Criticize Online, Get Fined 470
maxpublic writes "Yet another outspoken critic of corporate America has been SLAPP'ed - only this time, Dan Whatley didn't even know he'd been sued until he was presented with a $450,000 judgement. For those who don't know, SLAPP stands for 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation' and is used to silence people who openly criticize thin-skinned corporations." In this case the company doing to suing is Xybernaut, the makers of
wearable computers mentioned here many times in the past. This article is a must
read. And now Xybernaut has joined Amazon and others on my list of Must-Avoid
companies. This is a creepy run around the 1st Ammendment, and you should
be aware.
Another SLAPP. (Score:5, Informative)
not exactly correct. (Score:5, Informative)
Since their libel claim was that they were libeled because I said that they violated the FMLA, ADA, MGL c.151B (the Mass. version of the ADA), I was able to bring this under those laws. Those laws specifically allow for punitive damages, where simple abuse of process does not.
bullshit taco (Score:5, Insightful)
harry potter (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it's only important when the law is coming after adults. Screw helping the 12 year olds.
mod this post up! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:harry potter (Score:2, Insightful)
Harry Potter + Internet + Kids being treated badly = story.
And how is /. coming to the aid of anyone here? Somebody tossed this place a link with some pithy commentary that an "editor" liked and it got posted so a bunch of us can comment on the issue. For most of the readership, this story will be old news and forgotten by Monday and not a single victim listed in that article is going to get an ounce of love from /.
If the Harry Potter story is so dear to your heart, find a link, come up with some pithy commentary that will generate lots of discussion and post it. Take those recent stories about raisethefist.org (iirc.) That was about a kid not an adult.
Re:harry potter (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, at least the kids get the chance to take their site down before the judgement arrives on their doorstep, and the law is such that if Rowling doesn't protect her copyright she will lose it. This is the same reason Linus Torvalds gives when he charges companies six figure sums to use the Linux logo. He HAS to do it because if he doesn't the Linux trademark will enter the public domain and be abused.
Re:harry potter (Score:5, Informative)
Re:harry potter (Score:3, Insightful)
"You know, I haven't seen Slashdot come to the aid of (insert your favorite cause here)"
"Screw helping the (insert your favorite oppressed minority here)"
slashdot can't address every single injustice in life; they choose stories based on what they think is appropriate for the site. yes, it's arbitrary; it's allowed to be.  if you don't like it, make your own website.
someone's lying, but who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:USPS definition of certified mail-- (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually up to the sender to provide the proof, as the "return receipt" represents the return of the green postcard with a signature of it being received as proof.
If you're ever in a situation where this comes up, demand to inspect it. I had one where the other party waived up the certified letter as proof I was aware (which I never received). The little green card was sent to an address not within 10 miles of anywhere I've ever lived, and apparently some idiot with a different name signed for it. Took care of that matter.
*scoove*
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:5, Insightful)
To sum up: Do the facts even matter? PANIC!
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:5, Funny)
A perfect candidate for "New Slashdot Motto" if I ever saw one!
-s
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:2)
Actually, it is very important if he got the letter. We don't know all the facts in the case. Everyone is going by the snippets of posts in the article, which I'm sure are far from the entire posts. The rest of the post may have been straight libel. The snippets we got are fairly clear in that he shouldn't have been liable for libel, but we can't say the same thing about everything else he said. Plus, you can say he shouldn't have been sued, because that violates his rights, but it also violates rights if you aren't able to sue someone when you think they did something wrong. The key is the person accused should always have the chance to defend themselves, which he may not have been given in this case.
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:2)
Anyway. IANAL but you don't have to be one to understand that what happened here is bad. And if the law allows this, then the law is bad. Easy.
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:4, Interesting)
In Montana, and doubtless in some other states, notice of suit is considered to be LEGALLY ACCEPTED BY YOU when it is recorded as having been mailed by the court clerk. Whether it was actually mailed or not is irrelevant -- and since there is no requirement that notice be done by trackable mail, there is no way to determine if it was ever actually mailed or not. If you don't show up because someone slipped the clerk a few bucks to "lose" the letter, too damned bad. (And yes, this IS the voice of firsthand experience.)
