The only non-boring part of this news is that Twitter may help Ryan Gibbs sue tweeters!
So I ordered flowers with guaranteed-delivery with ProFlowers. They never arrived.
Many tweets imply I am not the only one to be very disappointed
- never use @proflowers, ordered flowers 2/4, rcvd conf #, tracking & delivery showed online but NO flowers delivered, processing error-what?
- #proflowers #fail again. “delivered by 5pm for business addresses” – so, 6:20pm is before 5pm? you have failed me for the LAST time.
- ProFlowers failed my valentine. What good are flowers if they don’t show up on V-Day?
- So the flowers that I ordered from @proflowers that were delivered yesterday to my gf are dead today. Time to give them a piece of my mind.
- I ordered “100 Blooms of Love” & @PROFLOWERS sent “50 Blooms of Getting Screwed Over”. Apparently they don’t care
Here are some more links about ProFlowers
- Pissed Consumer
- ProFlowers Complaints – Fraud
- ProFlowers Credit Card Fraud
- ProFlowers Fraud Scam Hits the Big Time
- Proflowers is “unreliable, frustrating, and not worth it”
- ProFlowers uses lawsuits to shut up critics
- RipOff Report
One thing is for sure: I regret ordering from ProFlowers!
Dozier Internet Law isn’t the only country out to sue critics on the internet: PublishAmerica has sued publisher-watchdog site Preditors and Editors.Â Â Unfortunately, in the American legal system, it’s often so expensive to defend against nonsensical suits that many victims fold after being SLAPPED (victim of a strategic lawsuit against public participation).
Here’s to Preditors and Editors, for standing up for consumers, the market, and free speech!
The first is to note that Dozier has a new spam (bulk marketing) website out, hosted by Vator.tv. The lack of originality is striking, even for an online properties. At random, I chose one of the lines of text from the page:
company in 1994, when there were reportedly less than 1,000 websites in the
searched for it in quotes, and sure enough, came back from a google for Dozier’s homepage.
The second story consists of John Dozier’s latest blog post. As Greg of Public Citizen commented privately to me, John must really hate bloggers. Here’s an excerpt from his post:
[Journalists] are being lumped in with the bloggers in legislation before Congress that would create a bar to requiring the disclosure of confidential sources. And the bill is likely to fail, frankly, based on the inability of the journalists to explain to Congress how to draw a line between real journalists and the blogosphere. On the one hand, Congress is ready to protect confidential sources for journalists. On the other hand, extending such a privilege to the blogosphere (which by definition includes the mobosphere of miscreants and scofflaws) is unpalatable to Congress….
Why is including bloggers such a big deal? Because bloggers will publish information that is defamatory or otherwise inappropriate or illegal, and do so with claimed false attribution to a third party, and then claim privilege when asked the source. Check out the Dozier Internet Law Blogger Defamation Issues for more insight on blogger defamation.
Certainly John’s concern about innacurate journalism is valid — regardless of the medium. Just last night, TMZ broke another story of deceptive reporting by CNN. And I imagine that I would disagree with Greg of PubCit about how much legal protection reporters should have in protecting sources. Still, I am wondering what definition of the blogosphere he is using…
The last story is inspired by a pre-posting discussion I had with Brendan of I Hate Linux. I gave Brendan the link to the Dozier blog post, and he replied that I may be violating Dozier’s term of use by even privately sharing the link. I answered that I wasn’t sure. So John Dozier… may people mention the URLs of your posts to each other in private, or is that discouraged, too?
Thanks to dEarth / dx, I learned about their attempt to get seven million dollars from a website for criticizing “Manchester Who’s Who.”
From the article that inspired the lawsuit:
She asked, â€œWill you be using your membership for networking or credibility?â€
I explained that I would probably be using it for both. â€œBeing I high school drop-out, I have always had to struggle with public opinion on my credibilityâ€¦â€
$7,000,000. Hahaha. That’s even better that “Bull,” “Cyber Lawyer,” or “Super Lawyer.”
God bless you, John “$7,000,000” Dozier. You bring the smile to the face of everyone you threaten.
The mystery comes from the current #11 result for Dozier Internet Law, titled “GameSpot: Note to Dozier Internet Law: Don’t screw with ⁄.” Bizarrely, this high-ranking post reads:
This user is banned
However, google cache reveals this text (emphasis original):
Those guys (douchebags) everyone loves to hate at cybertriallaywers.com have just done something incredibly stupid…they’ve tried to claim copyright on their website’s HTML. Fresh off their embarassment at the hands of Public Citizen it was found out that in their website’s EULA they assert copyright over their website’s HTML.
Thats not the funny part though, that comes in the form of the comments on the Slashdot article about it.
