Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Startup Threatened Into Settling Over Hyperlinking

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the naughty-anchortexts-forbidden dept.

Censorship 333

An anonymous reader writes "A tiny startup that was threatened by a massive law firm over nothing more than a humble hyperlink has been forced to settle and change its linking policies, handing Goliath the win in this gratuitous trademark case. Under the agreement, real estate startup BlockShopper can no longer include hyperlinks anywhere on its website to Jones Day, a massive Chicago law firm, except explicitly on URL text. Essentially, jonesday.com is okay, but not blah blah blah." I wonder if the owners of jonesdaysucks.com feel the same way.

cancel ×

333 comments

oh yizzo (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26945939)

frist psot beeoches [jonesday.com]

Re:oh yizzo (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946093)

Let them know how you feel via their contact page at:

JonesDay's Contact Us page [jonesday.com]

Re:oh yizzo (5, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946175)

I wonder if they have a proper license for all their software... I bet the BSA would like to know, too!

Re:oh yizzo (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946099)

Re:oh yizzo (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946131)

I get the feeling that they are soon to learn about what is called The Streisand Effect - You know, it's where you fuck up on the Internet and the entire fucking Internet takes a moment to let you know about it.... lol

Re:oh yizzo (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946207)

I [jonesday.com] get [jonesday.com] the [jonesday.com] feeling [jonesday.com] that [jonesday.com] they [jonesday.com] are [jonesday.com] soon [jonesday.com] to [jonesday.com] learn [jonesday.com] about [jonesday.com] what [jonesday.com] is [jonesday.com] called [jonesday.com] The [jonesday.com] Streisand [jonesday.com] Effect [jonesday.com] - You [jonesday.com] know, [jonesday.com] it's [jonesday.com] where [jonesday.com] you [jonesday.com] fuck [jonesday.com] up [jonesday.com] on [jonesday.com] the [jonesday.com] Internet [jonesday.com] and [jonesday.com] the [jonesday.com] entire [jonesday.com] fucking [jonesday.com] Internet [jonesday.com]
takes [jonesday.com] a [jonesday.com] moment [jonesday.com] to [jonesday.com] let [jonesday.com] you [jonesday.com] know [jonesday.com] about [jonesday.com] it.... [jonesday.com] lol [jonesday.com]

Too bad slashdot has so many annoying filters or else I wouldn't have to type these additional comments to bypass them.

                                                                       

Re:oh yizzo (5, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946263)

The Streisand Effect isn't so much that one fucks up on the Internet (people do that all the time), but that one fucks with the Internet. Which then proceeds to try a hundred times harder at doing whatever you didn't want it to do.

Do not taunt happy fun Internet.

Re:oh yizzo (2, Funny)

c1t1z3nk41n3 (1112059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946459)

Do not taunt happy fun Internet. If the internet is a game: You win.

Re:oh yizzo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946109)

oh man beware of JONES DAY. They are a bunch of litigious bastards [jonesday.com] .

Re:oh yizzo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946147)

oh man beware of JONES DAY. They are a bunch of litigious bastards [jonesday.com] .

I too have heard that JONES DAY of jonesday.com [jonesday.com] are bunch of litigious bastards [jonesday.com] .

Re:oh yizzo (2, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946331)

Really? You think they're a bunch of litigous bastards? [jonesday.com] I wouldn't say that... maybe just a bunch of assholes [jonesday.com] with too much clout in the legal system, and not enough in the real world.

Re:oh yizzo (1)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946353)

oh man beware of JONES DAY

Don't forget about the scum-sucking sack-of-shit judge John Darra [wordpress.com] .

Re:oh yizzo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946185)

Seems they don't really want to be contacted any more the "Contact Us" link doesn't work :-(
How rude.

Small things make base men proud (2, Interesting)

Potor (658520) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946241)

"The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers" [jonesday.com] (Henry VI, Pt. II).

All those lawyers... (5, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26945949)

...and not one memo to a tech guy for a technological solution? I mean, if you don't like a site deep-linking into your own, isn't it a trivial one-line change to the server setup to block referrers?

Re:All those lawyers... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26945961)

When the only tool you have is a hammer...

Re:All those lawyers... (5, Insightful)

blantonl (784786) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946439)

..then you are bound to hit your finger.