Sounds to me like both sides here are full of a variety of crap, but be aware that failure to receive notice can and does happen, and is (literally) no defense in a lawsuit.
Even so, no way in hell would I buy products from any company that files lawsuits over message board flames. That's the equivalent of jailing a 5 year old for a "hate crime" because the kid yelled "I hate you and I'm going to kill you!"
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, under some child welfare and animal abuse statutes, there is also no due process -- you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is why in some states (California for one), children are sometimes removed from a home based entirely on unfounded, *anonymous* "tips" alleging abuse. In those cases, you also have no right to face your accuser.
Yes, THAT is probably unconstitutional, but look how far anyone gets fighting other legislative or judicial stupidity committed in the name of "for the children".
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:3, Informative)
Due Process per the 5th amendment applies ONLY to CRIMINAL prosecution; it has absolutely nothing to do with CIVIL suits.
How in the world did this get modded to a 5, and why didn't anyone correct this person yet? See Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell [bc.edu].
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:2)
There are some other interesting details too, such as notice of public sale must be made in a public location. Which can be, say, somewhere in the bowels of the county fairgrounds. During the off season, when they're totally locked up and no one can get in to even SEE the notice. But since it's county-owned property, it's legally a "public location".
Young geeks who've only known the law thru big city procedures and slashdot reports of tech lawsuits should count their blessings... because when the law and the old-boy system conflict, as is often the case in small towns, the old-boy system wins every time.
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:2)
Signature confirmation, does. There are two levels of signature confirmation, one where the recipient is simply required to sign for it, and the other where the sender actually gets a postcard with the signature on it returned to him.
Registered, Certified, and Insured all require no signatures at all, period. Geez, ask your postman!
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:2)
He said that the CEO and his brother (vice-chairman or something) are liars, and that the brother would've been working at a fast-food place, had it not been for his relatives. Shall we say, -1 Troll?
Must-Avoid ... what? (Score:5, Funny)
Does Xybernaut even have any products that I can avoid? Will they ever have any products, or are they going into the revenue-by-lawsuit business?
Sounds like someone needs to spend less time in chat rooms, more time at the drawing board.
Re:Must-Avoid ... what? (Score:2)
Re:Must-Avoid ... what? (Score:2)
Well, I would suggest that you pull your stock now. Because when this guy fires back and gets a even larger settlement, then you will be losing your ass on those Dick Tracy watches.
Re:Must-Avoid ... what? (Score:2)
I avoid Amazon, 'cept I keep my book wish list on there so that friends & relatives can see what computer books I want, and then they go somewhere else, like here [bestbookbuys.com] to find the best prices, usually not Amazon.
I love features that I don't have to pay for. Yeah, yeah, Amazon knows my personal preferences, and they even send me notices about new books that are like those on my list, but they still don't get my money.
too many lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
--David Melinkoff, Professor of Law, UCLA
Here We Go (Score:5, Insightful)
"If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of
heh. Now, you are a big item here and I'm sure a bunch of other forums and blogs. Good luck trying to sell anything at all.
Re:Here We Go (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of just whining about "corporate America", we could talk about reforms that might make a difference. For example, if it's true that he didn't know about the lawsuit, we could require that a process server deliver the notice in person, or that the notice be sent by the clerk of the court with a return receipt required.
Or, in general, we could look at reforms that discourage meritless lawsuits. Most other countries have limits on judgments, rules where the loser pays the legal costs, or other rules. Of course, millionaire lawyers like Ralph Nader are against these rules. We won't mention how much money the trial lawyers give to the Democratic Party, because they're not big corporations, so they must be okay.
This is not a new problem. In ancient Athens, there would be a large jury for a trial. If the plaintiff got over half the votes, he won. But, if he didn't get at least 10% (I think that was the percent) of the votes, he would have to pay the defendant.
But, go on, whine about "corporatizing of America", whatever that means.
Re:Here We Go (Score:4, Insightful)
>If you have money, you win.
This is true. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend its not, but the evidence is all around. O.J. Simpson anyone?
