Specialty Technical Publishers
Has anyone else has run into these scumbags? Sometime last winter I received a call along the lines of "We'd like to send you some materials to review". Well, they sent some "Internet Law encyclopedia" along with an invoice for ~$700. Of course, there was no cost mentioned in the sales call- for all I knew they were going to send me a brochure about their product. I can say with 100% certainty that I would never have authorized them to send me something like this had they mentioned the cost without much further discussion as to what I was receiving. This is just a general heads-up to a sleazy business practice for a sleazy company that is now attempting to extort money.
Invoicing for unsolicited materials is commonly referred to as "mail fraud" hereabouts. The courts have consistently upheld the notion that such materials can be considered gifts. IANAL but I would advise /dev/nulling all further correspondence from these losers. -- MAB On Aug 18, 2004, at 18:36, Mike Lewinski wrote:
Has anyone else has run into these scumbags? Sometime last winter I received a call along the lines of "We'd like to send you some materials to review". Well, they sent some "Internet Law encyclopedia" along with an invoice for ~$700. Of course, there was no cost mentioned in the sales call- for all I knew they were going to send me a brochure about their product. I can say with 100% certainty that I would never have authorized them to send me something like this had they mentioned the cost without much further discussion as to what I was receiving.
This is just a general heads-up to a sleazy business practice for a sleazy company that is now attempting to extort money.
No... It is not a good idea to /dev/null it. If you /dev/null it, the doctrine of Acquiescence by Estoppel works in their favor (essentially latin legalise for "Silence is Consent"). Instead, you should write on the invoice that you never agreed to purchase the items and send it back to them certified mail. Make a copy of the invoice with your annotation and keep it for your records. At that point, they are pretty much stuck. IANAL, but, this is what I've been told by lawyers. Owen --On Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:38 PM -0400 Mark Barker <barkerm@cox.net> wrote:
Invoicing for unsolicited materials is commonly referred to as "mail fraud" hereabouts. The courts have consistently upheld the notion that such materials can be considered gifts. IANAL but I would advise /dev/nulling all further correspondence from these losers.
-- MAB
On Aug 18, 2004, at 18:36, Mike Lewinski wrote:
Has anyone else has run into these scumbags? Sometime last winter I received a call along the lines of "We'd like to send you some materials to review". Well, they sent some "Internet Law encyclopedia" along with an invoice for ~$700. Of course, there was no cost mentioned in the sales call- for all I knew they were going to send me a brochure about their product. I can say with 100% certainty that I would never have authorized them to send me something like this had they mentioned the cost without much further discussion as to what I was receiving.
This is just a general heads-up to a sleazy business practice for a sleazy company that is now attempting to extort money.
-- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Owen DeLong wrote:
No... It is not a good idea to /dev/null it. If you /dev/null it, the doctrine of Acquiescence by Estoppel works in their favor (essentially latin legalise for "Silence is Consent"). Instead, you should write on the invoice that you never agreed to purchase the items and send it back to them certified mail. Make a copy of the invoice with your annotation and keep it for your records.
Thanks for the advice. I'm getting an opinion as to whether it is too late to follow this course, given that what led to my little outburst resulted from a call from their collections agency (I had actually asked to have it shipped back when it first arrived but the office manager had other more pressing things to do so it's been gathering dust, unopened except to look at the invoice). If we do send it back, it's going to be accompanied by an invoice for our shipping costs and time. In any event, after doing some googling and finding other victims of this company, I've decided to register SpecialtyTechnicalPublishersSucks.com in order to publicly document their abuses. Sooner or later someone will have the time and resources to fight them all the way- perhaps I can lend some ammo. So, this is an invitation to anyone who's had an experience with STP to submit it to me directly- I'll be happy to anonymize if requested when I publish it. TIA, Mike
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:54:43 -0600, Mike Lewinski <mike@rockynet.com> wrote:
In any event, after doing some googling and finding other victims of this company, I've decided to register SpecialtyTechnicalPublishersSucks.com in order to publicly document their abuses. Sooner or later someone will have the time and resources to fight them all the way- perhaps I can lend some ammo.
