Dozier Internet Law, PC: Internet Lawyer

Dozier Internet Law: Internet Lawyer Experts

Welcome to the Dozier Internet Law Internet lawyer blog, our little corner of the web. Our law firm, Dozier Internet Law, represents business interests on the web. Sometimes we represent businesses that are victims of intellectual property theft or defamatory attacks as their Internet lawyer, and just as often we represent recipients of "cease and desists" and lawsuit defendants. And if we are considered by some to be Internet lawyer thought leaders of the conservative, pro-business interests, then so be it. But at Dozier Internet Law you'll get the unbiased perspective and advice from highly seasoned and experienced Internet lawyer experts. Visit us online at the Dozier Internet Law website or Dozier Internet Law on Defamation and Dozier Internet Law on Web Startups, both videos available through Youtube.com.

Interested in the Dozier Internet Law Internet lawyer insight into the Federal lawsuits filed each month dealing with the web? Visit:

• Dozier Internet Law on Trademark
• Dozier Internet Law on Copyright
• Dozier Internet Law on Defamation
• Dozier Internet Law on Domain Names
• Dozier Internet Law on Unauthorized Access to Computers
• Dozier Internet Law on Trade Secrets

.

And don't forget to keep up with the breaking issues of the day. View our youtube.com videos dealing with online defamation: Dozier Internet Law-Big Five; Dozier Internet Law-Next Five; Dozier Internet Law-Don Morris' Perspectives; and Dozier Internet Law-Why Addressing Online Defamation is Important.. Also, don't miss a video message from Mr. Dozier: Internet Lawyer, Dozier Internet Law-John W. Dozier, Jr.

And we are pleased to announce our latest contribution in tracking the most recent developments in the law of the web: Dozier Internet Law Tracking Of Big Court Judgments.

The content of this Dozier Internet Law Internet lawyer blog is not legal advice, should not be relied upon as such, and you should certainly retain a high quality Internet lawyer for advice and guidance on any Internet law issues.  And in satisfaction of lawyer ethics rules, please be advised that CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE OR MATTER, AND PRIOR CASE OR MATTER RESULTS DO NOT PREDICT OR GUARANTEE A SIMILAR RESULT IN THE FUTURE.

Dozier Internet Law: Strongest Cyber-Bully Law in US Passes

Effective next week, the North Carolina legislature has passed, and the Governor has signed, what appears to be the strongest and broadest CyberBullying law in the US. At Dozier Internet Law, Firm President John W Dozier Jr has been calling for stronger legislation to deal with cyberstalking and cyberbullying. 

The following conduct intended to intimidate or "torment" a minor is now illegal and criminal in North Carolina:

1) Building a fake website or social network profile.

2) Posing as a minor in a chat room, in an email, or in an instant message.

3) Following a minor online or into a chat room.

4) Posting private or personal or sexual information about a minor.

5) Posting a doctored image of a minor online.

6) Publishing any statement, whether true or false, tending to provoke any third party to harass a minor.

7) Signing up a minor for a porn site.

8) Signing up a minor for email lists. 

At Dozier Internet Law, we expect to see the free speech expansionsists challenge the constitutionality of the law. But it is a dramatic move in the right protection.

Google Launches Law Search Engine

Wow is all we can say at Dozier Internet Law. Google has just launched a robust index and search engine for legal decisions in the US. You can search by jurisdiction, subject, etc. and it will return results by relevance. It's called Google Scholar.  

Law firms have paid for research tools that generate this information over the years. Now everyone can research in a quality way the court decisions and other legal commentaries on the issue you face in the locality you live. This is groundbreaking and, as Googlers state on their blog, a real benefit to the everday man and woman on the street who simply did not have the visibility into the volumes upon volumes of caselaw buried in law libraries around the country. We'll be using it at Dozier Internet Law Monday morning. 

You should too.