On the other hand, why are we surprised? We have *intentionally* built a capitalist society. Many Americans will *proudly* tell you that they are capitalists.
Capitalism works precisely because it starts on the base assumption that humans are greedy and selfish by nature (I'm not knocking Communism, which assumes humans are interested in 'helping their brother', but it has been less sucessful historically).
The most important thing in a capitalist society is... *gasp* CAPITAL! Of course the system favours people with lots of money and large tracts of land... this is by design. Money == Power. Period.
A side effect of this, of course, is that corporations (who have boatloads of capital) end up being far more powerful than individuals. Thats just the way it is.
I'm not saying this is a good thing (personally I find it frightening that big corps have so much power), but I'm not sure there is a lot that can be done about it at this point. You also can't argue that its been rather sucessful. Most Western nations are capitalist to one degree or another (like all things policital, its a spectrum, not an absolute) and the U.S. is one of the 'most capitalist' of the lot. Is it a coincidence that its also so powerful and affluent? (Yes, its an oversimplification, but I think the underlying point is valid).
Bottom line: we can't create a capitalist society and then turn around and pretend to be shocked when we see... a capitalist society.
Gee. (Score:2)
Well.. that should be fairly easy to show in court, eh? If he *signed* for his mail, and ignored it, and is now claiming he never received it... (if)
"Certified" does not mean "Signed" (Score:2)
"Certified" doe not mean "Signed"
First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
The First Amendment is a restriction on government, not on you, your neighbor or a business.
This was a civil judgement not a criminal conviction, the First Amendment does not apply AT ALL.
Re:First Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, I read the first amendment like this: "Congress shall make no law [...] [making it possible for anyone to abridge someone else's] freedom of speech, or the press [...]"
If a law enables companies to suppress free speech by allowing those companies to file SLAPP lawsuits, isn't that a law abridging the freedom of speech, even if only indirectly?
Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
If Congress can make no such law, the courts will not enforce such laws.
Rights can't be signed away. That's part of their definition. Therefore contracts can't place any restriction on a person's speech either.
Therefore you can't have NDAs, even when legitimate. You can't have trade secrets, even when legitimate. You can't have out-of-court settlements with a confidentiality clause.
Taken to an extreme, you can't even assert doctor-patient or lawyer-client privilege. If your doctor wants to make you the butt of a joke he can.
Maybe you're comfortable with this, but this is *far* from where the law is today.
Re:First Amendment (Score:2, Interesting)
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
a + b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
There's a flawed assumption in the above argument, just as there is in yours. With a flawed assumption, nearly any conclusion can be reached. In your argument, it is that "rights can't be signed away." This hasn't been true since contracts came into the picture. What would have happened if some early contractor had said "hmm... I've got a right to not work on the colliseum and it can't be signed away." Hopefully he would have gone to the lions.
Basically, a contract is the signing away of some rights by both parties. The right not to work on the colliseum is nearly as important as the right to freedom of speech.
Re:First Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, I read the first amendment like this: "Congress shall make no law [...] [making it possible for anyone to abridge someone else's] freedom of speech, or the press [...]"
Wow! This style of inserting whole phrases at random points into the Bill of Rights [cornell.edu] could open up whole new avenues for the Supreme Court:
Yep! The constitution doesn't just protect us from a state religion; it actually mandates blasphemy!If a law enables companies to suppress free speech by allowing those companies to file SLAPP lawsuits, isn't that a law abridging the freedom of speech, even if only indirectly?
In a word? No. It's just an egregious misuse of the legal system. If the government were using or paying corporations to sue individuals because of their political beliefs or actions, then you'd have a First Amendment issue.
Re:First Amendment - yeah but. (Score:2)
Criticize? (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally, I'm all for the little guy, but in this case, seems like the poster was a troll, not an "outspoken critic of corporate America."
Now, if he had provided a deep insight into the company's workings, and if he had some facts to prove that the company management is incompetent, that would've been a questionable case. On top of that, he claimed he never received a certified letter, when it's very, very easy to have USPS check whether such letter was delivered or not. I don't think we're getting the whole story here.