Be very careful. After getting the serious shaft from a volkswagen dealership, I went down that path and registered goldengatevw.com and haywardvw.com, among others. I then posted a warning on them about the owners shady history and business practices ( https://matt.ethereal.net/ggvw/ ), Because of my actions, regardless of their legality or constitutional protections, I am now spending tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees defending myself from a 1.5 million dollar lawsuit. ( https://matt.ethereal.net/ggvw/mystory/ ) What I've learned about the process is that its not about who's telling the truth. It's about who's got more money to spend on lawyers. matto
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Matt Ghali wrote: Aah, the wonders of dropping a site somewhere in China and forgetting about it. If spammers can do it.... If you put vague enough info into WHOIS, and host the site correctly (DNS on about seven free services ought to be enough, the actual site on a couple of round-robins pointed at things like servers overseas). I didn't say it was ethical, but just think how much more money it costs the lawyers to try and find you. (Which, if you lose, they'll pass on to you -- be careful). It's about this point that I say this is why I like animals and computers and hate people. -Dan PS: Of course, Matt, for yourself, you're posting specific customer data. But the fact that they try to blame you for it tends to only strengthen your claim.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:54:43 -0600, Mike Lewinski <mike@rockynet.com> wrote:
In any event, after doing some googling and finding other victims of this company, I've decided to register SpecialtyTechnicalPublishersSucks.com in order to publicly document their abuses. Sooner or later someone will have the time and resources to fight them all the way- perhaps I can lend some ammo.
Be very careful. After getting the serious shaft from a volkswagen dealership, I went down that path and registered goldengatevw.com and haywardvw.com, among others. I then posted a warning on them about the owners shady history and business practices ( https://matt.ethereal.net/ggvw/ ),
Because of my actions, regardless of their legality or constitutional protections, I am now spending tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees defending myself from a 1.5 million dollar lawsuit. ( https://matt.ethereal.net/ggvw/mystory/ )
What I've learned about the process is that its not about who's telling the truth. It's about who's got more money to spend on lawyers.
matto
-- Hate fedora with a white hot burning passion right now though ... damn thing is Linux-XP(tm) -Bill Nolan 2/24/04 --------Dan Mahoney-------- Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org ---------------------------
--On Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:01 PM -0700 Matt Ghali <mghali@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:54:43 -0600, Mike Lewinski <mike@rockynet.com> wrote:
In any event, after doing some googling and finding other victims of this company, I've decided to register SpecialtyTechnicalPublishersSucks.com in order to publicly document their abuses. Sooner or later someone will have the time and resources to fight them all the way- perhaps I can lend some ammo.
Be very careful. After getting the serious shaft from a volkswagen dealership, I went down that path and registered goldengatevw.com and haywardvw.com, among others. I then posted a warning on them about the owners shady history and business practices ( https://matt.ethereal.net/ggvw/ ),
Ah... But, the problem here is you registered "godengatevw.com" and "haywardvw.com". They'd have a much harder time fending off an en pro per motion for summary dismissal if you had registered domains like "godengatevwsucks.com" and "haywardvwsucks.com". Because you registered domains that directly use their trademarks without clear indication that they are used without permission for commentary, you are in a legal gray-area (gray is the expensive color in the legal world). If you used those domains to sell cars, you'd be in a legal black area and you could simply settle the suit and understand that you were wrong. If you had registered names that clearly weren't their names, but, commentary on them, you'd be pretty much in the white zone from what attorneys have told me. You still might get sued, and, it still might cost you some to defend it, but, you might get away with a simple en pro per motion for summary dismissal on the grounds that you were making fair comment. Of course, they could charge libel, in which case, you'd have to defend yourself and prove that everything said was factual.
Because of my actions, regardless of their legality or constitutional protections, I am now spending tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees defending myself from a 1.5 million dollar lawsuit. ( https://matt.ethereal.net/ggvw/mystory/ )
Did they ask you to hand over the domains (demand letter) and you refused, or did they go straight to litigation?
What I've learned about the process is that its not about who's telling the truth. It's about who's got more money to spend on lawyers.
Partially. Although, you might still be able to characterize this as a "SLAPP" suit. It's a stretch, but, might be worth a try. I believe that entitles you to a certain amount of relief and some special handling of your side of the case to make it easier for the little guy to fend off injustice inflicted by the big guy.
matto
Anyway, this is way off NANOG topic, so, if you want to continue the discussion, let's take it off the list before Susan tries to string me up. Owen P.S. IANAL, but, I've talked to a lot of them, and, I have some experience navigating the legal system on my own behalf (en pro per). YMMV. -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:57:46 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Ah... But, the problem here is you registered "godengatevw.com" and "haywardvw.com". They'd have a much harder time fending off an en pro per motion for summary dismissal if you had registered domains like "godengatevwsucks.com" and "haywardvwsucks.com". Because you registered domains that directly use their trademarks without clear indication that they are used without permission for commentary, you are in a legal gray-area (gray is the expensive color in the legal world). If you used those domains to sell cars, you'd be in a legal black area and you could simply settle the suit and understand that you were wrong. If you had registered names that clearly weren't their names, but, commentary on them, you'd be pretty much in the white zone from what attorneys have told me. You still might get sued, and, it still might cost you some to defend it, but, you might get away with a simple en pro per motion for summary dismissal on the grounds that you were making fair comment. Of course, they could charge libel, in which case, you'd have to defend yourself and prove that everything said was factual.
