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 : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (546)	8/3/2000 3:31:56 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 7/6/00 - [RENT] Notice of Subpoena To my surprise... by: recurve333 7/6/00 10:00 pm Msg: 2929 of 3018 The following was in my inbox after I arrived back from the ball game last night: "NOTICE OF SUBPOENA (from Yahoo! legal dept.) We are writing to inform you that Yahoo! has been served with a subpoena requiring disclosure of information related to your user account at Yahoo! The subpoena was issued in an action entitled: Rentrak Corporation v. Kundinger, et. al., CV00-820-HA pending in: United States District Court, Northern District of California The subpoena, dated 06/21/2000, requires that Yahoo! produce documents related to your Yahoo! account. The attorney for the subpoenaing party, Latham & Watkins, is Peter H. Benzian 701 "B" Street Suite 2100 San Diego, CA 92101 619-236-1234 (phone) 619-696-7419 (fax) Please be advised that Yahoo! will respond to the subpoena five days from the date of this notice, unless we have notice that a motion to quash the subpoena has been filed, or the matter has been otherwise resolved. You may wish to consult an attorney to advise you about the foregoing. Please contact the subpoenaing party to obtain a copy of the subpoena. If you wish to contact Yahoo! regarding this matter, please direct your correspondence to notice-user@yahoo-inc.com." ..... This is not an attempt at humor on my part. What an act of desperation. I have nothing to do with Rentrak vs. Kundinger et.al. I don't even know Kundinger. Just another waste of Rentrak shareholder money. Perhaps an act of intimidation on Ron's part. Last time I checked, we have a right in this country to free speech. Yes, I have offered some strong opinions here, but I believe that the facts are on my side. I suspect that all or many posters here have been effected in the same way. Anyone else care to share? If anyone can, would you care to explain any of the details of Rentrak vs. Kundinger? Any ideas why I/we have now become involved in this? As I have stated, actions of RENT management have provided significant weight to my opinions: REPLACE CURRENT MANAGEMENT. I have been a long-term shareholder and only want my investment to flourish. I want management to consider shareholders before themselves. 10Ks and 10Qs don't lie. Now I can't wait for the annual proxy notice and information regarding Ron's compensation. Ron: I have been one of RENT's ambassadors for years, to the detriment of my pocketbook. Our company has not been successful with you and your team at the helm. messages.yahoo.com ===== Notice of Subpoena by: wapuff 7/6/00 10:13 pm Msg: 2930 of 3018 I received the same notice. What a waste of shareholder money! messages.yahoo.com ===== me too by: kdw_97203 7/7/00 12:00 am Msg: 2931 of 3018 I have not been around this company for 5 yrs and still own shares from my options. KFC I will call you tomorrow messages.yahoo.com ===== It's Quashing Time Ronnie!! by: blabbotheklown (M/canada) 7/7/00 1:44 am Msg: 2932 of 3018 The major stockholders are in motion. That little subpoena trick doesn't scare anyone. How about a visit from the S.E.C. to Airport Way to investigate the little stock manuevers on your part.....cuz I don't think the major stockholders are happy. Your'e lucky I'm not a stockholder.. messages.yahoo.com ===== me too by: strap68 7/7/00 2:16 am Msg: 2933 of 3018 I recieved the same message. I am the husband of an X employee (lay off may 23rd). I am also a shareholder only because my wife incisted this company was well worth the investment. I have watched her give it all for 81/2 years and when she got layed off she even still said nothing against the company. She needed a resume from Chris Roberts for a job she applied for and he refused because she was posting on yahoo. This is after she put up with all kinds of crap from this punk. messages.yahoo.com ===== Subpoena by: Cowboy9983 7/7/00 10:33 am Msg: 2935 of 3018 I got a notice of Supoena also. Ron must have a lot of money to burn. An attorney has to cost over $150 per hour. All the time getting supoenas to Yahoo and later follow up must cost a lot of bucks. The shareholders want Ron out because of poor performance. Instead of wasting more money in the legal system why isn't he trying to raise the stock price. We would vote to keep him in if he could get this price up to $8 or $9. messages.yahoo.com ===== case by: movie_trailer_trash (25/F/Deep South in the Paw Paw) 7/7/00 2:54 pm Msg: 2940 of 3018 The case is: Rentrak Corporation v. Donald J. Kundinger, et al. Oregon District Court Case #00CV820HA Plaintiff is Donald J. Kundinger; Paul Bogdanich; Jackson