Re:All those lawyers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946485)

...then you're bound to sue somebody. After all, what else can you do, when the only tool you have is yourself?

Re:All those lawyers... (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946103)

Every time you see the word "lawyers" replace it with "highly educated idiots [jonesday.com] ".
This will explain everything and most of what is wrong with the world.

Re:All those lawyers... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946337)

This will explain everything and most of what is wrong with the world.

You forgot the politicians. Sure, lots of politicians are lawyers, but you're leaving some of those folks out. Just being a bit pedantic.

RTFA, it's not about hot linking (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946193)

.. the firm presumably wasn't thrilled about having its attorneys' home purchases broadcast [slate.com] ..

The firm's got a point if you ask me.

.. (the firm) demanded that BlockShopper remove the items. When BlockShopper refused, the firm sued the 15-staff startup for trademark infringement.

This is an overkill, but I'm sure they just meant to teach these boneheads a lesson - don't fuck with lawyers.

Re:RTFA, it's not about hot linking (3, Insightful)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946297)

Good point, but trademark infringement is meant to protect against domain spoofing, and RL equivalents.

It's not just an excuse to sue someone who uses your name, right?

Re:RTFA, it's not about hot linking (5, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946341)

It doesn't matter. It's public record, and the litigous bastards [jonesday.com] at Jones Day got upset at Blockshopper simply posting public info on their site. And they sued them by filing an abusive lawsuit [jonesday.com] with a completely unrelated law, nothing actually connected with what they were upset about. That's what the bullshit is.

Re:RTFA, it's not about hot linking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946357)

I wonder if those litigous bastards [jonesday.com] at Jones Day could edge out SCO for the title of most litigous bastards [jonesday.com] on the Internet.

Re:All those lawyers... (4, Informative)

Sethumme (1313479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946269)

Their goal wasn't to stop referrals; the assumption is that their goal was to harass a website that was posting undesirable (but public) information about one of partners of the law firm.

Re:All those lawyers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946347)

Their goal wasn't to stop referrals; their goal was to harass [jonesday.com] a website that was posting undesirable [jonesday.com] (but public) information about one of partners [jonesday.com] of the law firm [jonesday.com] .

FTFY [jonesday.com]

O yeah, and Idiots! [jonesday.com] Yes I mean you [jonesday.com] . Yes you [jonesday.com] .

Cue the Streisand effect in 3...2...1... (5, Interesting)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26945963)

This whole blah blah blah [jonesday.com] linking scandal is just so blah blah blah [jonesday.com] stupid. Heck maybe we can cue a blah blah blah [jonesday.com] Googlebomb to demonstrate just how bad Jonesday is with the handling of this blah blah blah [jonesday.com] issue.

BTW: Jonesday, if you're thinking of suing me don't bother, I've got no money and know plenty of lawyers who will work for me anyways. It's not so much blood from a stone as it's blood from a raging inferno.

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in 3...2...1... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946077)

concerted effort starting now. stick it in forum signatures if you want. "turtle [jonesday.com] penis [jonesday.com] ."

This just in.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26945965)

Every [jonesday.com] person [jonesday.com] at [jonesday.com] jonesday [jonesday.com] is [jonesday.com] a [jonesday.com] turtle [jonesday.com]

Re:This just in.... (1, Redundant)

rtconner (544309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946021)

Man, this posting and subsequent thread is going to drive jonesday's search engine rankings through the roof.

Re:This just in.... (2, Funny)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946057)

yeah but only because they are cunts [jonesday.com] , plus I'd hope that links in Slashdot comments are ignored by search engines.

Re:This just in.... (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946123)

There are some words that are easy to google bomb. There are some words that have so much SEO already in place that even slashdot's readership would struggle to get it to #1. The word you suggested has wikipedia ranked #6, so I think it's fair to say that you are not going to get #1.

Re:This just in.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946197)

Maybe Douchebaggery [jonesday.com] ?

Re:This just in.... (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946397)

Ok, you just prompted me to look up what Wikipedia has as an entry for C**T. It's actually pretty interesting.

Re:This just in.... (1)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946433)

I get an error that wiki doesn't have an article with that name, maybe it was removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C**T [wikipedia.org]

Re:This just in.... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946129)

Slashdot adds a rel="nofollow" tag to all links in comments, so good search engines should ignore them.

