Comments on: Lawsuit claim: legal right to more publicity

By: geekgurl

geekgurl — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:22:37 +0000

Bad publicity is still publicity. I say US Weekly has every right to not promote a business if that is what they want to do. However if they use a picture that includes the store they should just let the picture be without any changes but not include the name of the business in text.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:01:09 +0000

The suit claims that there was an oral agreement as part of the settlement of their prior suit. In any other state, that would be a non-starter, but California has an idiotic doctrine that there’s no such thing as a fully-integrated contract.

Even with that, some of the claims (that lack of coverage is “disparaging”) are frivolous.

By: Eh Nonymous

Eh Nonymous — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:01:34 +0000

That’s hilarious.

Some people can’t lose for losing.

Of course, attention-grabbing firms usually want to grab more attention – you don’t suppose your coverage in some small way replicates the same harm as mainstream media coverage of this pathetic attempt to game the system?

Amusing, glad you blogged about it for my own sake, but I wonder:

Is there any more appropriate response to a lawsuit over insufficient publicity, than to decline to blog about it?

(or comment about it, I suppose, so am I committing the same sin on a lesser scale?) 🙂