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: Cindy Powell who wrote (1529)	5/4/1999 12:25:00 AM
From: J Shill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

What a crock of bull twinkies. They are guility as sin.

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1529)	5/4/1999 12:29:00 AM
From: Josef Svejk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

Humbly report, Cindy, regarding [reference deleted]'s claim that the defendants "began making false assertions that the company itself was involved in fraudulent investment schemes..." Where did they do so? I can't humbly find it: techstocks.com webnode.com Cheers, Svejk proofsheet.com

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1529)	5/4/1999 12:34:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3795

I have written many a complaint in my life. I can make them sound very good, very scary. Proving them is something entirely different. I'm not saying you're wrong. But you need to understand that a complaint, particularly in a case like this, is basically a propaganda piece, not necessarily a truth piece. As to "Bidwire," the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld parody as legitimate expression and not defamation. It will be interesting for the lawyers to probe this question: which has done greater damage to Business Wire's credibility -- the original prank, or the lawsuit? My basic question is this: why can't Business Wire just laugh at having been fooled and get on with their work, like Wired did? Time to lighten up. I wish the fab 3 were wealthy enough to add me to their defense team. This would be FUN case to work on!

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1529)	5/4/1999 12:45:00 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3795

That's funny, Cindy—rather than simply ask about the bylines and 'repeated demands', you go straight into attack mode without knowing any of the facts. I'll give you a tidbit anyway, despite your incessant need to villify us. At 1:15pm on April 5, email came from BW to remove 'Business Wire' from the byline, and remove all of the content—content by the way, that was ours, not BW's. I was too damn busy at exactly 1:15, but I knew I could get to it by end of day. At 3:42, another email came through whining that it hadn't been changed yet. I still had work to do, but I still had time reserved at the end of the day for that task. At approximately 4:45, I was able to change it. So there are your 'repeated demands'. 3 1/2 hours seems reasonable to me, but BW felt it necessary to whine about it in the interim. Why you always have to be a prick about these things, instead of simply asking what happened is really beyond me, Cindy.

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1529)	5/4/1999 1:01:00 AM
From: tresamigoslololol	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3795

HEY CINDY, TAKE A LOOK AT THIS! They are so arrogant, that they think they are above the law. I am laughing every single day since they got served those court papers. Now let's see how they can convince the judge about the "joke". To: Janice Shell (3949 ) From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell Tuesday, Apr 13 1999 7:20PM ET Reply # of 3983 I don't think my lawyer is an expert in trademark law but I'll ask him tomorrow for his opinion. My guess is he says "what's the big deal about taking the name off". As I told Business Wire, our little group is not one to be intimidated and more likely to fight than switch, but I'll ask. Maybe we should just all change our names instead and take up a "safe" hobby like gardening. At least the pay is the same... double zero! As for having paid for the release and the account, which we did, BW says that doesn't give us the right to put the actual release up on our web site. I suppose we'd have to pay for that right as well. This brings up an interesting point: does BW care that their PRs are plastered all over SI? I'm sure the issuers love it as the idea is to get the word out to as many people as possible, but is BW essentially looking the other way unless they wish otherwise? Or does SI pay BW to allow their PRs posted here? - Jeff www3.techstocks.com 14 DAYS AFTER, JEFFY BOY AND BILLY BOB GOT SERVED!lololololol Message 9182601 GUESS WHO IS LAUGHING NOW? "Get the joke yet judge?"lolololol It sure looks like BW does not want to waste any time. Keep on mocking them boys! Maybe they will change their mind<wink>lolololol OR maybe the judge will soon get the joke! BTW, the law firm Steinhart and Falconer is a huge lawfirm, and was used and is being used by The Oakland A's, and The San Francisco Giants baseball teams from what I heard. They are a 5 star lawfirm.lololololololol

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1529)	5/4/1999 8:47:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 3795

Note Business Wire's claim that the defendants "began making false assertions that thecompany itself was involved in fraudulent investment schemes... ?" Whoa... That is getting pretty confrontational and defiant if you ask me! Why stir up so much contention if they were in fact trying to make the peace? It's precisely that: a claim, and an inaccurate one. Kindly point me to any post in which any of the three of us has "asserted", or even "suggested" that Bizwire has been involved in fraudulent investment schemes. We did indeed point out that many genuinely fraudulent companies had used BW to distribute genuinely fraudulent press releases, and asked if the company had ever sued any of them. This is, I believe, an entirely reasonable question. (The answer to which, apparently, is "No".) We have never at any time accused BW of fraud. This is only one of many "claims" that Bizwire will, in my view, find it impossible to prove.

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1529)	5/4/1999 9:06:00 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Respond to of 3795

Cindy, post things that are true, and things that are your opinions. Anything else can get you in trouble.

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1529)	5/5/1999 1:46:00 AM
From: MENSO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

I can understand all those that know Janice, Jeff, and Bill on Silicon Investor rushing to their defense... so can i. the good-natured positions adopted by wired news and many of the posters are tempting: janice, jeff, and bill are a fun-loving bunch who deserve to be congratulated for such a creative prank. it was nothing serious because the company does not exist. There was no criminal intent to defraud investors. Anyone who fell for it should be grateful for the free investment lesson. The australians did it too, and on a grander scale. perhaps the attorneys at business wire should sit down, take a stress pill, and think things over... however, i can't rid myself of the lingering suspicion that there is, at least potentially, something extremely dangerous about condoning this type of activities because when april fool's day is over the material facts remain: the perpetrators, prolific posters that they are, already admitted that the press release was intended to mislead investors (whether the term describes the fools who fell for the release is irrelevant), and harm business wire by exposing it – uh, I mean - by portraying it as a paid advertiser...

To: Cindy Powell who wrote (1529)	6/27/1999 1:31:00 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 3795

Were I a lawyer, wanting to establish career with a big firm, whilst using 'honeymoon' as an excuse to crush free speech rights of individuals through the abuse of court process, knowingly breaking defendents via legal expenditures, and simultaneously objecting to proving my allegations with actual evidence—I might ask myself, "Is this what I really want to get involved in?”: webnode.com “Business Wire's lawsuit is a prototypical SLAPP — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — in that its primary goal is to punish the defendants through litigation, and not to succeed on its merits.” webnode.com “…(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly…” “Business Wire submits that it makes no sense—and, indeed, would impose an inordinate and undue burden on Business Wire&#151to force it to submit the evidentiary showing required by § 425.16 as to all nine causes of action…” webnode.com “However, Business Wire's duty to substantiate its claims is the burden any plaintiff bears in filing suit.” webnode.com