Re:Criticize? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) If he had provided deep insight they might have had a real case against him, as the article indicates, simple troll is not actionable in many states. The other issue here is living in a state where the law protects you vs an action in another state where there is no statutory protection. Online flames aside there are individual protections to protect individuals against getting sued remotely like this.
3) As for the letter, it's too late, he'll have to hire a lawyer to even raise the issue, but now he has no opportunity for a pretrial dismissal, this will get really expensive. He has to appeal this. If he ignored the letter it was the dumbest thing he ever did.
Re:Criticize? (Score:2)
Why would have they had a case? If you make a statement, and support it with undisputable facts, wouldn't it be a lot harder for the company to win any suits they might file against you?
As for the letter, it's too late,
I understand that; my point was that instead of him merely claiming he never received the letter, he could have checked with the postal service, found out whether they delivered such a letter to him, and either say, "I'm a dumbass, I must have thrown the letter out with all my junk mail," or "The USPS has no record of such letter being sent and/or delivered. I have a good reason to appeal."
Re:Criticize? (Score:2)
The distinction is between information presented as fact and simple rhetoric and opinion.
Re:Criticize? (Score:3, Informative)
jon
Re:Criticize? (Score:2)
Re:Criticize? (Score:2, Informative)
Pbur
Re:Criticize? (Score:2)
So then you're saying that the 1st Amendment has a codicil in it somewhere saying that it doesn't apply to trolls and posters of flamebait? Can
-1 posters?
Now, if he had provided a deep insight into the company's workings, and if he had some facts to prove that the company management is incompetent, that would've been a questionable case.
Why would that be any more questionable than what we have? Are you seriously suggesting here that someone should not be allowed to post his opinion that a company is run by an incompetent bunch of lackwits without signed and notarized documentation proving that fact to a degree capable of withstanding legal analysis?
That's simply insane. I agree with you about the certified letter, but that's a side issue. It's irrelevant. The fact that a summary judgement was issued against him because he didn't show up is completely secondary to the fact that the lawsuit was filed in the first place. If corporate America is allowed to go around SLAPPing private citizens with lawsuits for non-libelous, non-slanderous statements, then that clearly and obviously has a chilling effect on free speech, and the fact that that chilling effect is generated by corporate behavior rather than government behavior isn't tremendously relevant.
Re:Criticize? (Score:2)
I don't think the First Amendment voids the libel provisions of English common law. Of course, we seem to be in disagreement about whether this is libel or not. I think it's up to the court to determine whether the statement "X is a jackass" is harmful to person/company X, but in this case the defendant didn't show up, hence the default judgement.
If corporate America is allowed to go around SLAPPing private citizens with lawsuits for non-libelous, non-slanderous statements
Again, I don't think this is a clear-cut case of whether this is libel/slander or not.
Re:Criticize? (Score:2)
Legal Options? (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, IANAL
Re:Legal Options? Appeal. (Score:2)
As other people have pointed out, the plaintiff here won a default judgment because the defendant didn't show up. The defendant's position is that he was never notified of the lawsuit.
It seems, then, that (assuming that he wasn't properly notified) Mr. Whatley can appeal on grounds of failure to give sufficient notice, which is doubtless a violation of the rules of civil procedure of whatever jurisdiction the suit was filed in (the article doesn't say).
If this occurs, the appeals court would probably overturn the default judgment and remand the proceedings to a trial.
for a non usa-ian (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:for a non usa-ian (Score:2)
Barricks successfully sued the paper, so you can't actually read the articles in the UK, even though those same articles are 100% protected by US libel laws.
Is this really Libel? (Score:3, Insightful)
But honestly, we're talking about a day-trader message board here, right? I think this kind of "insider information" (accurate or not) is exactly what they should be facilitating. I used to live in Lower Manhattan, and if you go to any wall street bar you'll hear much more unvarnished and opinionated statements being made about potential investments. Of course, that's bar-talk and this is an online posting, but it seems to me that saying a company's management if full of it (even if you use creative langure) aught not to bring legal action.
Of course, when you bruise a wealthy, powerful executive's ego, especially if you do it by hitting a little too close to home, you're liable (no put intended) to see some blowback.
