Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (3288)	7/27/1999 1:41:00 AM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

Jeff, a lot of that looks like something that Pugs or Riley would write, maybe Riley was telling the truth when he claimed that he was piggybacking on BW's case. z.........

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (3288)	7/27/1999 5:07:00 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

<<Defendants refused [to remove the BW trademark], opting instead to change the trademark on the press release from BUSINESS WIRE to BIDNESS WIRE, which is confusingly similar to Business Wire's registered trademarks. >> Like I said before, only confusing to ebonics majors . . . LOL! <<Unable to obtain meaningful relief from defendants, Business Wire was left with no choice but to file this lawsuit >> uh, HELLO???, didn't they remove the trademark from the site? Yes, they used the words "Business Wire," but not the TM, and not in such a way in which it could be construed that BW sanctioned the website or veracity of its contents. Roger and Lisa ought to be sanctioned for this ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts (it won't happen though, so don't get your hopes up) <<Business Wire's causes of action for fraud and breach of contract are not based on what defend-ants said on their website or in the press release. To the contrary, these claims are based on misrep-resentations defendants made only to Business Wire in a private com-mercial transaction when the parties entered into a contractual rela-tionship. >> I'm not following this. You lied about something during the contract negotiations? I think that the crux of their complaint is the falseness of the PR content, and not some misrepresentation you made when entering the contract. BW did not give a damn what your PR said when you entered the contract, all they wanted to know whether the check was good. They don't explain this very well, probably because they cannot. And gee, the PR doesn't mention investment scams? I wonder why not? Would it have been effective at all if it gave away the truth in the PR? I think not. Try again. <<There is no prima facie First Amendment defense to Business Wire's breach of contract and fraud claims. >> Maybe, maybe not. The defense is that BW's claims are crap, they misconstrue the facts and the contract language, and are unsupportable, regardless of first amendment defenses. (I'm just throwing stuff out here, don't rely on this legal "analysis"). <<Defendants misused Business Wire's trademark not in connection with speech warning of internet investment scams, but to do just the opposite -- to convince skeptical Internet users that their Internet hoax was a legitimate investment opportunity. >> To what end???? First they say it is to promote Magnetic Diary, then they say it's to convince investors of a legit investment opportunity (even though there was no way to "invest" in this "opportunity"). What injury was caused to the public? Nobody rushed to the theater exits and got trampled (the rationale behind the "yelling fire" rule). Nobody set fire to BW's offices (although I'm sure it's crossed a few minds since then), so I'm not sure why they keep repeating that, and given their publication of an obviously false PR about UPCA, BW doesn't care if they publish false PRs, only if someone calls attention to it. Well, I have to get back to work. I hope you kick Bidness Liar's ass.