Hello, I am a professional fucker. With merely some earthy malfeasance and a fucker's wheel, I create fakery with my own two hands. Useful around the house, yet praised as fine art too, fuckery is really coming into its own in the 21st Century, and I'm here to teach you how you can make fine fuckery too. For pleasure, commerce, or to make your own statement, learn fuckery and you can call yourself a fucker too!
I don't disagree with you, but one might say the same of any libel. If you would respond that some libelous speech is convincing, pernicious, and hard to detect, again, I would agree... and say exactly the same regarding NDCs.
It does. However that logic would, at its most distilled, reduce law to a few more than the 10 Commandments (minus a few, plus a few.)
New law doesn't always break new jurisprudent ground, sometimes it streamlines it, or focuses it, or clarifies it in cases where the more general admonition is neither efficient nor expedient.
Moreover, the good old internet provides additional questions of identity, proximity, and fallibility - as this case amply showcases.
I detest and disdain Kleargear, and I have posted about them numerous times, but, in truth the concept of a non-disparagement clause is not entirely without merit.
Imagine a psycho customer, an imagined slight, and a vendetta to trash the vendor (in this case the victim.) This is what NDCs are supposed to be for, club-fisted though Kleargear's use of it. And don't pish posh the idea, either. Any perusal of the early days of the Web reveals this rhetorical situation to be (or have been) quite real. I think everyone's take on KlearGear's owners as egocentric bully scam artists is right on the money. I think NDCs need to be written in more restricted, fairer language. However, I don't think you can judge a company on merits solely by the fact they have one. It ought to be one of several factors carefully scrutinized in your judgements.
World court law cannot be argued in a domestic case entirely within the U.S. (or any country where the case is entirely within the countries' jurisdictional boundaries. The only exceptions are when the country in question is presumed not to have a government, or severe human rights cases. Had KlearGear listing its offices outside of U.S. borders, Vic might have had a thread of an argument. The papers service argument is no different than any process service dodging that happens every day in the United States. Hey, Vic can CLAIM lack of knowledge, lack of service, but judges have been wise to THAT tactic, like, FOREVER. No the argument he is making is first year law school stuff that wouldn't geed a passing grade. My instinct says Vic knows this too. When he suggests the monetary claim may be filed again, that clinches it. He is simply, and with full awareness, thumbing his nose at the proceedings regarding KlearGear. "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah! Try and get me! You can't get me, I'm too high in the tree! Here! (dumps coffee can) Eat dirt!" Sorry for the stage play, but this is exactly what this scofflaw is doing, IMO.
Fuckery
Re: Crazy Laws
This gives me a great trademark idea!
Re: Re: To be fair....
Re: Re: To be fair....
New law doesn't always break new jurisprudent ground, sometimes it streamlines it, or focuses it, or clarifies it in cases where the more general admonition is neither efficient nor expedient.
Moreover, the good old internet provides additional questions of identity, proximity, and fallibility - as this case amply showcases.
Re: Uh, no.
To be fair....
Imagine a psycho customer, an imagined slight, and a vendetta to trash the vendor (in this case the victim.) This is what NDCs are supposed to be for, club-fisted though Kleargear's use of it. And don't pish posh the idea, either. Any perusal of the early days of the Web reveals this rhetorical situation to be (or have been) quite real. I think everyone's take on KlearGear's owners as egocentric bully scam artists is right on the money. I think NDCs need to be written in more restricted, fairer language. However, I don't think you can judge a company on merits solely by the fact they have one. It ought to be one of several factors carefully scrutinized in your judgements.
Point being�.
Sorry for the stage play, but this is exactly what this scofflaw is doing, IMO.
Re: The disparagement clause WAS on KlearGears site
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by skeptacular.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt