee and W3C should put a license on http such that it is not permitted to serve content via http that cannot be freely linked to. Locking content down by password, encryption etc. would still be permitted, but if content appears on an http server on the open Internet, it is legal to link to it with whatever anchor text. It would still be possible to bring a case for slander or libel if the anchor text were slanderous or libelous, but otherwise, link restriction would not be compatible with the l
Spectacular own goal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers are paid for their knowledge, judgement and advice. I'm not in the market at the moment, but as an occasional purchaser of legal services, the fact that Jones Day would pursue this claim in this way indicates a lack of sound judgement. If I were looking for a lawyer, I would be thinking - "If they are as clueless about the real world as the reporting on this case suggests, in acting for themselves, then how could they be trusted to give sensible advice to others?" Jones Day have thousands of lawyers, and of course this case is one of thousands that I expect that they are currently involved in, but how could their review team have let this carry on to its conclusion? Incorrect risk analysis on their part? No risk analysis? Could reporting on this be incorrect?
I understand that nobody enjoys information that they consider to be private to be put into the public domain, and that part of the problem is that the internet removes the half-way house that publication on paper provided - semi-public by way of obscurity - that they lacked tools to redact the information, but I'm not sure that this is a good reason for a trademark claim. Perhaps a spokesperson from Jones Day would like to give some background on their decision making and the way that they pursued their claim to provide balance to the commentary.
Re: (Score:2)
m i doin' this rite
Re: (Score:2)
jonesday.com [jonesday.com] are litigious bastards [jonesday.com].
Oh and...
litigious bastards [jonesday.com]
litigious [jonesday.com]
bastards [jonesday.com]
turtle [jonesday.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true for comment bodies, but not for .sigs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>You have the absolute right to point to any resource on my server you want?
Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not cover publicly accessible URLs. It never has. Period.
And even if it did, like most amateur, wannabe, condescendingly annoying, psuedo legal eagles, you are confusing "rights" with the law. There are rights that we have that the legistlature and judicial system consistently and repeatedly ignore. To make matters worse, they do it because of ignorant, shortsighted, luddite fools just like you. You disgust me. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with deeplinking
Re: (Score:2)
Please cite case law where the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was used to prosecute a deep linker in a case not involving fraud.
Re: (Score:2)