“For the last several years, Wal-Mart Stores and other large chains have threatened legal action to intimidate Web sites that get hold of advertising circulars early and publish prices online ahead of company-set release dates.” After one such site received a nastygram from Office Depot, it began reporting forthcoming sale prices at “Office Despot”, whereupon the retailer sued, without ultimate success but presumably at a nontrivial defense cost (Randal Stross, “What to Do When Goliaths Roar?”, New York Times, Nov. 18).
Posts Tagged ‘nastygrams’
Don’t link, criticize, use our name, refer to us, view our source code…
Just by browsing the website of a company called Inventor-Link, visitors supposedly consent to abide by the terms of a “user agreement” which “strictly” prohibits them from using not only any of the site’s content but even its name without express permission. “Furthermore, we strictly prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission.” The company is invoking these terms in a cease and desist letter “in an attempt to stop criticism of the company that appears on InventorEd.org, a website that provides information about invention promotion businesses and scams.” Inventor-Link’s law firm? None other than Dozier Internet Law, criticized in this space and many others last week over its claim that its nastygrams are themselves the subject of copyright and cannot be posted on the web. And the Dozier firm’s own website has a user agreement that purports to prohibit “linking to its website, using the firm’s name ‘in any manner’ without permission,” and, weirdest of all, even looking at its source code by clicking on your browser’s “view source code” command. (Greg Beck, Consumer Law & Policy, Oct. 17). More: Boing Boing, TechDirt (including comment that reads, in its entirety, “You are not allowed to read this comment”), Slashdot.
Nastygram: don’t you dare post this nastygram on the web
Ted has briefly mentioned (Oct. 8) the recent doings of an outfit called Dozier Internet Law, whose cease and desist letter to a consumer-complaint site not only demanded that the site take down certain statements about Dozier’s client, DirectBuy, but also asserted that the cease and desist letter was itself the subject of copyright and could not be posted in part or full on the web. Eric Turkewitz, having called this approach “chuckleheaded” in an initial post (Oct. 5 — scroll), is now all over the story (Oct. 9 and Oct. 11), especially after attorney John Dozier of the firm in question submitted a comment whose clueless snippiness really must be seen to be believed.
More: from Consumer Law & Policy, Patry Copyright Blog, Legal Ethics Forum, and TechDirt, as well as extensive coverage at TDAXP.
October 8 Roundup
- The DC Examiner quotes both Walter and me in their series on corruption in the trial bar.
- Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: privacy laws interfere with college mental-health treatment, which of course doesn’t keep them from being sued when the treatment doesn’t work. [LA Times; earlier in April; and May 2006]
- Charlie Weis didn’t just lose his first several games of the season at Notre Dame; he also lost his silly medical malpractice case retrial. [Childs; February in Overlawyered]
- Ninth Circuit revives one claim in deep-vein thrombosis litigation against airlines. [Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines; San Francisco Chronicle; earlier on Overlawyered]
- Hugh Hewitt discusses tort reform with Overlawyered bloggers. [Ted on Hugh Hewitt; Walter on Hugh Hewitt]
- Overlawyered and Public Citizen agree: it’s silly for law firms to try to copyright their nastygrams. [CL&P Blog]
- More on the Target website disability suit. [Open Market; Oct. 3 and links therein]
- Utah Supreme Court adopts common-sense product liability rule. [Products Liability Law Prof]
- DC City Council objects to recovering millions spent by city on medical care of patient who sued city after gouging out his own eyes. [DC Examiner; Washington Post; BLT]
- The most embarrassing thing Joe Stiglitz ever wrote? [Manne via Boudreaux; Cowen; Frum]
- Are Overlawyered readers “fringe element” “sycophants”? From the same blogger who says no one can criticize Lynne Stewart unless they personally know her, but I presume that’s “For thee, but not for me”-style hypocrisy. [Scott Greenfield]
Nastygram over renting out DVDs
Travis Corcoran gets an “angry and curt” call from an intellectual property lawyer over this practice, and reacts with some ferocity (TJIC, May 17).
