posted on September 15, 2000 01:51:48 AM
Okay, my lawyer friend has reviewed the thread on the clause and VERO and offers this advice:
[b]The only way you could bring the VERO program to it's knees is to file suit aganst every single VERO on eBay backed up with edvidence from sellers who have the existant e-mails of termination, along with the edvidence and claim Restriction of Free Trade, Unwarranted Termination without Due Process, and Attempt to Monopolize the Market.
But, many have proabbly erased the e-mails, so you might have to suepeona eBay for the info. It's possable the title and auction number still exist in the database, but not the actual description.
Also, hard copy with the item can provide a very convincing piece of edvidence. Plus, it wouldn't hurt to point out that no one can be a bona-fide expert on anything, excluding non-retail or non-historical goods. You could point out the so called "Company Experts" could be paid...."[/b]
I would like to post the rest, but we'd be exploring into more impractical areas.
Basiclly, he's saying supeona eBay to reveal a list of every single VERO on eBay, and then File respective Lawsuits of know VERO abuses aganst the VERO's and the respective companies and properties.
Mingle amongst yourselves...
:\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
[ edited by Crystalline_Sliver on Sep 15, 2000 01:52 AM ]
posted on September 15, 2000 05:42:01 AM
"suit aganst every single VERO on eBay backed up with edvidence from sellers who have the existant e-mails of termination, along with the edvidence"
It's more practical to make an example of ONE VERO who is misusing the program, then remind others that their buddy got whacked, so they need to be careful what they claim against a seller.
One person files the suit, then subpoenas eBay for the info on all VERO actions by the VERO rep as part of discovery ... if eBay has deleted the listing description or the emails, shame on them. One also subpoenas ALL VERO-related emails by the company to ALL supposed violators.
"claim Restriction of Free Trade, Unwarranted Termination without Due Process, and Attempt to Monopolize the Market."
I think their blatant, and deliberate misquoting of the Copyright Law would be an interesting angle of attack. That exemption for advertising is CITED in basic business law courses, copyright law courses, and every textbook (both of them) that I have on copyright. If a 2nd-year law student has to study it, they certainly are deliberately leaving it out of their emails in an effort to intimidate the non-lawyer public.
I am not against copyrights ... just the blatant misusers of copyright law. If Waverley has VERO'ed an auction offering to reproduce a VERO design as a floor cloth or needlepoint canvas, I'd be all over the seller.
posted on September 15, 2000 07:46:11 AM
For those who don't remember the ultimate abuse, someone had their auction shut down for merely mentioning a VeRO person's copyright protected product, namely her deceased son, the singer Jeff Buckley.
posted on September 15, 2000 08:06:51 AM
Vero does not need to be brought to its knees, but VERO members need to limit themselves to what the law covers i.e. cases where there is reason to believe illegimate copies are being offered.
If a vero member repeatedly induces cancelations with wilful disregard to the what copyright covers ... could this also stand as libel against the seller(s), especially when auctions are canceled with bids. It seems these sellers are being publicly accused of a crime. If a seller is naru'ed for repeat "violations" there could be substantial harm.
posted on September 15, 2000 08:42:57 AM
I would favor suing the supplier of the item rather than the manufacturer. If you can
detroy a companies good relationship with their wholesalers it will send an even bigger wake-up call.
posted on September 15, 2000 08:46:28 AM
Actually, a subpoena wouldn't necessarily be required. Correspondence such as this is a routine part of the pretrial "discovery" process. Each party sends the other a "Request for Production of Documents and Things" (a/k/a RFP). Party A sends to Party B a list of documents he wants copies of. Party B generally has 30 days to get those copies of the requested items to Party A. If Party B thinks the requests are out of line, he refuse to provide the documents (in whole or in part), but he's got to tell Party A (and the court) why, in writing, usually within the 30 days. If Party A doesn't like Party B's reasons, he can file a "Motion to Compel Production". The motion's heard by the judge, who if he decides in favor of Party A gives Party B a date by which the docs are to be provided. If Party B fails or refuses to do so, he's in contempt of court, and the judge can do anything from levying sanctions (fines) to immediately issuing judgment in favor of Party A (although that's really, really rare, and occurs only in cases of repeated, flagrant refusal to abide by the court's order).
In my experience a subpoena is usually issued to a third party (e.g., the junkyard who impounded a car on behalf of a lender) who doesn't want to "get involved". The subpoena basically gives the third party the justification it may feel it needs to turn over its records.
The discovery process is pretty interesting. We've settled a lot of cases during discovery because, as a result of our Request for Production, the defense discovered for itself that it had a lot of documents that didn't make it look very good. Often it's the first time the attorneys get a good idea of what the case is really about and their respective clients' chance of prevailing (often to the attorneys' dismay).
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 15, 2000 08:50 AM ]
posted on September 15, 2000 11:54:13 AM
macandjan - If you have been sold illegimate copies of something, and VERO intervenes, then VERO is working correctly and your appropriate recourse is to go after your source of the spurious merchandise.
The problem referenced here is that there seem to be companies misusing VERO to interfere with legitimate resale of their products.
... OTOH ... If the VERO member has terminated your auction then perhaps they have formally testified that this is an illegal copy of their product. If you bought it from someone trying to run a legimate business they should be notified that their suppliers are delivering illicit merchandise, making them party to illegal commerce...
Now if that line runs quickly enough back to the primary then perhaps a few such notifications would gently remind the rampant VERO owner to respect what VERO is supposed to be for.
[ edited by figmente on Sep 15, 2000 11:58 AM ]