Within the first handful of comments the HTML source had already been reproduced in full, analysed, found to be invalid HTML, oh and apparently that it violates copyright itself in at least two different ways.
In otherwords I would like to modify slightly that old saying, “Don’t fight the internet.” Don’t fight slashdot, you will lose and be humiliated in the process.
By Runningflame570 — GameSpot
Posted Oct 18, 2007 10:09 pm PT
What is going on?
At http://www.cybertriallawyer-sucks.com/, is the latest inivtation for Dozier Internet Law to test it’s strange interpretation of free speech rights. While not as sublte as similar efforts by Public Citizen, I Hate Linux, or whatithink, or as intellectual as Bill Patry (Google’s copyright big-wig)’s take, the site is nonetheless another follow-up to Dozier’s strange lawsuits on behalf of DirectBuy and Inventor-Link.
Dozier Internet Law (a firm that engages in strategic lawsuits against public participation — see case studies on Cuppy’s Coffee, DirectBuy, and Inventor-Link) is attempting to prevent users from examining code that Dozier executes on their machines. Whatithink examines that code, and finds something frightening:
It gets better! Oh does it get better. The site was built using a program called Zope. Whoever built the Dozier Internet Law website left a whole lot of stuff turned on that they should not have – including the ability for anyone to upload files to the site. Of course, the Internet being the Internet, a whole lot of stuff has ended up on the Dozier Internet Law website that shouldnâ€™t be there, including copyrighted works. So now Dozier Internet Law are breaking copyright law by making these copyright works available for download.
Whatithink focuses on Dozier’s making available copyrighted works. But as I wrote in the comments:
I’m more worired about the potential for Dozier’s website to become a tangent in the spread of viruses. Critics of Dozier have had their machines mysetriously infected. Whether hacking machines is considered ethical by Dozier or not, or whether they do it or not, the fact that Dozier’s website is so “hack-friendly” makes me reticent about visiting it in the future
Whatithink also gives a screenshot of his HTML debugging program, showing how he found various warnings and critical errors generated by Dozier’s descriptive web code.
Do you want to have your reputation ruined, pay a million dollar fine, and in general tick everyone off? If so, Dozier Internet Law is the law firm for you! But if the thought of being in the presence of “Super Lawyer” John “Bull” Dozier is too intimidating, you can examine the form that Dozier seems to use to wreck their clients. (Just note that Dozier thinks US law likely will not govern the matter!
Our friend Donald E. Morris of Dozier Internet Law (presumably not a “super-lawyer” like his boss, John W. Dozier, Jr.,) is at it again. After threatening Infomercial Scams over its warnings against DirectBuy, now DonJohn is attacking Inventor Ed for statements on Inventor-Link.
Section: “Please be advised”
Please be advised that our firm has been retained by DirectBuy, Inc. to investigate and take legal action against you for the series of unwarranted and defamatory attacks against it made by you and your visitors on your various websites. Specifically, these websites are www.infomercialblog.com, www.infomercialratings.com, and www.infomercialscams.com.
Please be advised that our firm has been retained by Inventor-Link, LLC to investigate and take legal action against you for engaging in the following activities (1) defamation of our client, (2) tortious (sic) interference with our clientâ€™s business; and (3) violation of our clientâ€™s website User Agreement.
DirectBuy, Inc., has been in business for over 35 years and has provided consumers with the opportunity to save on products for their homes through its members only program. Our client provides its members with access to thousands of products and provides a high level of customer service. DirectBuy has established a well founded reputation for the quality of its services and customer satisfaction and your unwarranted actions and baseless accusations have damaged that reputation and adversely affected our client’s business.
Our client provides a professional service to inventors worldwide employing an experienced staff and a well-developed system for evaluation and development of inventorsâ€™ ideas. It provides prospective inventors with clear information and disclaimers, and it is very selective with regard to whom it chooses to represent.
Your have personally posted many willfully false and misleading comments about our client. Examples of your defamatory statements include:
- “Direct Buy Nightmare” — www.informercialscams.com;
- “all scams are posted uncensored!” — www.informercialscams.com
- You are reporting the following SCAM” — www.informercialscams.com; and
- “Recently, we noticed a sudden influx of 4 and 5 star ratings for the Direct Buy program… We don’t know if Direct Buy is behind this or not. But we do have our suspicions given the fact that the reviews came from the SAME LOCATION, say the same thing, and highlightpoints that most cusomters wouldn’t be concerned with.” — www.infomercialblog.com
You have willfully posted false and defamatory comments about our client on numerous websites, including Inved.Org, InventBlog.com and About.com. Moreover, in republishing statements found on our clientâ€™s website, after having misrepresented yourself as a prospective customer, you also violated our clientâ€™s website User Agreement as well as state and federal laws.
