Robert Novak of PetsWarehouse.com has decided that he doesn't like it when people talk about the quality of his products, and as opposed to providing competitive service, he chose to sue them, and won! This sets a horrible precedent for freedom of speech online.
I'm all for tort law, personally. While others may disagree, I believe that it is one person's right to sue another if he causes that person undue stress and injury. However, this flies in the face of the myriad of good uses of such law. Freedom of speech is in the Bill of Rights, and has been for around, oh, say, over two centuries?
The alleged offenses were "humiliation, emotional distress, libelous statements and the dilution of his (Novak's) trademark". Sounds outright horrible, doesn't it? And yet, the actual actions that earned the lawsuit were limited to posting opinions and personal experiences with the site on a mailing list. This, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg. When people expressed their outrage at the suit filed against the complainants, Novak then moved to file suit against them as well. All suits that have been filed are either still in court or have been settled, costing the individuals involved (who didn't represent any company) dearly.
Novak, in case you're reading, I have a couple of points to make. First, it's not libel unless your statements are UNTRUE. All statements expressed by the people sued were, according to MSNBC (a fairly reliable news source), truthful representations of their own experience. Second, if you think that a person posting his opinions on his mailing list is a dilution of your trademark, then how do you think it looks when you create huge stories in well known media about your suits, which cannot possibly give you good PR? Third, don't sue me. Everything I've said is either quoted off of MSNBC or my own opinion (which has no bearing on you as a person, or on your company, so don't get your panties in a knot).
Somewhere, I hear Ralph Nader crying about this.
