SI
SI
discoversearch

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.

   SI - Site ForumsThe History of Silicon Investor


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Graystone who wrote (1235)9/6/2018 12:46:31 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell
3 Recommendations   of 1319
 
Actually, it was my homeowner's policy, from Safeco. Back then, personal liability coverage was one of those small upcharges insurance companies made a killing on. Then the Internet became a thing. Clearly, insurance companies back then didn't anticipate all the lawsuits from people freaking out over seeing bad stuff about them "in writing" with a lifespan of "forever".

Back then, only California had an anti-SLAPP statute. It was created specifically to protect people speaking out against politicians in the newspaper-- politicians who would then sue these critics to shut them up and discredit them. I figured why not apply that analogy to the Internet? The attorney I called who was pioneering these suits agreed to see if that could fly. I paid him myself and with donations from people here on SI. SI Brad gave $20K btw. Back then he wanted to be anonymous; I assume he'd be OK with it now. I don't have a list any more, so thanks again to everyone who also contributed.

Anyhow, as you know, attorneys are quite expensive and are good at running through money. When the bills started piling up, someone on SI suggested I check my homeowner's policy, which had never occurred to me. Lo and behold, there was coverage. But now I had to use their lawyers.

Business Wire's lawyers also decided to throw in a Lanham Act violation, i.e. misuse of copyright. Had we forged a press release, OK, that would make sense. Rather, I paid $500 using my own name (i.e. legally) to issue the PR. But the entire reason they brought this bogus claim was so they could argue that because this was a Federal, not State, charge, the case should be in a district, not state, court, hence the anti-SLAPP procedure would not apply. We of course argued this was "case-laundering"-- that if this ruse worked, everyone would do it, thus invalidating CA specific law in general.

My attorney agreed, and said Safeco was obligated to pay him if I were prepared to litigate this for another year or two to prove as such. I was. Of course. However long it took. Then, a short while later, I got another call about settling. It turns out that BW had already spent well over $1M on their own attorney fees, not to mention was getting (rightfully) beat up in the media. It also doesn't look good to be suing your customers.

I'll digress a bit here and say I have a very strong feeling that the reason BW brought the suit to begin with is because certain people here on SI who, shall we say, "disliked" us, contacted BW to tell them we all actually were criminals. I say this because I had my uncle, an attorney, be my first representative to deal with BW. He was like "are you guys doing stock manipulation or something?" I was like, wait, what? Apparently that's what "people" were telling the BW lawyers.

But getting back to the story-- Safeco was projecting their own legal fees would also be astronomical. Insurance companies are in the business of cutting their losses and moving on, not trying to win lawsuits. Keep in mind that we are not a "loser pays" society, so this is all about money to them, not justice. BW was hoping to recoup "something" just to say they did, and Safeco was willing to pay "something" to avoid having to pay a substantial amount instead. I, being a businessman, understood that, and of course said... "tough sh!t". No way was I going to have one of those "the parties have settled... amount undisclosed" press releases which I was prohibited from ever talking about.

Of course this didn't sit well with either party, but this was my/our right. I/we would only settle if 1) BW put in writing that all charges had been dropped "with prejudice" (could never be brought again), 2) The settlement remained unsealed (was public), and 3) None of us had to sign a non-disclosure or any form prohibiting us from talking about the case, then OK. And that's what happened.

So, there you have it, the first case (I know of) of someone getting sued for "Fake News"!

- Jeff

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1236)9/8/2018 11:51:04 PM
From: Graystone
   of 1319
 
FBN
or
The things you used to do.
Hello old friend. FBN was an inspired bit of creative imagery, straight outta Connecticut, or somewhere like that. It was hilarious (from a distance) and certainly was "fake news". That was the thing though, most of us knew we were being foxed. I enjoyed watching people try to penetrate the tough outer layer of digital bullshit protecting the juicy laughs within. I still have some FBN bookmarks and haven't changed that kind of stuff (Peoplemarks, Bookmarks) much as you can imagine, my time here has been intermittent for more than a decade.
Back then it was babies, business and SI, in that order as well. (with the babies part being inclusive of Rocks though she would say she often took a backseat to SI.)
I cannot imagine who??? would have ever told Business Wire that kind of stuff about you. OK, if I wanted to imagine I probably could.