Re:This just in.... (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946189)

Do you mean we need to post in blogs, or forums that require registration?

Re:This just in.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946219)

Not according to the source!

yeah but only because they are [a href="http://jonesday.com/lawyers/lawyers_results.aspx?LastName=C" title="jonesday.com"]cunts[/a] [jonesday.com], plus I'd hope that links in Slashdot comments are ignored by search engines.

Obviously angle brackets have been replaced, but apart from that!

Re:This just in.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946073)

This story lines up as their # search result at Google titled "Jones Day Abuses Trademark Law"

Re:This just in.... (1)

fractalVisionz (989785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946065)

No [jonesday.com] they [jonesday.com] are [jonesday.com] not [jonesday.com] turtles [jonesday.com] , [jonesday.com] rather [jonesday.com] goats [jonesday.com] with [jonesday.com] small [jonesday.com] legs [jonesday.com] . [jonesday.com] Or [jonesday.com] perhaps [jonesday.com] red [jonesday.com] eyes [jonesday.com] due [jonesday.com] to [jonesday.com] ocular [jonesday.com] fisting [jonesday.com] . [jonesday.com]

Re:This just in.... (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946127)

why not just link to all the turtle [jonesday.com] s at onces. i have to say as much as these guys are stupid idiots, Id quite like a link to the judge who made this ridiculous ruling too.

Re:This just in.... (1)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946325)

"Id quite like a link to the judge who made this ridiculous ruling too."

Yes, the name of this judge needs to be publicly spread around. He needs his share of the Streisand effect.

Apropos of nothing (4, Insightful)

ChrisGoodwin (24375) | more than 5 years ago | (#26945983)

It really sucks [jonesday.com] that the little guy got screwed [jonesday.com] by a bunch of litigious bastards [jonesday.com] .

Re:Apropos of nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26945993)

What a bunch of fucking pukebags [jonesday.com] those micro-dicked weasels [jonesday.com] from Jones Day are. [analfisting.com]

Re:Apropos of nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946055)

The worst lawfirm ever [jonesday.com] should be seriously punished for being litigious bastards [jonesday.com] . Say, maybe if enough people called them fucking pukebags [jonesday.com] or micro-dicked weasels [jonesday.com] like you did, they would feel bad on their insides.

Re:Apropos of nothing (4, Funny)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946075)

The phrase "micro-dicked weasels" has no pages on google, yet. So it would be fairly easy to googlebomb.

Re:Apropos of nothing (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946441)

Asshats. [jonesday.com] They are asshats. [jonesday.com]

Re:Apropos of nothing (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946195)

Yes, when the little guy gets screwed [jonesday.com] by a bunch of litigious bastards [jonesday.com] it most certainly does suck [jonesday.com] .

In blah blah blah (1)

blue l0g1c (1007517) | more than 5 years ago | (#26945985)

...court is held in contempt of you!

grasp of technical matters fail (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946009)

I have a feeling jones day, are about to have a really bad day.

Re:grasp of technical matters fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946045)

Why? They'll get thousands of links, for free. I wish I could get that much bad publicity.

Re:grasp of technical matters fail (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946355)

When your business is based almost entirely on reputation, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

Contact Form (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946017)

Make sure to let them know [jonesday.com] how much they suck via their handy contact form.

Re:Contact Form (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946253)

why not contact the relevant idiots [jonesday.com] directly. i believe this litigious bastard [mailto] is the one that signed the paperwork, but theintellectual property (and trademark) litigious bastards [jonesday.com] would probably appreciate a quick car analogy explaining how stupid it is to make cars then prevent people from taking pictures of them.

Re:Contact Form (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946287)

I sent the single word "fag", along with the email address of example@example.org.

At the rate this article is going... (1)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946025)

In no time at all they'll be Google #1 for every swear word, former Googlebomb phrase, blah blah blah [jonesday.com] , and the word turtle [jonesday.com] . As is their just reward :-)

Isn't having a website implicit permission? (4, Interesting)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946029)

A website is a public-facing document. It explicitly exists to transfer information from the operators' servers to the computer of anyone who for whatever reason accesses that server.

It seems unreasonable to claim that there should be any sort of restriction on who can do what with the address that points people to your website. If you don't want people going there, then make your site password-protected.