Hole Advisors, a Wyoming sole propietorship; Paul Rosenbaum; Cecil D. Andrus; Michael J. Annechino; Mark A. Brown; George H. Kuper; Joon S. Moon; James G. Petcoff; Gordon A. Reck; Donald W. Remlinger; Guy R. Wolcott; David Rosencrantz; Gene Tinker; Thomas S. Cousins; and Bruce Ament. Latham & Watkins is one of Rent law firms, Stoel Rives is where depos are being done. messages.yahoo.com Correction by: movie_trailer_trash (25/F/Deep South in the Paw Paw) 7/7/00 10:09 pm Msg: 2943 of 3018 The list of Jackson Hole Advisors are defendants. My Apologies. messages.yahoo.com ===== Subpoena list: list by: movie_trailer_trash (25/F/Deep South in the Paw Paw) 7/7/00 2:47 pm Msg: 2937 of 3018 mbaandmore, callforsanity, xmaspartycommittee, dudeily, chmiss2000, mrlucky200, mild78, msbrgr, readread4, killshot1999, ipo3pfasap, recurve333, Rentmeister, bob2539, albert_meat, ads1597132, JHR0001, Pettrova, wapuff, Cowboy9983, seattleslew2u, strap68, kickhisbaldassout, iamronsbaby, kickhisbuttout, kingorpoe, watrncollet, myteemite2, muckingfess, worriedaboutrent, theyhavetogo, thirty2sixtydays, secondthemotion, clearspeak111, messages.yahoo.com messages.yahoo.com messages.yahoo.com ===== I am really UPSET!!! by: recurve333 7/7/00 4:28 pm Msg: 2942 of 3018 ... that I was not first on the subpoena list!! No respect as a poster (just kidding). No respect as a shareholder (not kidding). (what a waste of shareholder's money!) messages.yahoo.com ===== suit by: sturgeonmark (44/M/Warrenton, OR) 7/9/00 11:40 am Msg: 2945 of 3018 It would seem to me the only good thing about all this legal positioning is that rent will probably have to keep the stock around these current levels or better in order to help survive this suit. messages.yahoo.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (546)	8/11/2000 1:10:53 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 8/11/00 - Dendrite International to Use Web as Post for Legal Notice August 11, 2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dendrite International to Use Web as Post for Legal Notice By AARON ELSTEIN WSJ.COM How does a company notify anonymous online critics that it is suing them and get them to show up in court? A New Jersey state judge offered Dendrite International an unusual solution that touched some thorny issues involving cyberlibel suits against message-board posters. Judge Kenneth C. MacKenzie instructed the Morristown, N.J., software maker to post legal notice on the same message board that was used by a group of unknown persons it had sued for defamation. The judge wanted to give the posters a chance to present arguments in court to block a subpoena that Dendrite was seeking -- as part of its lawsuit -- to unmask their identities. The decision appears to be the first time a court has refused to automatically grant a company a subpoena to get information from a message-board operator that would help identify its online critics. Some experts say it also could help resolve another big problem in these cases involving companies and their online critics: Informing people whose names and whereabouts are unknown that they are in a legal fight. Paul Levy, a lawyer at Public Citizen, a Washington consumer group that has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Dendrite International case, says he endorses the idea of companies and lawyers posting information on message boards to inform unknown parties that they seek to bring them to court. "It seems like a sensible way to go," he says. But other lawyers question whether Judge MacKenzie's approach could have any broad significance. Merely posting court papers online doesn't necessarily mean they reach the desired audience, says Patrick Carome, a lawyer at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in Washington. "There's no ironclad guarantee that the people you want to see the message will see it," says Mr. Carome. And unless companies can prove such postings were seen by the desired parties, they can't establish that they have notified them of legal action. Dendrite International has sued 15 "John Does" whom it alleges defamed management and leaked proprietary information in postings on a Yahoo! message board (messages.yahoo.com). After filing suit, Dendrite, which makes software for the pharmaceuticals industry, asked Judge MacKenzie for a subpoena to get information on the writers' identities from Yahoo, where the allegedly defamatory postings about the company were made. But rather than grant the request for a subpoena, as is ordinarily done, the judge instructed Dendrite International publish a copy of an order requiring four of the anonymous critics to appear in his court to argue against the subpoena. He ruled that posting a copy of his order on Yahoo was "the