Traffic Power Files Suit Against SEO Book [Archive]

Marcia

08-27-2005, 01:58 PM

Amazing, in view of all the damage that was done!

Well Traffic Power just filed a civil lawsuit against me.NOTICE! YOU HAVE BEEN SUED (http://www.seobook.com/archives/001130.shtml)

Their lawyer has sorta gave me an ultimatum. Verbally he stated that if I removed ALL content related to Traffic Power from SEO Book.com that they would drop the suit. Currently I am drafting a request for a written statement, since verbal agreements do not override papers, and they already filed papers on me.

I have not decided whether or not it was in by best interests to fight this yet. I have a bit of money, but not tons. I have a bit of time, but not tons.We have to realize that Aaron's hands are somewhat tied, that he really can't say too much once a civil suit has been filed, but this has far-reaching implications, much further than just Aaron, as far as "freedom of the press" and free expression are concerned.

This is a matter that received widespread coverage all over the net and press, and is common knowledge, with multiple clients having been affected. This is beyond just one individual, it has potential to affect any and all with websites that disseminate information.

PhilC

08-27-2005, 02:27 PM

SeoBook is not the only one who is being sued by Matthew Marlon (Traffic Power) right now, but I was asked not to reveal anything about it, so I won't say who. But the other person I know about was served papers just a few days ago.

PhilC

08-27-2005, 02:42 PM

I didn't read all the document that Aaron published in his blog, but if what it states has to be true for the suit to be successful then they have shot themselves fair and squarely in to foot:-

18. Plaintiff has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty and truthfulness.If it weren't so serious for Aaron, that bit would cause laughter around the world.

Marcia

08-27-2005, 03:05 PM

Phil, I'd imagine that the less anyone says the better until all parties involved get professional legal counsel, if anything at all; but IMHO unless there's some kind of tangible show of solidarity and support, I'll never again even half-way believe one single post about "practices" for the industry - or maybe even that there is such a thing as an "industry" as such, rather than just individuals practicing their art.

PhilC

08-27-2005, 03:26 PM

Actually, you have a very good point there, Marcia - at least if I understood you correctly. You are saying that the whole "industry" should tangibly support the defenses of these suits - yes? If that's what you are saying, I whole-heartedly agree with you.

The person who emailed me asked if I'd also been sued (because my article ranks #4 in Google for 'traffic power'). He is interested in getting those who have been sued to work together. He wasn't looking for industry-wide support, but in this case, I think there should be industry-wide support in various forms. Some individuals have posted that they'd contribute if Aaron added a "donate" button to his blog, and I'm sure than many more would too. But the numbers would be small and unlikely to raise anywhere near the money that a defense would probably need.

It's the sort of thing that SEMPO could get involved in, even if Aaron and the others aren't members. It could be viewed that the industry spoke up against what TP did to their clients, and some of those in the industry who rightly spoke out are now being sued because of it. It could therefore be seen as an "industry" issue, and just the sort of thing that an "industry" organisation like SEMPO could get involved in. The suits are an attempt by a rogue seo company to prevent people in the seo industry from warning website owners of the risks they face if they become clients of the rogue company.

Have I made any sort of sense?

Marcia

08-27-2005, 03:37 PM

Makes a lot of sense to me, Phil. It's either an industry issue or their is no industry at all. Just MHO of course, but then I'm a cynic and a skeptic and always have been, even before sprouting a few grey hairs and growing the hard shell that comes with time.

mcanerin

08-27-2005, 04:13 PM

*grumble* Why do people keep bringing up SEMPO for this kind of stuff? You know that's not likely to happen.

I've already been helping Aaron a bit already (not as lawyer, as someone who knows how this stuff works) and will be contacting various US based lawyers I know to see if I can get him some pro bono or cheap help on behalf of the SMA-NA and the SEO industry. No promises, since it's up to the lawyers to choose whether they do so or not. But being a lawyer who is known as helpful to the SEO community would probably be a good thing for business.

I just wish they had sued me. That would have been really funny (though a little bloody...). I guess I'd need a TP site first.

Ian

PhilC

08-27-2005, 04:21 PM

Marcia

08-27-2005, 04:34 PM

They've got their work cut out for them if they're trying to gag the whole internet

Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&c2coff=1&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-11%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=google+traffic+power+clients)

I'd like to see them try to take this one on

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=365207

PhilC

08-27-2005, 04:39 PM

I can't see that page in the top 30 - maybe they've already forced Google to remove it - j/k

mcanerin

08-27-2005, 04:43 PM

Incidentally, I know that we all know Aaron, but he isn't the only one in the boat.

A good point. Though it's the first time it's been brought to my attention. Last I heard TP was getting sued by everyone, so it's been awhile. I do get people I know phoning me and saying that they had been cold-called by some SEO company. I usually stop them right there and ask if it's TP or 1P, and so far every one has said yes.

Then I tell them that they are notorious spammers and telemarketers and to run far away, and if they don't believe me, then do a search on the their name. So it seems that some sites are hurting them (though I think the general opinion in the SEO community is hurting them worse).

Note to TP: feel free to sue me for my honestly held opinion. I'll see you in court. Part of my evidence will be supplying the court (and anyone else in the courtroom) with the basis for my honestly held opinion, which would include every single slimy thing you've ever done that was leaked on the net and I know about - could take weeks. There will also be a countersuit for a frivolous and vexation lawsuit, and pretty much anything else I can think of.