Competitor Keys AdWords Off Lawyer Partner Name

The Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report is the monthly report of key Internet lawsuits filed each month. Plenty of AdWords trademark infringement lawsuits have been filed each month. Now one comes with a slight twist. 

Cannon and Dunphy, a personal injury law firm, starting keying its adds off the personal names of the very unique name partners of a big competing law firm. The firm targeted was Habush, Habush and Rottier. Cannon is alleged to have keyed ads on Google off of each personal name.

In Wisconsin there is apparently a law prohibiting the commercial exploitation of someone's personal name. Seems pretty open and shut. But it is likely also trademark infringement since the name partners might have common law trademark rights, both state and federal, in their names.

This will be an interesting case to follow. I don't recall anything like this passing through Dozier Internet Law. And it is more justification for states to pass statutory commercial exploitation privacy laws as I have called for in "Google Bomb". Bet it settles in a hurry.

Dozier Internet Law: Section 230 Protections Eroding

First, we previously commented on the suggestion by a Harvard professor that Section 230 changes should be considered.

Then, Dozier Internet Law ran headlong into a free speech debate about whether the new Federal Trade Commission guidelines creating liability for false advertising could be an exception to Section 230 immunity. The fact that Section 230 "scholars" disagree is enough to convince me that the FTC may just not like the limitations it arguably (albeit not convincingly) must abide by in enforcing online consumer fraud.

Now comes a new bill filed by Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Dem. from Pa., which would flat out amend Section 230 immunity in cases in which an ISP knows or should know of financial securities misrepresentations by someone using its services and make ISPs liable for all resulting damages incurred by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. 

There is clearly a move afoot. Is it that we are just realizing how overly broad Section 230 really is? 

I can hear it now...in the hearing rooms, offices and halls of Congress, when they finally realize the grossly overbroad scope of the immunity granted by Congress to scofflaws and crooks and miscreants.  

These Congressmen and Congressmadams will look at their legal counsel, tilt their head, and ask innocently and inquisitively the following:

"We did what?" 

Dozier Internet Law: Free Lawyers for Citizen Journalists

At Dozier Internet Law we face off against the likes of the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Citizen often. These groups provide free lawyers to crooks and scofflaws and miscreants when they are caught in all kinds of, shall we say, compromising situations. Now we have a new entry.

Thanks to Harvard and its Berkman Center for Internet and Society, the Legal Assistance Network for Online Journalists has just launched. Basically, it offers pro bono (free) lawyers to defend citizen journalists and tries to maintain anonymity for the scofflaws who attack the reputations of others by publishing lies. Their press release calls it a "legal safety net" for online "journalists" (which is just about anyone these days who has a blog or comments online). 

Does anyone care about building a "legal safety net" for the families and small businesses of America? Doesn't look that way. At Dozier Internet Law we see the pain and hardship and helplessness every day. And for most, there is no safety net to catch their collapsing fortunes brought about by the publication of online attacks and lies from the very people these groups protect. 

Dozier Internet Law: Edward Heyburn Attacks His Former Employer

Dozier Internet Law deals with sucks sites and gripe sites all the time for clients. I even spent a chapter on the issue in the Google Bomb book.

So, here is the situation. A disgruntled lawyer who got fired five years ago from Levinson Axelrod launches a sucks site about the firm and it becomes the coveted and valuable first result in Google when the law firm is searched. It probably comes as no surprise that the lawyer, Edward Heyburn, handles personal injury in New Jersey and reportedly directly competes against his old law firm for clients.

So, if Sears launched a sucks site against Walmart and it became the first result when Walmart is searched on Google, isn't the trademark infringement clear?

Mr. Heyburn claims he is motivated by truth and justice. Right. It is obvious this is trademark infringement. Anyone who understands online marketing knows the commercial nature of the use of the former law firm name. Expect the site to disappear and Mr. Heyburn to be offering up a heartfelt apology very soon. Unless he is as off-kilter as his little commercial enterprise suggests. And if he keeps fighting, prospective clients have to wonder what gives with this character.  