Defamatory statements that we have found include, but are not limited to:
- â€œWho is behind it? They use Paypal Â® so no way to find out. Only the shadow knows and heâ€™s not talking at present.â€
- â€œThus far three inventors (two from the northern England and one from Ireland) may become victims unless they take heed and it looks like they are.â€
- â€œThere is an Oregon-based invention company targeting UK inventors for enormous upfront fees (CS, 000 – Â£10,000) BEFORE they know what they are buying ($10,000 -$20,000).
- â€œPlus, why would a US-based company ONLY target UK inventors when the US has many more inventors and free resources to find them? It makes no sense unless UK inventors have proven easy prey compounded by the fact that litigation for UK inventors would be out of the question due to issues such as (a) jurisdiction, and (b) cost of a lawsuit across the pondâ€
- â€œHe was suspicious wanting to know how I got his phone number, where I live, what is my full name…etc. Very weird (Spanish inquisition format)â€
- â€œUpon site entry and after reading the usual prom promotional diatribe one fills in a generic â€œtell us who you are and what you have â€œform. Eventually one receives a free â€œSmart-Start Evaluation Programâ€ (the bait).â€
- â€œtheir Evaluation appears to represent an incomplete rendition of PIES (Preliminary Innovation Evaluation System) pioneered in the 1970s by Dr. Gerald Udellâ€
- â€˜Hit Paypalâ€™s â€œSubmitâ€ button and it is all over but the shouting One will never know who/where that money was cashed by.â€
- â€œOf course, they are going to counter with â€œwe don â€˜t do any marketing or licensingâ€ or for that matter ANYTHING!â€
- â€œinventors being required to remit money via PaypalÂ® before knowing exactly what they are buying.â€
- â€œThey are moving into dangerous territory for several reasons by seemingly practicing law without a license.â€
- â€œthere appears to be NO contract (b) allegedly they write patents which is illegal.â€
- â€œTheir resumes and CVs are confidential because they have nothing of consequence anyone would consider credible! Likely they were all former pen pushers while they worked for invention companies to learn the ropes.â€
- â€œHiding and Evasiveness appears to be something they are very good at.â€
- â€œBottomline: theyâ€™d rather â€œwaste you” than let you in on who they really are. It’s an old, old salesman’s tactic -evasiveness rears itâ€™s ugly head again.â€
- â€œNo wonder they operate in Hiding and are Evasive.â€
- â€œIt is but one more way to hide who is behind this enterprise.â€
- â€œWho are these fools anyway!?!â€
- Is it a scam, you ask? Letâ€™s just say they â€œextrapolateâ€ money out of UK inventors with a big smile on their faces as they head for the bank! http://inventblog.com/2007/0 7/who-is-inventor-linkcom.htmlâ€
- â€œTake a look here: http://inventblog.com/2007/0 7/who-is-inventor-linkcom.html”
- Hereâ€™s a new one being â€œworkedâ€for more material from current/former clients you might learn something from too: http://inventblog.com/2007/08/who-is-pacific-world-marketing.htm/#comment-2151â€
- â€œItâ€™s not even a Marketing Plan and obviously it would appear they donâ€™t personally DO anything other than provide this stupid document you can put together yourself – – – even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again!â€
- â€œWhy would a US based company only target foreign inventors one wonders. One reason, assuming what he stated is true, has to do with jurisdictional issues. It would be very hard for a UK inventor to get monies back from a foreign company (it is registered in Delaware as a corporation).â€
- â€œAnyway, glad to have spared you all that wasted money. What shysters!â€
- â€œYour invention is not what they are after………………….if you get my point.â€
- â€œMore likely than not the generic evalation they did for your invention will be â€œexactlyâ€ the same as the one provided to an inventor Iâ€™m in communication with.â€
- â€œ(one assumes youâ€™ve already received results from their free â€œSmart-Start Evaluation Program.”) And what a load of crap that is. Itâ€™s a generic â€œevaluationâ€ (Who is giving it? What are their credentials to evaluate anything?! More importantly who owns this outfit?!!)â€
The above statements made in reference to DirectBuy, Inc are utterly false and without merit, and they are defamatory per se in that they depict our client as engaging in fraudulent activity that violates civil and criminal law.
