When thinking about the ongoing dispute over the unprofessional actions of Dozier Internet Law... I think back to an old Monty Python episode and the the army protection racket sketch:
Dino: Oh see my brother's clumsy colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don't feel the army's playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, colonel.
Colonel: What is all this about?
Luigi: How many men you got here, colonel?
Colonel: Oh, er ... seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops.
Luigi: Paratroops, Dino.
Dino: Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them.
Colonel: Set fire to them?
Luigi: Fires happen, colonel.
Dino: Things burn.
Aside from a horrible impression by British actors portraying Italian mobsters, it's an entertaining sketch about a couple of guys trying to get protection money out of the an Army Colonel who just wants to do his job and be left alone.
As I'd discussed previously... I was rather shocked to see the third of their itemized demands in their horribly unprofessional letter that:
3. Compensate our client for its attorney fees and costs
Is it just me or does that stink of an attempt to extort funds (ultimately for themselves in the end) from a third party without any semblance of legal process?
In the case of most C&D's (cease and desist letters) simply the threat of suit is enough to get many parties to fold and give in to the demands of the complainant so as to avoid any further legal issues... in this case though, the folks at Dozier Internet Law seem to be saying: "pay us money... or we'll sue you for more:... something that isn't to far off from "pay me money... or beat you up and steal your wallet."
Sure sounds like extortion to me... but then, I'm not a lawyer nor an expert in the subject... just a guy who uses common sense and thinks things through before I act... and one who is fully aware of the Strisand effect which has lead to a great deal of new happenings including allegations of copyright infringement on the part of Dozier Internet Law.
Despite all of this I'm forced to wonder... how much of this is the fault of DirectBuy... and how much is that of Dozier Internet Law? I can understand DirectBuy calling their lawyer at Dozier Internet Law and saying "any chance you could get these negative reviews removed from this site?" with a genuine desire to look good and it was solely Dozier Internet Law who went off the wall with this wholly unprofessional original C&D letter, not to mention later events.
At the same time I am left to wonder if this could be part of the way DirectBuy operates as well... after all, they made the choice to sic Dozier Internet Law on the web site in question... for all we know DirectBuy is just as guilty of gross unprofessionalism (in my opinion) as Dozier Internet Law and approves wholly of their actions.
I don't know... and lord do I wish I did.
I guess in the end this will only be resolved one of two ways... either Dozier Internet Law files suit against me and everyone else who has stated their opinion of them (even if negative in nature) and/or violated their copyright... or they AND DirectBuy apologize publicly for all that has transgressed since (and including) the initial sending of the C&D letter that caused this all to begin.
Ultimately the second option is the best for all parties involved as the only way for this issue to be resolved amicably is for the seemingly unprofessional folks at Dozier Internet Law to admit they were wrong, apologize and drop the issue... because if they do not and were to sue... they'll simply cause the MSM as well as even more bloggers to see what is going on and cause their name to be dragged through the mud even more, not through our actions, but through their own.
Frankly... I'd much rather have em go on a lawsuit binge as I'm always a fan of letting people shoot themselves in the foot... over and over and over and over again and from the sounds of it... this isn't Dozier Internet Law's first time.
Our friend John Dozier, managing partner at Dozier Internet Law had this to say about a suit against a client he was/is defending:
A lot of these allegations of this advertising ... they have nothing to do with us
This regarding a virtually worthless piece of anti-spyware software that was being hawked by a company called Secure Computer who was being sued by both the state of Washington, but also by Microsoft for false advertising and trademark infringement respectively.
Despite the claims of innocence, the case with the state was eventually settled while the federal case from Microsoft is still pending.
Personally I'm always a fan when a lawyer comes out touting the innocence of their client... only to have them be found guilty or just as damning (PR wise) is having their client settle wether they admit fault or not (they did not in this case).
Way to go John!