Re: (Score:3)
Libel and slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
How long before Taco or one of the other Slashdot editors is accused of and sued for libel by one of the individuals or corporations that is commented on (and perhaps defamed) on the site?
By the Lectric Law Library's definition [lectlaw.com], libel is:
Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. [The 'Lectric Law Library]
By the CyberLibel definition [cyberlibel.com]:
A publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. [CyberLibel]
I tried out the Libel Checklist [utsystem.edu] over at UTexas, and found that a good number of posts by slashdot editor's could at least be considered suspect of libel claims. However, I am anything but a lawyer, and would love to hear a lawyer comment on this.
For example, if an editor posts a comment in response to an article saying something to the effect of "so-and-so's marketing practices are highly suspect and should be avoided by all good slashdotters." If the statement is not provably true, is not a fair report of an official and public record, is not a matter of public concern, is not merely abusive, is not consentual, and is not clearly an opinion, then such statements could, I believe, be intrepreted as libel.
Furthermore, could the users of Slashdot also be sued for libel due to their comments?
Or worse, could I be sued for libel for raising this very question about Rob and Slashdot? Uh-oh. Nevermind...
Libel not likely on Slashdot. (Score:2, Informative)
Both the statute (CDA's Section 230 provisions) and case law are very strong in the exemptions granted to the operators of a computer service from the duties and liabilities of a traditional publisher. Every direct challenge brought against an online service provider regarding speech contributed by a third-party has been defeated both at trial and in appellate court.
Re:Libel not likely on Slashdot. (Score:2)
And even if a hypothetical case against
Standard Disclaimer: IANAL (though I am a bit anal...)
Re:Libel and slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
Lawyers don't bring bogus lawsuits, PLAINTIFFS do. (Score:2)
You don't have a bogus lawsuit (or any lawsuit) without a plaintiff.
-Isaac
Re:Libel and slashdot (Score:2)
Re:Libel and slashdot (Score:2)
An old story... (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't see RMS, ESR, or any of these other "freedom" luminaries rise up for environmentalists or Native Americans or the homeless or anti-pollution activists, so I have little sympathy that they're whining in their (free?) beer now about how mean, nasty corporations are picking on poor techies. Too bad, guys -- you lost the war when you failed to fight for others. Now that the fight is in your backyard, you care -- but it may be too late, because the rights were eroded long before the DMCA became reality.
Freedom of speech isn't just about the GPL and software; it's about fundamental human rights and corporate control of government.
Re:An old story... (Score:2, Insightful)
cause out there does not mean that they don't believe
in the rights of the advocates of causes that do not
pertain to software.
Re:An old story... (Score:3)
Absolutely. However, should we criticise the Red Cross for not standing up for Free software?
I don't know if you appreciate how much work goes into activism. If someone spends their days coding and fighting for what they see as the freedom to code, they've precious little time to fight other battles. When they do,they're critisised for sticking their noses into subjects where they don't belong.
Rights, as you say, were being eroded long before the advent of the DMCA. Would they be any less eroded if RMS went to a Nike factory? If ESR hosted a page on the plight of the Afghan civilians? Of course not.
The population of this planet is over six billion. The reason that we've come as far as we have (in many areas) is that many of those individuals fight injustices as they see it, and inspire others to join them. Billions aren't in a position to do this, most of the rest don't bother, so the world relies on those who do. Doesn't matter how many fights they miss, it's what they do in the ones in which they're involved that counts.
I've never written an open source accounting packaging. Are you wondering, then, how I have the temerity to describe myself as an open source advocate?
Every one is jumping to conclusions (Score:2, Interesting)
""The postings (in question) are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents, such as corporate press releases or SEC filings," Judge David O. Carter wrote.
That's a pretty good description of the postings Xybernaut sued Dan Whatley over, according to a copy of the suit. The suit lists posts in which Whatley berates Xybernaut chairman and CEO Edward Newman and his brother Steve Newman, who is the vice-chairman. "
Having said all that , what they seem to be suing the guy over seems to be ridiculus, basicly saying the managment of the company was incompetent and accusing the company of lying on a message board which every one knows are havens of 'truth and 'facts'.