These statements are defamatory in that they are utterly false and malign our clientâ€™s reputation by stating that its business practices are centered around â€˜preyingâ€™ on UK inventors and that it is â€˜hidingâ€™ behind a â€˜scamâ€™ that provides â€˜nothingâ€™ of substance to â€˜victimizedâ€™ customers. Even though you have presented these disparaging remarks as from an inventor guideâ€™s perspective, your attempts to inform inventors have crossed the line in many ways and on multiple websites revealing a malicious intent on your part to harm our client. Much of the information you received from our client was retrieved through misrepresenting yourself and has been intentionally mischaracterized by you in order to drive customers away from retaining our client.
Additionally, you actively encourage and solicit defamatory statements from customers on your www.infomercialratings.com and www.infomercialscams.com websites. According to a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 389 F. 3rd 921 (9th Cir. 2007)] you likely have serious financial exposure to DirectBuy.com for each and every one of the defamatory statements made by your visitors. Furthermore, your actions have also resulted in damages to our client and its franchisees in Canada, subjecting you to claims in that country as well.
In addition to the defamatory statements that have been published, your actions have also violated our clientâ€™s website User Agreement. This Agreement states explicitly:
By using this site you agree and understand that the HTML code, look, feel, content, company name, logo, text, and any likeness or derivative of such content is the sole property of Inventor-Link LLC and may not be used in any manner without the expressed written permission of Inventor-Link LLC. Furthermore, we strict/y prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission.
You have not received permission to use text from our clientâ€™s website, and yet you have republished the following text:
â€œOfficial Site of Inventor-Link LLC – Your Link to Success for Your… We know how to get your idea from a rough sketch to a finished product in the marketplace. If your idea has what it takes, we can help you get the results you want. …www.inventor-link.comâ€
You have associated your disparaging remarks with bona fide text from our clientâ€™s website with the purpose of harming our clientâ€™s business and diverting actual and potential customers. By using legitimate text that rightfully belongs to our client you are in violation of its website User Agreement.
Your attempts to spread libelous and defamatory material about our client have caused serious and irreparable injury to it, its reputation, and its business. Our client will not stand by and allow this misconduct to continue.
Section: “We hereby demand that you”
We hereby demand that you:
- Immediately remove from all of your websites all defamatory and disparaging remarks regarding our client made by you and your visitors, and
- Immediately cease and desist in publishing defamatory statements about our client, whether the statements are made by you or third parties, and
- Compensate our client for its attorney fees and costs
We hereby demand that you:
- Immediately remove and retract all defamatory and disparaging remarks regarding our client from all posts and publications;
- Immediately cease and desist in publishing defamatory comments about our client;
- Immediately remove and retract all text that was copied from our clientâ€™s website; and
- Compensate our client for damages it has suffered as a result of your activity, and for all Attorneysâ€™ fees and costs incurred in relation to this matter.
Section: “Legitimate Free Speech
Please not that this law firm does not attempt to restrict legitimate free speech, and we believe that the Internet is an important medium for dissemination of accurate and truthful information and for fair comment on issues of interest. Your activities, however, unlawfully encroach upon our client’s rights.
It is not our intention to restrict legitimate free speech, for we believe that the Internet is an important medium for dissemination of accurate and truthful information and for fair comment on issues of public importance. Your activities, however, violate our clientâ€™s rights. In the statements listed above, you have depicted our client as a company that: 1) is â€˜fly-by-nightâ€™ and does not have an experienced staff; 2) â€˜hidesâ€™ and does not work at the address they provide to prospective customers for the purpose of â€˜evadingâ€™ them; 3) does not provide unique evaluations to prospective customers; 4) does not provide a contract and/or clear description of its service to its paying customers; and 5) does not substantively serve itâ€™s customers beyond collecting its fees. These conclusions, along with your statements in support of these conclusions, are false and their continued publication increases the damages you have already caused to our client.
Section: “This letter puts you on notice”
This letter puts you on notice that should you refuse to comply with our demands by September 28, 2007, we will have no choice but to recommend that our client pursue all legal causes of action, including the filling of a lawsuit, to protect its interests. We will pursue both damages and attorneys’ fees and costs incurreed by our client as a result of your actions.
This letter puts you on notice that should you refuse to comply with our demands by October 18, 2007, we will have no choice but to recommend that our client pursue all legal causes of action, including a lawsuit based on the foregoing claims, to protect it and its business interests. We will pursue damages, attorneysâ€™ fees and costs incurred by our client as a result of your actions.
Section: “strongly recommend”
This is a very serious matter that requires your immediate attention. We therefore strongly recommend that you contact us immediately to address and resolve this situation. This letter is your one and only chance to resolve this matter amicably.
We strongly recommend that you contact us immediately to address and resolve this situation.
Please be aware that this letter is copyrighted by our law firm, and you are not authorized to republish this in any matter. Use of this letter in a posting, in full or in part, will subject you to further legal causes of action.
That’s it! Happy kirking!