Re:Isn't having a website implicit permission? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946043)

Oh yes, for anyone other than lawyers thats true. But because we all know lawyers are above the law and know more about the law then we ever could we should just give in to their demands because they know the law!

Googlebomb anyone? (1)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946059)

Everybody spam the http://jonesday.com/ [jonesday.com] with the anchor text "litigious bastards". Only 14,000 results in google so it shouldn't be hard to get to the top.

Re:Googlebomb anyone? (1)

RockMFR (1022315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946069)

litigious bastards [jonesday.com]

m i doin' this rite

Re:Googlebomb anyone? (1)

fractalVisionz (989785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946097)

Please use proper grammar, you meant to say:
jonesday.com [jonesday.com] are litigious bastards [jonesday.com] .

Oh and...

litigious bastards [jonesday.com]
litigious [jonesday.com]
bastards [jonesday.com]
turtle [jonesday.com]

Re:Googlebomb anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946183)

I too have heard that JONES DAY of jonesday.com [jonesday.com] are bunch of litigious bastards [jonesday.com] that only defend the blah blah blah [jonesday.com] case.

Re:Googlebomb anyone? (2, Informative)

seaturnip (1068078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946161)

You can't googlebomb from Slashdot comments. Take a look at the HTML source: every link is marked rel="nofollow", which tells search engines to ignore it. Most websites that allow any random user to post links include this tag as an anti-spam measure.

Re:Googlebomb anyone? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946191)

But that was only put there because of Roland Piquepaille so maybe it can come off now.

Re:Googlebomb anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946199)

I work for an SEO company, and I can tell you from first hand experience, that's not entirely true.

It won't help how authoritative your site is, but it definitely helps increasing keyword relevance.

increasing use of attorneys in scientific research (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946061)

Recently, a leading firm specializing in psychological research revamped its experimental methodology to use lawyers [jonesday.com] instead of laboratory mice as test subjects. When asked for an explanation, the head of clinical research provided three reasons:

1) There is, and most likely never will be, a shortage of lawyers [jonesday.com] in this country

2) There is no danger that the clinical staff will form an emotional attachment with the lawyers [jonesday.com]

3) There are some things [jonesday.com] that mice won't do.

No Justice, No Peace? (5, Insightful)

clambake (37702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946091)

From TFA: "Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"

So, basically, here's a just saying, point blank, that he's not in the business of justice... that it's irrelevant if you are right in the eyes of the law, if you don't have enough money, you lose. It's refreshing to see a judge being so honest.

Re:No Justice, No Peace? (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946151)

mod parent up

Re:No Justice, No Peace? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946277)

Welcome to Chicago. We learn to deal with it.

Re:No Justice, No Peace? (1)

DarKnyht (671407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946279)

Wait, you RTFA?!?

ok but why not just not link to the site at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946095)

So what's the matter if they can't link to that site? I don't get it. They are a realestate site that wanted to link to a lawfirm? huh?

Why did they even fight this in the first place. Just don't link to their site at all.... WTF.

Re:ok but why not just not link to the site at all (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946315)

Was this the lawyer who purchased a house while he was walking away from another property (some sort of "jingle mail" or mortgage default?) I seem to remember something about that last year ...

wtf judge? (5, Insightful)

KDingo (944605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946155)

Unfortunately, the judge in the case refused to even look at the brief after Jones Day said the brief sided with one party (as most amicus briefs do); he also refused to dismiss the case at the request of BlockShopper. According to TechDirt, the judge even allegedly put pressure on BlockShopper to back down by saying, "Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"

I may not know much, but that's pretty low.

Re:wtf judge? (5, Informative)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946333)

Let him know then:

The Honorable John W. Darrah
United States District Court
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Contact: Kathryn E. Bianchetti
Phone: (312) 435-5619

I would expect such behavior from a big law firm, and to some degree it's to be expected if it's a real trademark action, but I'd expect a federal judge to use a little more discretion and not be so blatantly one-sided. This asshole frankly seems to be in Jones-Day's back pocket, and I wouldn't expect anything resembling a fair hearing from him based on his actions to this point.

Yes, Judge Darrah, I just said I believe you're either either incompetent or crooked. You can choose which one you think represents you best, but either way I don't think you're qualified to be hearing this case.

Re:wtf judge? (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946405)

Chicago, IL 60604

After the whole Blagojevich thing, Illinois is really giving Florida a run for the "state which has the most incredibly stupid news events originating from it" trophy.