June 5 roundup
- Everyone’s got an opinion on Dr. Flea’s trial-blogging fiasco [Beldar, Childs, Adler @ Volokh (lively comments including Ted), Turkewitz (who also provides huge link roundups here and here), KevinMD]
- Sidebar: some other doctor-bloggers have shut down or curtailed posting lately amid pressures from disapproving employers and patient-privacy legal worries [KevinMD first, second posts; Distractible Mind, Blogaholic]
- Amusement park unwisely allows “extremely large” woman to occupy two seats on the roller coaster, and everyone lands with a thump in court [Morris County, N.J. Daily Record via Childs]
- Prosecutors all over are trying to live down the “Duke effect” [NLJ]; how to prevent the next such debacle [Cernovich]
- Bad for their image: trial lawyers’ AAJ (formerly ATLA) files ethics complaint against Judge Roy Pearson Jr., of $65 million lost-pants-suit infamy [Legal Times]
- More suits assert rights to “virtual property” in Second Life, World of Warcraft online simulations [Parloff]
- Plea deals and immunity in the Conrad Black affair [Steyn, OC Register]
- Another round in case of local blog sent nastygram for allegedly defaming the city of Pomona, Calif. [Foothill Cities; earlier]
- “There once was a guy named Lerach…” — Milberg prosecution has reached the limerick stage [WSJ Law Blog comments]
- Government of India plans to fight Americans’ claims of intellectual property over yoga postures [Times Online; earlier here and here]
- After car-deer collision, lawyer goes after local residents who allegedly made accident more likely by feeding the creatures [seven years ago on Overlawyered]
“Publication of false information concerning the City of Pomona”
Eugene Volokh points out that you can’t be found liable for defaming a city, notwithstanding a nastygram sent by the Pomona, Calif. city attorney to the Foothill Cities weblog (May 11). The weblog has pulled down the posts in question, which reported on rumors involving the city manager and others in the city’s employ: “We’re going to let Goliath win this one”. (May 11).
May 1 roundup
- Jack Thompson, call your office: FBI search turns up no evidence Virginia Tech killer owned or played videogames [Monsters and Critics]
- How many zeroes was that? Bank of America threatens ABN Amro with $220 billion suit if it reneges on deal to sell Chicago’s LaSalle Bank [Times (U.K.), Consumerist]
- Chuck Colson will be disappointed, but the rule of law wins: Supreme Court declines to intervene in Miller-Jenkins (Vermont-Virginia lesbian custody) dispute [AP; see Mar. 2 and many earlier posts]
- Oklahoma legislature passes, but governor vetoes, comprehensive liability-reform bill [Point of Law first, second, third posts]
- Good primer on California’s much-abused Prop 65 right-to-know toxics law [CalBizLit via Ted @ PoL]
- “Defensive psychiatry” and the pressure to hospitalize persons who talk of suicide [Intueri]
- Among the many other reasons not to admire RFK Jr., there’s his wind-farm hypocrisy [Mac Johnson, Energy Tribune]
- “Screed-O-Matic” simulates nastygrams dashed off by busy Hollywood lawyer Martin Singer [Portfolio]
- “Liability, health issues” cited as Carmel, Ind. officials plan to eject companion dogs from special-needs program, though no parents have complained [Indpls. Star; similar 1999 story from Ohio]
- First glimmerings of Sen. John Edwards’s national ambitions [five years ago on Overlawyered]
Abusive scare letters: JL Kirk & Associates
JL Kirk & Associates has its attorneys, King & Ballow, send a scare letter to a blogger over an account of their sales tactics, and feels the wrath of the blogosphere. [Bill Hobbs; Rob Huddleston (both via Bainbridge); many more links in those posts]
Update: I see Dave Nieporent’s boss is now in the fray on behalf of the Media Bloggers’ Association.
April 2 roundup
- Illinois Justice Robert R. Thomas libel ruling award reduced to $4 million, but otherwise upheld by trial judge. “Essentially, the chief justice is still taking advantage of the system he dominates by trying to grab a personal windfall just because an opinion column in a newspaper speculated about politics on the bench.” (earlier) [Chicago Tribune; update from Lattman with opinion]
- Alabama woman claims Starbucks coffee caused burns when she spilled on herself, sues. But I thought only Albuquerque McDonald’s coffee could cause burns? [Birmingham News (h/t P.E.)]
- Update: Amway claims jurors in Utah case based $19.25 million award (Mar. 21) on number of P&G lawyers sitting at the table and engaged in improper averaging to reach nonunanimous result. [Salt Lake Tribune]
- Copyright claimed in hedge-fund advertising brochure posted by blog [DealBreaker; Reuters]
- N.D. Cal. federal judge: National Environmental Policy Act can be used to make speculative global-warming arguments against overseas government investment. [AP/Forbes]
- Honor among thieves? Law firms turn on Milberg Weiss [press release]
- Lawyer-to-the-stars Marty Singer (Dec. 9, Jan. 27, 2006) was also paid $25k from Senator Harry Reid’s campaign fund in failed attempt to squash AP coverage of fishy land deal. [WaPo]
- Consumer World head has an idea that is so good, it must be mandated. [Kazman @ CEI Open Market]
- This date in Overlawyered. 2001: NY legislature refuses to act on accident fraud. 2002: Roger Parloff on 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. 2004: Reparations claims against the British over 19th century actions. 2006: $1M for the first fifteen minutes of unlawful detention, $1M/year thereafter.