Josh King 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (30) comment rss

  • On the post: Is There A Difference Between Inspiration And Copying?

    Josh King ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2011 @ 08:28am

    Make them pay

    What's needed is some sort of "anti-SLAPP for copyright" or loser pays system so that people who bring meritless suits like this have to think twice before filing.

    If she were at risk for paying the defendant's legal fees (and perhaps a stiff fine, as with some anti-SLAPP laws), maybe we'd see less crap like this.

  • On the post: Court Says Complaining About Doctor's Bedside Manner Is Not Defamation

    Josh King ( profile ), 10 May, 2011 @ 09:22am

    Truth & Opinion

    Truth and opinion are not actionable as defamation. But in most states there isn't recourse for meritless lawsuits like this. The DA certainly isn't going to file criminal charges, and most states (other than CA, WA and a few others) lack anti-SLAPP statutes that cover private defamation lawsuit.

  • On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?

    Josh King ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 02:50pm

    Silly Post

    +1 to Brandon's point - the Army has a recruitment budget, and they do all sorts of marketing, including TV spots, print ads, brochures, and yes, sponsoring a NASCAR team, to drive recruitment.

    Comparing the NASCAR sponsorship to NPR funding? You might as well say the feds are sponsoring the NY Times and NBC when they buy recruiting ads.

  • On the post: Did Watson Succeed On Jeopardy By Infringing Copyrights?

    Josh King ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2011 @ 09:37am

    Who cares?

    In the real world, it doesn't matter whether or not it's copyright infringement. There aren't any actual damages and anyone pursuing statutory damages would lose because the "copied" material hasn't been disseminated.

  • On the post: Online Appliance Shop Makes Customers Sign Agreement Threatening Criminal Libel Suits For Negative Reviews

    Josh King ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2011 @ 06:48am

    Another example of overreaching TOS

    This reminds me of the TOU of onetimefax.com, which I ran across when the owner of that site complained about a negative review on my site (Avvo.com). The whole thing is worth a read (http://www.onetimefax.com/terms-of-service.php), but here's one particularly lovely bit:

    "You or any employees acting and/or but not limited to associates for you are not authorized in any way to make any representations of this company that may harm it. You are not authorized to speak, share with write and/or but not limited to communicate in any way, with any person, persons or any entity about this company even if your not a customer or client. In doing so, you will be stealing proprietary materials. If this so happens, you will be responsible for all our/your reasonable attorneys' fees if any legal actions are to pass. For the protection of this company you will follow the but not limited to the above mentioned rules. No person, persons and/or any entity are not authorized to speak, write and/or but not limited to communicate in any ill will of OneTimeFax.com, EJOAT Enterprises, the EJOAT network and/or any entity of which of any past or future information, opinion and/or but not limited to financial transactions."

  • On the post: Online Appliance Shop Makes Customers Sign Agreement Threatening Criminal Libel Suits For Negative Reviews

    Josh King ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2011 @ 06:46am

    Another example of overreaching TOS

    This reminds me of the TOU of onetimefax.com, which I ran across when the owner of that site complained about a negative review on my site (Avvo.com). The whole thing is worth a read (http://www.onetimefax.com/terms-of-service.php), but here's one particularly lovely bit:

    "You or any employees acting and/or but not limited to associates for you are not authorized in any way to make any representations of this company that may harm it. You are not authorized to speak, share with write and/or but not limited to communicate in any way, with any person, persons or any entity about this company even if your not a customer or client. In doing so, you will be stealing proprietary materials. If this so happens, you will be responsible for all our/your reasonable attorneys' fees if any legal actions are to pass. For the protection of this company you will follow the but not limited to the above mentioned rules. No person, persons and/or any entity are not authorized to speak, write and/or but not limited to communicate in any ill will of OneTimeFax.com, EJOAT Enterprises, the EJOAT network and/or any entity of which of any past or future information, opinion and/or but not limited to financial transactions."

  • On the post: Plastic Surgeon Sues Online Reviewers Who Gave Her Bad Reviews

    Josh King ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2010 @ 09:06am

    Disciplined as Well

    Turns out Kimberly Henry was also reprimanded by the California Medical Board a few years back: http://www.avvo.com/doctors/kimberly-henry-2501690.html

  • On the post: Doctors Sue Blue Shield Over Rating System

    Josh King ( profile ), 28 Sep, 2010 @ 09:01am

    This lawsuit is a dead loser

    Our company (Avvo) faced a very similar lawsuit from attorneys upset over our ratings of attorneys. It was thrown out at the first opportunity, on First Amendment grounds (Browne v. Avvo, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1249 - Dist. Court, WD Washington, 2007).

    Debate the useful of these ratings all you want, but from a legal perspective, there's nothing to argue about here: The ratings are Blue Shield's opinion, period.

    Josh King
    General Counsel
    Avvo, Inc.

  • On the post: DC Bar Association Claims Lawyer Rating Site Infringes Its Copyright

    Josh King ( profile ), 17 Mar, 2009 @ 09:51pm

    Avvo

    Mylo, Avvo's ratings of lawyers aren't based on client reviews - they're based on an algorithm that takes into account numerous factors in an attorney's background. Client ratings are only offered as an additional data point.

    Most client reviews on Avvo are positive. Could someone nefariously defy our guidelines, claim to be a client and leave a bad review for an attorney they have a vendetta against? Sure. Is that a reason to deny consumers the benefit of thousands of well-intentioned reviews?

    Consumers are used to dealing with user/client reviews and assessing the validity and weight to assign to anonymous screeds. Attorneys don't need protection from client reviews any more than Sony or your local trattoria does, and they certainly don't need their licensing agencies denying the public novel means of finding information about attorneys.

    And FWIW, Avvo has never - and has never been accused of - extorting those with bad reviews.

    Josh King
    General Counsel
    Avvo, Inc.

  • On the post: Section 230 Does NOT Mean That Online Publishers Have Different Rules

    Josh King ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2009 @ 10:27am

    Finally, some sense

    Terrific post - I found the Portfolio article cringe-worthy.