Actually, their original broad injunction against me, obtained before I even had a chance to secure counsel, was easily overturned by us in an order to show cause hearing. Your perception is incorrect. It does not matter what domain name I legitimately register, my speech is protected regardless. The only time they would have a legitimate cause for grievance were if I went afoul of the lanham act by using "initial interest confusion" to divert their customers for my own profit. I really lucked out and found some excellent legal representation to sort out these issues for me- including the lawyer representing the People Eating Tasty Animals in their case against PETA. Incedentally, it turns out that neither of their business names are registered trademarks.
Did they ask you to hand over the domains (demand letter) and you refused, or did they go straight to litigation?
Straight to litigation. I was informed that they were first aware of the sites by their lawyer, who demanded I take down any content, or see them in court.
Partially. Although, you might still be able to characterize this as a "SLAPP" suit. It's a stretch, but, might be worth a try. I believe that entitles you to a certain amount of relief and some special handling of your side of the case to make it easier for the little guy to fend off injustice inflicted by the big guy.
Unfortunately, a case has to be very clear cut and frivolous to qualify as a possible SLAPP. In other words, it has to be a strong possibility for a summary judgement before it even gets to judicial arbitration. That's unfortunate, because a SLAPP judgement would have allowed me to countersue for legal fees.
Anyway, this is way off NANOG topic, so, if you want to continue the discussion, let's take it off the list before Susan tries to string me up.
It seems there's others interested in the subject, and its a situation that a lot of folks on the list could easily find themselves in. At the very least, I'd like to be in the list archives offering assistance and advice to anyone in the future in the same trouble. matto
As I have seen the past few days, Susan seems to think quite a bit is off topic...my personal perception of NANOG is it is a group of network operators which talk about many things including but not limited to those of the network operations stand point, I have even been told that discussing email was off-topic and when has email not been a core part of the network? I am all for Matt talking about the litigation of this case, its a quite common thing now in the wonderful world of the internet, so does that now not fall under rules? Josh On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:46:49 -0700, Matt Ghali <mghali@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:57:46 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Ah... But, the problem here is you registered "godengatevw.com" and "haywardvw.com". They'd have a much harder time fending off an en pro per motion for summary dismissal if you had registered domains like "godengatevwsucks.com" and "haywardvwsucks.com". Because you registered domains that directly use their trademarks without clear indication that they are used without permission for commentary, you are in a legal gray-area (gray is the expensive color in the legal world). If you used those domains to sell cars, you'd be in a legal black area and you could simply settle the suit and understand that you were wrong. If you had registered names that clearly weren't their names, but, commentary on them, you'd be pretty much in the white zone from what attorneys have told me. You still might get sued, and, it still might cost you some to defend it, but, you might get away with a simple en pro per motion for summary dismissal on the grounds that you were making fair comment. Of course, they could charge libel, in which case, you'd have to defend yourself and prove that everything said was factual.
Actually, their original broad injunction against me, obtained before I even had a chance to secure counsel, was easily overturned by us in an order to show cause hearing.
Your perception is incorrect. It does not matter what domain name I legitimately register, my speech is protected regardless. The only time they would have a legitimate cause for grievance were if I went afoul of the lanham act by using "initial interest confusion" to divert their customers for my own profit.
I really lucked out and found some excellent legal representation to sort out these issues for me- including the lawyer representing the People Eating Tasty Animals in their case against PETA.
Incedentally, it turns out that neither of their business names are registered trademarks.
Did they ask you to hand over the domains (demand letter) and you refused, or did they go straight to litigation?
Straight to litigation. I was informed that they were first aware of the sites by their lawyer, who demanded I take down any content, or see them in court.
Partially. Although, you might still be able to characterize this as a "SLAPP" suit. It's a stretch, but, might be worth a try. I believe that entitles you to a certain amount of relief and some special handling of your side of the case to make it easier for the little guy to fend off injustice inflicted by the big guy.
Unfortunately, a case has to be very clear cut and frivolous to qualify as a possible SLAPP. In other words, it has to be a strong possibility for a summary judgement before it even gets to judicial arbitration. That's unfortunate, because a SLAPP judgement would have allowed me to countersue for legal fees.
Anyway, this is way off NANOG topic, so, if you want to continue the discussion, let's take it off the list before Susan tries to string me up.
It seems there's others interested in the subject, and its a situation that a lot of folks on the list could easily find themselves in. At the very least, I'd like to be in the list archives offering assistance and advice to anyone in the future in the same trouble.
matto
-- Joshua Brady
participants (6)
-
Dan Mahoney, System Admin -
Joshua Brady -
Mark Barker -
Matt Ghali -
Mike Lewinski -
Owen DeLong