Oops! My apologizes to Dozier Law Firm, L.L.C. for confusing them with Dozier Internet Law, P.C. I have not been contacted by Dozier Law Firm and everything I’ve discussed on this blog has been about Dozier Internet Law, but on a few occasions I’ve used Dozier LFLLC. as a synonym for Dozier ILPC.
Sorry, Zack and David!
I Hate Linux has a fascinating article, which was also featured on the Jim River Report, on Dozier Internet Law…. before their meltdown on the DirectBuy threats, before they so damaged Cuppy’s Coffee’s reputation that CC needed to higher a P.R. firm…. there was Secure Computer, LLC.
The case featured all the usual nonsense from Dozier. Just like they publiclly squabble with blogs while DirectBuy’s reputation suffers, they issued press releases in the SecureComputer case. In separate suits, Microsoft and the State of Washington sued Secure Computer,” so Secure Computer made the mistake of contracting Dozier Internet Law.
If you’ve been reading this blog over the past few days, you know what a mistake that is.
Secure Computer’s nightwmare continues, as the Microsoft case drags on. But SecureComputer already had to pull its product from the market and pay one million dollars to the State of Washington.
In a discussion forum on this blog, former Dozier law firm employees complained about the bad working environment at the company. With victories like SecureComputer, Cuppy’s Coffee, and DirectBuy under their belt, no wonder Dozier employees are not happy!
Dozier Intenret Law is tied to the world of plagiarism in three ways. One is by coincidence. The other by suspicion. The last is indisputable.
Coincidentally, the story of Dozier acting as hired thugs for DirectBuy has been picked up by Plagiarism Today. The article goes into some depth, link to the four factors of fair use and is very worth reading.
By suspicion, the open letter posted on Dozier’s home page cites cases first uncovered by Curtis Weeks, as I discussed in my preliminary case study. It is these stories that let Dozier post “UK Court finds that business dispute demand letter protected by copyright laws” as “Latest News” at the firm’s homepage. But ultimately, such cases may be straightforward to find, so nothing can be proven.
Indisputably,, the rant by John Dozier posted on New York Personal Injury Law Blog includes material lifted, without attribution, from lawdit.co.uk (Curtis found this, too!).
Why anyone would want to hire a lawyer that’s so apt destroying their client’s reputation and violationg the copyright of others is beyond me.