Jenzabar Says That Google Blog Post Is 'Hearsay', Not Official Google Statement
from the good-luck-with-that dept
Last month, we wrote about the highly troubling efforts by the head of software firm Jenzabar to abuse trademark law to stifle criticism of that company's founder and CEO (who, earlier in her life, was famous for "leading" part of the student uprising in Tiananmen Square). She was upset at the makers of a documentary film that was somewhat critical of her, and she tried to use trademark law against them, after an attempt at defamation failed. There is simply no trademark violation at all in this situation... but it is a company with lots of cash suing some independent documentary film makers, so it has all the appearances of filing a lawsuit just to cause trouble for the filmmakers.Our posts were based on some blog posts by Public Citizen, criticizing Jenzabar and its founder/CEO Ling Chai. Rather than recognizing that it's going too far, Jenzabar apparently decided to go on the attack. Public Citizen's Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the news that Chai and Jenzabar are now claiming that Public Citizen's blogging about the case is illegal.
Specifically, the complaint from Jenzabar is that Levy pointing out that Google has stated that it does not use metatags in its search algorithms is not admissible and will "cause prejudice," because it is not an official statement from Google. That, of course, is silly. Google has made it clear for a while that it doesn't use metatags, but this particular announcement came from Google's Matt Cutts (disclaimer: an acquaintance/friend of mine) and was on Google's official blog, and Matt regularly speaks for Google on these sorts of issues. Yet, Jenzabar claims that it's "hearsay." That seems like a pretty difficult position to take. Jenzabar really wants to keep insisting that Google uses metatags, even as Google is making clear it does not? And it wants to force the court to censor blog posts to keep living in that fantasy world? Good luck with that...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ling chai, matt cutts, metatags, search engines, trademark
Companies: google, jenzabar
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sure there will be some wonderfully slimy bags who will find ways to exploit that viewpoint, but they will be easily recognized as part of a douche kit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Education or Indoctrination? lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sue them!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pendant
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pendant
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is hearsay
In a legal sense, hearsay is any out of court statement admitted to prove the truth of the matter. Here, a blog post is an out of court statement, and it would be admitted to prove the truth of the matter, that google doesn't use meta tags in its ranking.
That being said. It doesn't really matter. If google wants to get that in court they can just bring someone with first hand knowledge in to testify to that fact. It's just easier if someone doesn't have to give testimony.
Just in case someone calls me on this, the only way it would get in as an admission of a party opponent is if Jenzabar wants to bring the statement in. Google couldn't bring it in under that exception to the hearsay rule. They could try to argue that it was a business memorandum/record, but that's probably a bit of a stretch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Missed the point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is very interesting that Jenzabar is still in business after years of losing clients to the larger, more established and respected competitor. Their market share continues to diminish, and yet the continue to make claims of being a leader in the industry. Check the Gartner Magic Quadrant and see where they are listed. NOT a leader.
After our institutions rigorous investigations, there is only one strong ERP provider using the latest technologies from Microsoft, is completely integrated, and continues to post positive corporate numbers year after year. It is NOT Jenzabar, Campus Management, Sungard, or Oracle. If your institution is seriously interested in moveing forward with technology, functionality, and a solid business partner, look no further than Datatel. Our institution put them all through the ringer this year. Datatel was the obvious leader in all respects. Nuf said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]