She should have stuck to her guns (Score:2)
FYI, if the company that filed suit in the article said they delivered a letter via certified post, they probably have a signature card with SOMEONE's signature on it. Most lawyers won't goto court unless they have some documentation that they have made a "valid effort" to inform the defendant, or that a summons was delivered.
The sad truth is that very few people wish to take the time to actually stand up for what they believe in. Hiding in the sand and ignoring a problem is more effective and less dangerous. If more people filed counter suits and fought these law suits they wouldn't exist.
Certified Mail... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is all speculation though, since there is a lot of information we do not know. We can only hope that this is resolved properly, on the side of justice. Besides, $450,000 is an extremely large judgement, and an appeal is still possible.
Re:Certified Mail... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought the idea behind certified mail, was that the letter must be signed for upon delivery. That means, if he sign for it, then the US Postal Service still has the letter, and probably a receipt for it, somewhere.
Re:Certified Mail... (Score:2)
I've sent certified mail several times. I get back a little green card with the signature of who received it. Often times the signature is obscured. The Postal Service doesn't keep much record of it, and I don't think they have the signature at all. It's possible for the certified mail to be received, and the green card coming back to get lost (although that has never happened to me). If I had to prove that my mailing was received, I have to keep that green card.
If I was suing someone and wanted to really screw them over, I could (and this is certainly very illegal to do) send them something else in the envelope, or even an empty one. Or they could screw me over (again, illegal) by claiming they got an empty envelope by certified mail. It's a flawed process. But mistakes can even happen. What if a new legal clerk in a law office is putting things together in envelopes, and mixes them up by mistake and ends up sending, by certified mail, the law firm's financial statement instead of the legal notice and summons. Now that summons is probably going somewhere else, but not by certified mail. That might get lost. Or the person receiving it might be one of the elder retired partners of the firm who dies the next day while their executor of estate opens it and just assumes it was just one of the cases he was working on and doesn't know it was supposed to be sent to the defendant. Stuff like this would be rare, but it can happen, either by mistake, or by malice.
Re:Certified Mail... (Score:2)
Let me get the nit out of the way, first: they don't have prosecution on a civil matter; it's plaintiff and defendant.
So if the plaintiff sends notice by certified mail (a process known to have occaisional flaws), the court is going to take care of it next using ... certified mail? As you point out, certified mail can be refused. What I think should happen is if certified mail fails, plaintiffs should be required to use a process server. Then if there is a no-show by the defendant, the plaintiffs should be required to show that everything was done properly, such as the correct address was the point of delivery, etc., before getting the default judgement.
Appeals have a limited time frame (what is this in a civil matter? lawyers?). What if the appeal time frame has expired before the defendant genuinely finds out about the judgement? How do you appeal after that time frame? Or what different method is used to reverse the judgement?
This isn't the best example of SLAPP suits. (Score:3, Informative)
A much better example would be a few years back when a woman found out a business in her area was dumping waste behind a school. She notified the state agency to confirm it, and as a resident of that school's district, had a right to be on the property. As a result, she was SLAPP'ed, by the contractor who was hiding the waste. Now THAT is scary. What possible right could that contractor have for suing her, when he WAS guilty?? She was nothing more than a whistle-blower, I don't think any of us would argue with that.
Suing someone over a troll-like post on a messageboard is childlike, and shows a company to be immature. Suing because someone exposed you for poisoning the planet is just downright low, even lower than dumping waste materials behind an elementary school in the first place.
You can read more about SLAPP and that particular lawsuit here at ZeroWasteAmerica.org [zerowasteamerica.org]
Re:This isn't the best example of SLAPP suits. (Score:2)
How can a company be immature? It's a legally recognized organization of (generally) three kinds, a partnership, a corporation, and a subchapter-S corporation. None of these has feelings, or "matures".
It is peculiar how people anthropomorphize companies as "evil", "greedy", etc. Companies are run by officers. These themselves may be evil, greedy, charitable, etc. Corporations, for their part, "are" a club of investors, one of whom might be you, who "want" to make money as a result of their investment. They hire officers to run their corporation and to carry out their wishes. These make decisions corresponding to what they think the owners would want.
