Comments on: In which there are no real wieners

By: A.W.

A.W. — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:31:09 +0000

I don’t know, i don’t think it buys them very much awareness.

By: VMS

VMS — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:44:50 +0000

Did it occur to anyone that this may be a collusive suit? Where else can you get all this publicity for a filing fee of $350 and a few hours of a lawyer’s time. First the news media carries the story, then the bloggers. What a great advertising value!

”Nuf said. I’m busy deciding what brand of hot dogs to use for my Memorial Day BBQ.

By: A.W.

A.W. — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:32:13 +0000

I dissent. The real weiners are the lawyers. This false advertising racket, and it really is a racket, is ridiculus. i have known lawyers who made their entire career suing company A on behalf of Company B by deliberately misconstruing ads in ways that no one would read them. Of course there are some suits along these lines that have merit, but there are tons that don’t and everyone understand exactly what it is: its a way of piling costs on the other side. For instance, that friend bragged about causing a rival company to reshoot an ad featuring a household celebrity. So they had to pay her to do the ad twice, presumably, and the director, production company and so on.

The answer, of course, is to stop treating corporate speech as the redheaded step child of the first amendment. And generally to shift to loser pays.

Not commenting on the merits of this case, but this area of law in general is just for weiners.