Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Courts The Internet

Startup Threatened Into Settling Over Hyperlinking 333

Posted by timothy from the naughty-anchortexts-forbidden dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Startup Threatened Into Settling Over Hyperlinking More

Startup Threatened Into Settling Over Hyperlinking

Comments Filter:

  • oh yizzo (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2009 @10:23PM (#26945939)

    frist psot beeoches [jonesday.com]

  • All those lawyers... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @10:25PM (#26945949) Homepage Journal

    ...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?

  • Cue the Streisand effect in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tekiegreg ( 674773 ) * <tekieg1-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Saturday February 21, 2009 @10:26PM (#26945963) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • This just in.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2009 @10:27PM (#26945965)
    Every [jonesday.com] person [jonesday.com]at [jonesday.com] jonesday [jonesday.com] is [jonesday.com]a [jonesday.com] turtle [jonesday.com]

  • Apropos of nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChrisGoodwin ( 24375 ) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @10:31PM (#26945983) Journal

    It really sucks [jonesday.com] that the little guy got screwed [jonesday.com] by a bunch of litigious bastards [jonesday.com].

  • grasp of technical matters fail (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @10:38PM (#26946009)
    I have a feeling jones day, are about to have a really bad day.
  • In no time at all they'll be Google #1 for every swear word, former Googlebomb phrase, blah blah blah [jonesday.com], and the word turtle [jonesday.com]. As is their just reward :-)

  • Isn't having a website implicit permission? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Toe, The ( 545098 ) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @10:40PM (#26946029)

    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.

    • Oh yes, for anyone other than lawyers thats true. But because we all know lawyers are above the law and know more about the law then we ever could we should just give in to their demands because they know the law!

  • No Justice, No Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clambake ( 37702 ) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @10:55PM (#26946091) Homepage

    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)

      by wisty ( 1335733 )

      mod parent up

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Welcome to Chicago. We learn to deal with it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by salesgeek ( 263995 )

      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)

      by Dhalka226 ( 559740 ) on Sunday February 22, 2009 @01:29AM (#26946785)

      So, basically, here's a just saying, point blank, that he's not in the business of justice

      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)

        by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Sunday February 22, 2009 @01:38AM (#26946825) Journal

        So, basically, here's a just saying, point blank, that he's not in the business of justice

        Why? Because he said exactly the same thing repeated day in and day out on slashdot?

        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)

    by KDingo ( 944605 ) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @11:05PM (#26946155)

    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)

      by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @11:38PM (#26946333)
      Let him know then:

      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)

        by rob1980 ( 941751 )
        Chicago, IL 60604

        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)

        by Genda ( 560240 )

        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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2009 @02:10AM (#26946953)

        Or you can rate him here. This should get interesting:

        http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1190

        Reaaaaddyyyyyyy GO

      • IANAL, so I'd be really curious to know if that qualifies for contempt of court in the US? Also, what is the go with that in other countries? How far can you go in criticising a judge, outside or inside of the courtroom?

  • Libel! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dangitman ( 862676 ) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @11:23PM (#26946243)
    I insist that you stop this defamation immediately! jonesday.com [goatse.cx] is a fine, upstanding company that offers excellent service.

  • You know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ToxicBanjo ( 905105 ) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @11:25PM (#26946261)
    ...someone should Da Vinci their Gibson with extreme prejudice.

    Scriptkiddies could finally be useful!

  • More information all over the web (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2009 @11:45PM (#26946369)

    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.

  • Nice effort (Score:5, Informative)

    by Spazholio ( 314843 ) <slashdot@le[ ].net ['xal' in gap]> on Saturday February 21, 2009 @11:47PM (#26946379) Homepage
    The whole Google-Bomb idea was nice, but every link on this page is nofollow'd. Not gonna do any good.

  • The Judge Seriously Said That? (Score:5, Funny)

    by carlzum ( 832868 ) on Sunday February 22, 2009 @12:01AM (#26946419)

    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?"

    That sounds like bad dialog from a Lifetime network lawyer movie or something.

  • 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]

  • 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)

    by Bozovision ( 107228 ) on Sunday February 22, 2009 @09:38AM (#26948385) Homepage

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close