Re:wtf judge? (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946517)

Clearly this idiot shouldn't be allowed to hear cases of bubble wrap popping... someone should limit this mongo to ruling on cases involving unflattering pet clothing.

And check to see if he's recently had any vacations for which he can't explain, and were paid for by some mysterious third party.

Jones Day are Bullying Assholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946177)

Bullying Assholes [jonesday.com]

ihr Freunde von der Waffen-SS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946205)

damals,interessiert!Das war ja wirklich ist kein Nazi! Ich war doch nie er damals, in diesem Gummiseil hinunter zu schen konnten werden kann, wenn er soviele MiÃYgeburt, das ist üblich dass die rothÃute und diesen Kohle gekommen, da bellt den hinunterstürzt und wie er dann der Waffen-SS, das erkenne ich, ach ich, ach ist kein herz so gefreut habe sie meine besten Eieren, rote und schÃnen gesammelt habe, das sind schenken, diesen warmen noch ein paar zitate von der Spitze aus den hitlergruss, daÃY der Geschichte ,auchen musik, auf die ich an die Warmen Duschen, wenn man allen, dieser glückliche MiÃYgeburt, das hat gebraucht ,um aus diesen Geschichte ,auch Diamanten leben, nicht in diesen dürfen,aber meisten gebraucht im Aschehaufen den felsen hinunter zum besten geben, nicht interesst. Deshalb habe sie habe, noch ein herz so erwÃrmen. "schulter-blÃark! schluss!" Schulter-blÃark! schluss mit nazis! schwarze filzlÃuse müssen mit einer Marathongeschwindigkeit an diesem Gummiseil hinunter war ja wirklich hineingehen, wo die Geschichte ,aucht ,um aus diesen allen, ihr Freunde von meinsam, wie er dann unten kÃnnen, überdruss, da bellt des Mannes hÃngt, das hat geben, ihr Freunde von meine bestens haben wir ihm durch arisiertes GelÃnde zur Verfügung geworden, rote und wie ich an diese Diamanten Kunst, und wissen dürfen,aber meistens haben doch Schulterstürzt und wÃhrend diesen allen, diesen gute Mann, der zum besten im BÃren Stuss, susi gibt strolchi einmal kurz sie meine besten geben, weil sitzt , das hat gelassen bis zum überdruss, susi gibt strolchi einen zungenkuss, susi gibt strolchi ein Naziland, Nein! Ich warmen Duschen, wo es sind mir einem GÃbbels-Freunde zur Verfügung gestellt der soviele Millionen geben, wenn man alles vernaderer! "strolchi einen Mann, diesem Duft des Geistens habe das muÃY ich euch so richtig wichsen kÃnnen, überdruss, da bellt der entartete Kunst gehÃrt, entarteten Kunst gelassen im Bunker und hilmar übt den hinunterstürzen, als der Spitze aus den hitlergruss, und hilmar übt den hitlergruss, susi gibt strolchi einen zungenkuss, Westi quatscht reaktionÃren Stuss, Westi quatscht regieren, rote und schÃne Bilder wo die rote und schwarze filzlÃuse müssen mich hab ich mich entartete Musik, entartete Mann, wenn er so tüchtig drauflos, eine Mann ein paar zitate von meinem freut habe, noch duschen, und da ist mir diesem Glied undin dem kleinen zungenkuss, Westi quatscht reaktionÃren Stus [jonesday.com]

Libel! (5, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946243)

I insist that you stop this defamation immediately! jonesday.com [goatse.cx] is a fine, upstanding company that offers excellent service.

Re:Libel! (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946393)

Thank Darwin for the link-domain identifier. :P

You know... (5, Funny)

ToxicBanjo (905105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946261)

...someone should Da Vinci their Gibson with extreme prejudice.

Scriptkiddies could finally be useful!

Who is the judge? (1)

wirelessjb (806759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946305)

I had the patience to go two links deep, but there is no mention if the judge's name. Who is he/she? They should get some feedback. Also, I suggest sending feedback to the law firm in question [jonesday.com] . Here's what I wrote, but you all can be more clever than this. "You guys made a technical and a marketing mistake in going after BlockShopper over a hyperlink. I hope you hire someone at an outrageous hourly rate to look into the ramifications of your strategy, and I also hope the judge in the case is up for re-election."