Faceless companies are a myth, folks.
Cold day in hell. (Score:2)
write them and complain... (Score:2)
Fall Harvest? (Score:2)
If sue-happy companies can follow their lead, and start trawling http://www.fuckedcompany.com/ [fuckedcompany.com], it would be open season... on our freedom of speech.
Of course, you can't believe everthing you read on the internet [google.com].
On the other had, maybe Taco can drop the whole subscription idea, and start suing AC trolls who post nasty things about his fiancee to keep /. afloat.
How to Fight? (Score:3, Insightful)
This Judgment is Easily Undone (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, it is easy for the judge to allow the default because apparently Mr. Whatley never responded to the complaint. That is understandable because if he is correct, he never received notice. The whole lack of notice argument brings the whole realm of Due Process under the United States Constitution into play. Judges tend to be VERY sensitive to notice problems. Virtually every state's Rules of Civil Procedure have clear guidelines for how to handle these not-uncommon scenarios.
It should be relatively easy for Mr. Whatley to get this undone. Then the battle really begins.
Beware of having your opinions taken seriously (Score:2)
Defendant Whatley said: If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of ... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
According to the company's Web site [xybernaut.com]:
Dr. Newman is the former President and CEO of Fed American Inc., President and CEO of SANDCO American Corporation, and President and CEO of SAN Medical Corporation. A graduate of the University of Rochester School of Medicine, he also has degrees from UCLA and Brooklyn College. Dr. Newman's articles and presentations on the future of technology have been distributed worldwide.
On the face of it, Whatley's statement is wrong, defamatory, and made with wreckless disregard for the truth. The only question is whether $450,000 is an appropriate penalty for what he said, that is, did Newman or the company suffer that much in damages or did Whatley's conduct need a substantial judgment to deter him in the future.
The main line of Whatley's defenders appears to be that nobody should take what he says seriously, a curious position for people who claim the moral high ground over corporations.
With so much true stuff that needs to be said, why would anyone waste their time on malicious nonsense?
You don't get sued by mail (Score:3, Interesting)
The only way to stop this crap... (Score:2)
He was a short (Score:2, Interesting)
Does it matter? (Score:2)
PS: The opinions expressed above may not be mine and I can't assume there responsibility. So if anyone is considering suing me, please don't.
Xybernaut execs = information nazi's (imo) (Score:2)
Some asshole here said, "the first amendment doesn't apply in civil lawsuits"?? So, somehow you think the founding father's wanted rich corporations preventing people from speaking freely? Somehow, you think that just because its "only money" that's involved, that's less serious than being sent to jail on a criminal case? I'd rather go to jail for years than lose 400k.
Defamation/libel lawsuits are nothing but a crock. All of them. Someone says something about you that's not true, and somehow that entitles you to their hard earned money? Bullshit. If its not true, put out a factual statement, with facts, testifying to its falsity. If people believe the liar over you, well then that's not the liar's fault -- its the fault of people who believe in gossip. While we're on defamation/libel, why don't they just sue people who gossip, as well?
Lets face the facts -- libel/defamation suits are only used as weapons by the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless. They NEVER help out the average person. Overall, more harm is done by them than good. They should be abolished.
Xybernaut to be used by COMDEX Chicago next week (Score:3, Interesting)
According to this story [wired.com] at Wired, Xybernaut's Mobile Assistant® V [xybernaut.com] product will be used [key3media.com] at COMDEX Chicago [key3media.com] by the event staff to reduce queues. I could envision two different ways that slashdotters could protest. If they are actually going to attend, they could wear something that states their position about the company and its practices. If they are not going to attend, but live in or near Chicago [cityofchicago.org] (big place [census.gov], should be a few around somewhere), they could do the usual protest thing on public property at the border of the convention (I'm sure the COMDEX people would never allow them in the convention area).
Where's the website in question? (Score:2)
Like it or not, libel is libel, and just because you're free to say what you want doesn't mean you're not responsible for what you say. Of what was shown of what Whatley said, it could very easiily be libelous.