I hate it when lawyers pull this crap. Bring on the lawyer jokes. His name is Heyburn. Edward Heyburn. THAT is free speech, Edward Heyburn.

(And thankfully I don't know anyone involved in this dust up in Jersey.)

Dozier Internet Law: US Senate Slams Online Marketers

At Dozier Internet Law a good majority of our law practice deals with online marketing. It seems our days are spent working on compliance issues, structuring contracts and litigating advertising related disputes. Needless to say, given the evolving interest in this space by the FTC and Congress and the Department of Justice and the State Attorneys General, this is a growth industry for an Internet lawyer.

Now comes the following from the US Senate: 

Affinion, Vertrue and Webloyalty use aggressive sales tactics intentionally designed to mislead online shoppers. These three companies exploit shoppers‘ expectations about the online purchasing process to charge millions of consumers each year for services the consumers do not want and do not understand they have purchased. Hundreds of e-commerce merchants – including many of the best-known, respected websites and retailers on the Internet – allow these three companies to use aggressive sales tactics against their customers, and share in the revenues generated by these misleading tactics. While Congress and the Federal Trade Commission have taken steps to curb similar abusive practices in telemarketing, there has not yet been any action to protect consumers while they are shopping online.

This damning report can be found here: Senate Online Advertising Report. Everyone in the online advertising industry should read this in its entirety. At Dozier Internet Law we took particular notice of the finding that there were inadequate laws in place to deal with the "deceptive" (that's this Committee's opinion) practices outlined in the report. Expect more regulatory intervention and Congressional activity and investigations if you are involved in the online advertising industry. (and who isn't?)  

 

 

Dozier Internet Law: MySpace Postings Net Criminal Conviction

Dozier Internet Law protects the reputations of professionals and businesses online, so we do our best to keep up with the latest developments about social media comments. This case was handed down this summer. In US v. Voneida the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury conviction for postings by the defendant on his MySpace page.

There is a federal law that prohibits the transmission in interstate commerce of any communications containing any threat to injure another person. In this case, the Defendant made generalized threats that the Virginia Tech students got what they deserved and stated his support for the shooter in various ways. The appellate court held that the statements, taken as a whole, could have constituted a serious intention to inflict bodily harm, and that a communication is a threat when in its context it would have a reasonable tendency to create apprehension that its originator will act according to its tenor. The court reasoned that the comments were reasonably perceived as threatening bodily injury. 

At Dozier Internet Law, we continue to see greater efforts by prosecutors to clean up the web by pursuing criminal charges in the most egregious situations. This is one of them. 

Dozier Internet Law: Six Get Prison For Website Harassment

Each will get from one to three years in prison for violation of the AETA and cyberstalking.

Dozier Internet Law has commented on the recent Federal appellate court decision rejecting free speech and constitutional challenges to convictions of six animal rights activists. You can read about the convictions on the www.google-bombs.com website. This is a significant victory for those fighting online personal terrorism and could be the map for legislators to follow as laws are drafted trying to address the mobosphere attacks that have become so prevalent online.

Expect an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and then an opportunity for the Supremes to send a message to the scofflaws of the online world that this type of coordinated online attack can get you in serious trouble. Like one to six years in prison.  

Google Embraces Reputation Management Techniques

John W Dozier Jr, author of Google Bomb with Sue Scheff, highlighted extensive reputation management tactics to counteract Google's biased search results. Now, for the first time, Google has officially approved and is now encouraging the use of reputation management as a defense to false and defamatory search results. The Dozier Internet Law advice in Google Bomb goes much further than the Google guidance and advice and there are some problems with their suggestions since merely asking a webhost or website owner to pull down content, as Google suggests, can itself create more problems in search results. Rather naive advice. But Google does, for the first time, expressly encourage reputation management by the publication of complimentary information to offset the defamatory information. That's a big step. Now if the powers to be at Google can fix the logic they use in generating search results we'll really be making some headway.