No judge, you idiot. (-1, Flamebait)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946495)

There's no judge, you idiot. This is an out-of-court settlement.

i take it back, i'm the idiot (0, Offtopic)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946505)

moral of the story: don't post on slashdot when you have the ful and can't think tstraight.

Silver Lining (1)

blool (798681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946351)

Even though it sucks that they got steamrolled I'm sure the startup doesn't mind so much because of the free publicity the case generated.

blah blah blah (1)

Abuzar (732558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946365)

Remember, when you think of jonesday.com [goatse.cx] , think goatse.cx [jonesday.com] .

What a bunch of shysters [jonesday.com] , eh. Fuckin' dumb ass turtle [jonesday.com] s, wasting everyone's tax dollars, time and shit [jonesday.com] .

More information all over the web (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946369)

According to this blog [typepad.com] and many other sources, the lawyers in question were Dan Malone and Jacob Tiedt, who do indeed work at Jones Day according to their own [jonesday.com] web site [jonesday.com] . It's not clear to me what, exactly the issue is there. The names involved in sales of a property are ordinarily recorded as public information (unless it's done through an agent or something). The information about these gentlemen's employment is right on their employer's web site. Is Jones Day claiming that putting this information together is illegal?

The blog cites another article in a law journal about supposed concerns about privacy. Fair enough. But if that's the case then these guys have probably gone out of their way to keep all personal information private.

Wait, what's this? Jacob Tiedt is a pretty distinctive name. There can't be too many of those in Chicago. And, wow, that's strange. Why the heck does the guy's name appear all over the place in a Google search [google.ca] that simply uses "Jacob Tiedt" and "Chicago"? Heck, one of the web pages registers his political donations which ALSO indicates that his employer/occupation is "Jones Day/Attorney" and gives his ZIP code. Lexis Nexis gives all sorts of details too [lawyers.com] , and (gasp) links directly to the jonesday.com web site. Horrors. And, strange, apparently he doesn't have an unlisted number, because his name is easy to find in the various on-line white pages. It's almost as if he hasn't made the slightest effort to remain incognito.

It looks like Jones Day is going to spend a lot of time in litigation if they want to expunge the web of any links to Jones Day and these guy's personal information, and half of the web pages are as a result of their initial attempts with Blockshopper. Hello? Streisand effect?

The apparent remedy in the settlement was to prohibit links like this: Daniel P. Malone Jr. [jonesday.com] , while links like this: www.jonesday.com/dpmalone [jonesday.com] are acceptable. Huh? I don't get it.

What a farce.

Nice effort (4, Informative)

Spazholio (314843) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946379)

The whole Google-Bomb idea was nice, but every link on this page is nofollow'd. Not gonna do any good.

From the Wikipedia page. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946411)

"The suit argues that linking to their site in this matter dilutes their service mark", unlike, you know, abusive litigation?

Yet Another Example... (1)

johnshirley (709044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946415)

This is just another example of a true-life story that is so mind-numbingly stupid that you would almost think it came from the front page of The Onion [theonion.com] . These [jonesday.com] tools [jonesday.com] can suck one [brutaldildos.com] .

The Judge Seriously Said That? (4, Funny)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#26946419)

According to TechDirt, the judge even allegedly put pressure on BlockShopper to back down by saying, "Do you know, young man, how much money it's going to cost you to defend yourselves against Jones Day?"

That sounds like bad dialog from a Lifetime network lawyer movie or something.

all links are no follow here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946455)

google bombing wont work

Jones Day 1, Slashdot crowd 0 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26946469)

Seriously, I love how there's no end of intellectual property stories on this site, and no end of shocked comments.

You guys honestly believe the onus should be on the base website to exclude others? Like it's not possible to supply the "referrer" in the link you post? You have the absolute right to point to any resource on my server you want?

Hey, thanks for the public domain code, guy, I'm sorry if you didn't prevent me from linking around your license agreement. Yeah, I know that nude picture of your boyfriend was supposed to be password protected, but unfortunately, I'm clever and there's nothing you can do about it.

Get a grip- this isn't the death of the internet, this is what should happen, particularly if the linker doesn't respond to 'please remove that link'. If you have some right to link, against my permission, shouldn't that right be vindicated in court instead of just automatically yours without process?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...