"I have been dealing with the Newmans and XYBR and they are the most incompetent management I have ever seen,"
Wouldn't it be interesting if Whatley had had no dealing with Xybernaut prior to the lawsuit? How many managements has he seen in order to make this comparison?
"If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of
Has he seen Newman's resume? Has he even met Steve Newman face-to-face? Is Newman really a relative, or just somebody that happens to share a last name? Hell, has anybody even checked to see if there's a Steve Newman working for Xybernaut? Anyone?
I have checked [xybernaut.com] and there is a Steve Newman on the executive board, and he does share the last as somebody else on the board, but since the bio links aren't working I can't find out if they're actaully related. However, at the very least the fact that Steve Newman has a doctorate suggests that Whatley's claims of his lack of education might be just a tad unfounded.
If you simply believe everything you're told by the media, whether it be AOL/TW or Slasdot, you're no better than the mindless sheep you claim to despise.
OF course you know... (Score:2)
With all of our negative comments, they will be sending us all a notice by certified mail pretty soon.
(KNOCK ON DOOR)"I have a certified mail package for a Commander... what? Is this right? Taco?"
Re:How can you not know you have been sued? (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I'm not exactly sure about the legal implications, I hope that he is telling the truth that he did not receive the notice (rather than just ignoring it). I would imagine (and hope!) there would be some really good recourse to appeal in this case.
If not (if there is little recourse, or if he lied and should have responded), and the judgement is not overturned, I hope that it can't be used a a precedent (since it was won by default, not on the facts). Any lawyers in the room (I'm obviously not one)?
Re:How can you not know you have been sued? (Score:2)
Lawsuits - Chapter 1 - Notice (Score:3, Insightful)
But even more important is to know that you have been sued to give you a chance to fight. That's called subject matter jurisdiction and can only be conferred by good service of process [if they hand you a copy of the complaint, nail it to your door, etc.] He will argue that the company never served him. If he can show that, the original judgment against him is gone.
Of course none of this should be construed as creating a lawyer/client relationship and your mileage may vary.
Re:How can you not know you have been sued? (Score:2)
A relative of mine (actually his company, which he was majority owner of) was sued once on a patent matter. He never got the notice. The reason was, it was delivered to his attorney of record a few days after he fired that attorney. His new attorney had filed papers to change the attorney registration but it was still apparently working its way through the bureaucracy. There was a default judgement, and he didn't hear about it until a collection effort was made more than a year and a half after the original notice. Eventually it got a new case and was settled out of court as a non-infringement. The lawyer who received the paperwork ended up declaring bankruptcy so in the end several people were out a lot of money. Stuff like that does happen, sometimes.
Re:This is probably the mail company's fault (Score:2, Informative)
I incline to believe the third one.
Except that in the US, certified mail is specifically a service of the US Postal Service. It's not some sleazy company serving papers, it's the Mail Carrier knocking on the door saying "letter for mister such and such". They don't care about the company, the suit, or the defendant. They're civil servants who just want to keep their jobs. Not delivering certified mail and forginf the signature on the receipt is an easy way to get fired from your cushy government job.
Re:cancer curing eggs? (Score:4, Funny)
"Hey gang, I've got an idea, let's form a company with a preposterous product, like wearable eggs, and sue people who criticize us!"
Re:Freedom of speech? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of speech? (Score:2)
Re:A Warning (Score:2)
But what happened to the recent decision that postings were considered opinion, and hence are not libel?
Re:1st amendment does not apply (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Use of the courts is a GOVERNMENT function. A court MUST respect a defendant's Constitutional and other legal rights.
What you are thinking of is that a corporation isn't bound by the 1st amendment with respect to your employment, etc (ie, they can fire you for saying something they don't like). That is a different issue from using the government to punish someone for what they said. IMO, it shouldn't happen, except in cases of libel and slander.
BTW, it used to be virtually impossible to prove slander of a corporate entity, but now that we have has a decade of new court appointees coming from corporate lawfirms... Well, do the math.
Re:1st amendment does not apply (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)