most effective and appropriate" way to notify unknown parties about the matter. Dendrite posted notice on the Yahoo board on June 23. Two of the posters responded by hiring lawyers, who argued at a 90-minute hearing July 29 that the judge shouldn't honor Dendrite's request for court-sanctioned help in identifying their clients. While Dendrite has sued 15 anonymous posters, only four were involved in the matter before Judge MacKenzie because the company believes they live in New Jersey. Critics have argued that companies have gotten subpoenas too easily from judges to gather confidential information from message boards without the anonymous posters getting a chance to oppose the subpoenas in court. Some contend companies are abusing the system to silence their critics. Increasingly, companies have filed "John Doe" lawsuits to get a subpoena and unmask their critics -- eventually pressuring them into a settlement. Most posters learn about a subpoena after it is served on a message-board operator -- giving them limited opportunity to fight it. Some board operators have only recently begun notifying posters before they turn over information -- giving them days to hire a lawyer and contest the subpoena. Sometimes, posters don't even know they are the target of a lawsuit suit until their identities have been revealed to the companies and they are served with court papers. This lack of warning has made it difficult for them to defend themselves, either by hiring a lawyer or taking other steps to guard their anonymity. These issues have come to the forefront as more and more companies head to court to fight their online critics. These lawsuits were almost unheard of a few years ago. But more than 100 cases have been filed in the last two years, with the pace picking up substantially in the past six months. The increase has become a concern for free-speech advocates because of the potential ramifications for chatter among individuals on the Internet. Dendrite sued its critics May 24 in State Superior Court in Morristown, N.J. The company is seeking unspecified damages. The four posers whose identities the company was trying to unmask by seeking a subpoena from Judge MacKenzie are: "implementor_extrodinaire," "ajcazz," "xxplrr" and "gacbar." Of the four, only "ajcazz" responded online to Dendrite's notice requiring them to appear in court. "Nice try. This is so funny," ajcazz said in a message posted June 26, three days after Dendrite's notice. Gene Reynolds, a lawyer for "xxplrr," and attorney Randy Pearce, who represents "gacbar," argued that their clients' names shouldn't be revealed until Dendrite International has better established a case that their messages actually harmed the company. Reached by telephone, Mr. Reynolds declined to comment on the case. Mr. Pearce wasn't available for comment. Dendrite International officials didn't return calls, and their attorneys declined to comment. The Dendrite case isn't the first time the Internet has been used by companies or their lawyers to pursue matters pertaining a lawsuit or to gather information related to message-board chatter against a company. Daniel Becka, a lawyer from Boca Raton, Fla., posted a message on several boards recently on Raging Bull (www.ragingbull.com) saying he is "in the process of gathering information" about the online critics of Computerized Thermal Imaging, a Layton, Utah company whose management has been pummeled lately by online attackers. "It's very unusual for a lawyer to publicize an investigation -- on the Internet or anywhere else," says Public Citizen's Mr. Levy. Mr. Becka said that his client wants to find out if the critics paid a reporter at Bloomberg News, a unit of Bloomberg LP, to write a June 29 article that detailed Computer Thermal Imaging's recent difficulties in raising money and gaining acceptance in the medical community for a breast-cancer diagnostic device it is developing. Mr. Becka asked people to notify him by e-mail and identify themselves "if possible." Mr. Becka said in an interview that his firm hasn't filed suit against Bloomberg or the unknown attackers, but would consider doing so after it reviews the information it gathers from online volunteers. "People are being responsive" to his request, he says. A Computerized Thermal Imaging spokesman declined to comment, as did a spokesman at Bloomberg News. While Mr. Becka wouldn't describe the nature of his investigation, Computerized Thermal Imaging has posted letters on its Web site demanding a short-seller who goes by the name of Steve Pluvia retract a report he published on Silicon Investor (www.siliconinvestor.com) in mid-June criticizing the company and its management. Write to Aaron Elstein at aaron.elstein@wsj.com interactive.wsj.com