As I age I get the urge to speak out about things but I suppose that would simply be me ignoring my own good advice to age gracefully.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Graystone who wrote (1237)9/9/2018 12:26:22 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell
4 Recommendations   of 1319
 
The irony of having a board called "The History of Silicon Investor" is that every single message ever written here is still here, for anyone to see at any time. I suppose we can add some sort or perspective, but the record really speaks for itself. Taken as a whole, SI quickly became a self-filtering watering hole for people unafraid to suffer the slings and arrows that come with expressing one's opinion in a public forum. If any of us ever got hit in the head and decided to run for office, our opponent would have a field day with what we've written. But, on the other hand, my guess is that most of us would not regret any of it because it was genuine, at least at the time we wrote it. At least that's how I look at it. :)

- Jeff

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1238)9/23/2018 11:44:13 PM
From: Graystone
   of 1319
 
Sincerity is important, I am not sure there is any way to measure that. I can hear you clearly, you are more than a label, my view of you grew out of the froth of all that you wrote that I read, not just to and from me but to and from everyone. Going back and reading things that we wrote ten years ago can be informative. So I did that...the best way back is old Subjectmarks...(for me anyways). That lets me alight in the land of time remembered... Subject 31606

I haven't read it yet, just posted the Subjectmark. As you can see the only Subjectmark is mine. Let me go read what I wrote and I will tell you if I agree with me


I am very happy that Canada has decided to legalize marijuana. It is a good thing. I am going to stay holiday in Canada next year. We are heading to Prince Edward Island to take advantage of the wonderful beaches. My family has always loved swimming. Our favourite vacation so far has been the Kona side of the Big Island, we were in the ocean almost everyday at 8:30 or 9:00, I actually have a prescription snorkeling mask. Ok, now I will actually read that thread...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Graystone who wrote (1239)9/24/2018 12:06:20 AM
From: Graystone
   of 1319
 
I don't remember writing that
or
I remember her

OK, that was almost twenty years ago, not ten. That was strange, haven't really thought about that chapter for awhile. I fell in love with a co-worker, not unrequited, never consummated but a very perilous time for my family. I remember being quite giddy, I suppose that was a sort of mid-life crisis, the belief that we can never really fall in love again. We courted and flirted and I suppose we both knew the risks. I still love every woman I have ever loved.

You are entirely right Jeff, we should never tread that old stuff, it is almost like looking at sepia photographs. I am pretty sure I didn't write that stuff, I have been hacked, my account was hacked. We all know who did it as well, David R. Stockwell. Member 3747480

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (1236)1/10/2019 5:17:19 PM
From: Intrepid1
   of 1319
 
BusinessWire: A Berkshire Hathaway Company. I guess they needed Warren Buffett to cover the costs incurred in their legal battle against the mighty FBN.

businesswire.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Eric L who wrote (1217)3/14/2019 8:14:29 PM
From: sense
   of 1319
 
Hey. Thanks for that. Was trying to dredge up a couple of the exchanges we'd had re Nokia prior to the MSFT acquisition... still not finding the boards on which we had them... but, just by looking dusted off a couple of recollections from not all that long ago. Found most of his inputs both rational and entertaining... rare enough on either count.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: sense who wrote (1242)3/14/2019 8:22:11 PM
From: Eric L
   of 1319
 
Michal Daniel: This boards founder ...

Misha and I had a few go rounds but he was an engaging virtual friend I was proud to make the acquaintance of ... and he was one heck of a talented photog.

Cheers, - Eric L -

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Intrepid1 who wrote (1229)3/14/2019 8:30:27 PM
From: sense
   of 1319
 
Just the fact that a Y2K thread is still active here... has me wondering about time warp tech.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: sense who wrote (1244)3/14/2019 8:51:13 PM
From: Intrepid1
   of 1319
 
Very Apropos post. Time warp technology just happened....

phys.org

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10