Firms sue to unmask online attackers
Erik Espe Business Journal Staff Writer
John Doe is a wanted man.
Sunbeam Corp., National Semiconductor Corp., Amplicon Inc., E-Trade
Group Inc. and a number of other companies want to see him unmasked.
The reason: Mr. Doe allegedly has stolen trade secrets and libeled top
managers of some of America's biggest corporations.
John Doe is the name being used by those companies to file suit against
anonymous users of Yahoo Inc.'s Internet message boards who have
attacked the credibility of the companies. At least four "John Doe" lawsuits
have been filed in Santa Clara County since late June.
Although Yahoo says all of the offending messages were removed from the
Web following complaints by the companies, the firms filed suit anyway
because they say it's the only way to discover the real names of the people
who left the messages -- and, potentially, to collect damages from them.
"My clients are not interested in suppressing free speech," said Garrett
Waltzer, a Palo Alto attorney representing Florida-based Sunbeam and
Canada's Philip Services Corp., two companies that claim they were
defamed when anonymous critics blasted them on Yahoo message boards.
"There is a line between free speech and defamation," said Mr. Waltzer,
adding that he hopes the lawsuits will help his clients identify their online
detractors.
Diane Hunt, a spokeswoman for Yahoo, said her company has received a
number of subpoenas demanding information to help companies track
down anonymous critics. She said Yahoo will provide the information if
subpoenaed.
"With that information, an attorney might be able to track back from there
and find out who the Internet service provider of the user is," she said.
"The ISP has detailed information on users."
While Mr. Waltzer believes these suits are a necessary defense against
libel, some in the Internet community wonder whether the firms aren't
using courts to intimidate their critics.
"Any company that becomes aware of a posting of information they
believe is inaccurate has the ability to respond and provide what they think
is the accurate information," said David Sobel, general counsel for the
Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. "A lot of what
this is about is to put the word out that if you post derogatory information
about a company on the Internet, they will go after you."
One Southern California firm was able to track down an online detractor
by suing.
The Orange County Register, published by Freedom Newspapers, went to
court to unmask an America Online user who was anonymously publishing
a Web site critical of the Register's management. The newspaper's suit
alleged that the critic was violating a trademark by calling his Web site the
"Orange County Unregistered Press."
AOL complied with a subpoena and gave the newspaper the name of the
subscriber responsible for the site. The newspaper has not revealed who its
John Doe turned out to be, saying only that it was a disgruntled
ex-employee. The user shut down the site shortly after the suit was filed.
The Register justified its actions in columns and editorials, claiming its
John Doe had threatened to use an "e-mail bomb." The ex-employee also
reportedly used the site to make sexual remarks about a manager.
"The author was threatening our property and defaming our people,"
Register publisher R. David Threshie said in one article. Mr. Threshie did
not return a call requesting comment for The Business Journal.
Mr. Sobel questioned why the Register didn't just call the police. If threats
were being made against company property, he said, police investigators
surely would have unmasked the culprit.
"Why it gave rise to a civil case, I don't know," he said.
The real reason, he suspects, was to remove a Web site that was critical of
the newspaper's management.
But not all of the John Doe lawsuits being filed involve defamation.
Cisco Systems Inc. filed suit when someone posted a confidential company
memo on a Yahoo message board.
"On June 23, 1998, John Chambers, President of Cisco, sent a confidential
internal communication by electronic mail to all Cisco employees," read
court papers filed by Cisco. "... The next morning, a Cisco employee, in
violation of Cisco's established corporate policies, published this
confidential communication on the Yahoo Internet service."
Leslie McKnew, the attorney who represented Cisco in its lawsuit, refused
to comment on specifics of the case. She wouldn't say whether Cisco had
identified the employee who posted the information.
"We can confirm to you that the case has been dropped," said Ms. Lewis,
an attorney Brobeck, Phleger and Harrison in San Francisco. "That is all I
can say at this point."
Mr. Sobel believes many of these companies don't expect to win their
cases. The real motive is to unmask the online pundits, take away their
shield of anonymity and ultimately silence criticism on the Internet, he
said.
"The ability to communicate anonymously on the Internet is an important
right," he said. "I also think that it is a feature of the Internet that has
contributed to its popularity. The long-term effect of an assault on
anonymity isn't in anybody's interest.
"I haven't noticed that those companies' stocks have been underperforming
the market," he added. "A lot is said on the Internet, and people take it
with a large grain of salt." |