Sure hope you lawyer works for free. I know mine does... :p

Ian

mcanerin

08-27-2005, 04:48 PM

..with SMA-NA. I hadn't heard of the latter until just now.
*sob*

The SMA-UK will be over shortly with baseball bats, an "I <heart> SMA" bumper sticker and a member registration form...

j/k ;)

Ian

PhilC

08-27-2005, 04:51 PM

Oh great! I love playing basball. I hope they bring some oranges for half-time. :D

I've heard of the various SMAs around Europe, but I didn't know there was one in the U.S.

Marcia

08-27-2005, 05:09 PM

I didn't know there was one in the U.S.There isn't, the North American arm of SMA is based in Canada. We don't allow poutine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine) here in the U.S. :D

mcanerin

08-27-2005, 05:28 PM

There isn't, it's in Canada.

Is too (officially Delaware) NA stands for North America - Canada, US and Mexico. And poutine tastes great! It's the chitlins (http://www.chitterlings.com/chitterling.html) from the US that I'm concerned about... *barf*

There will be a couple representatives from the SMA-NA arriving shortly, Marcia. You'll have a choice on being force-fed poutine or signing up as a member... ;) (yes, we are currently having a membership drive, why do you ask?)

and ANYWAY... this is off the topic of the evil TP empire squashing the freedoms and opinions of fellow SEO's in order to better advertise their "services" to the unsuspecting public.

One of my clients is a TP ex-client. Their "services" were directly and negligently reponsible for a rankings drop and resulting loss of income for them. They knew (or ought to have known) that their methods were dangerous, and used them anyway, with blissful disregard for the long term welfare of their own clients/customers.

This is bad. Very bad. And suing people to stop them from saying it was bad doesn't make it magically good. I note that the crux of the TP cases is that they are mad because some of their own employees engaged in "whistle-blowing" and are now claiming that they outed "trade-secrets".

Shades of Enron! Darn those honest employees! How dare they tell the truth! You notice that the claim is regarding "trade secrets", not "lies"?

Got news for TP. Spam is not a trade secret. Neither are link farms and hidden links. TP might have used them on a wider scale than most, but they were hardly the originators of the techniques. It was common knowledge before their employees confirmed it - that's why they were BANNED. Duh.

Ian

Jill Whalen

08-28-2005, 12:41 AM

Ian, regarding the trade secrets, couldn't they only sue their ex-employees for leaking those? How is it Aaron's responsibility? Did the employees have non-disclosure agreements? If they didn't, then can they tell anything they want or not?

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

08-28-2005, 05:22 AM

This looks more and more like a "Bernard Shifman (http://spamnews.com/spamflames/ShifmanIsAMoronSpammer.html)" case - if you haven't read it, please follow the link. It's a lot of fun - that is, if you ae not Berhard :)

TP is not the only one digging their own grave this way. As I see it, the "stratgy" follows the same path.

1) The company do something bad
2) Someone writes about it
3) The company tries to stop it
4) The attempt to stop it becomes the focus of more postings (like here)
5) The company tries to stop the postings about the case (coming soon!)
6) More postings comes along focused on the compnies attempt to stopp free speach
7) The original case is forgotten and all that is left is a lot of dirt on the company

In time, the company will either have to live with all the dirt online, or spend serious resources trying to clean it up with the risk that cleaning it up will create a whole new case.

If your head hurts stop banging it against the wall! :rolleyes:

Chris Boggs

08-28-2005, 10:43 AM

SEMPO was just a suggested possibility, Ian. They created themselves as an organisation for the industry (I don't think they claim to be just an organisation for members), and, imo, it really is the concern of an industry organisation. If it isn't, then I don't know what is.

Incidentally, I know that we all know Aaron, but he isn't the only one in the boat.

<added>
erm.... I didn't catch on that you were comparing SEMPO with SMA-NA. I hadn't heard of the latter until just now.

In my opinion (and I will suggest to the SEMPO B.O.D.--I am involved in a few SEMPO committees), this would be the time to stand together and release a joint statement on the issue, instead of trying to paint one organization as better than the other. I find it a little disturbing that you have taken this tact, Ian, but I feel that we can work together as organizations. SEMPO has change a lot since it's problems of 2004...

I (note I am NOT speaking on behalf of anyone at SEMPO here) personally feel that TP should be painted in the picture that we as knowledgable SEM's see them instead of what their lawyers can conjure up.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

08-28-2005, 10:57 AM

Allthough I can certainly agree a lot with you, Chris, I am just not sure if it's realistic. I am afraid that it would very fast evolve into a ethics discussion with no end.

I think most of us can agree that TPs business ethics seems a bit off - for example by not being honest about what they sell and charge clients for and what the risk involved might be. But, as soon s we start to move into what they actually did do, in terms of production/seo work, I think it will be very difficult to come to a broad agreement.

A lot of what they produced might have been crappy but TP did certainly not invent "crappy SEO" nor are they likely to be the last ones to supply it. I know I said it many times before, but I really don't think our industry is ready, and probably never will be, to agree on global standards for how and what we produce.

So, if we could limit the cross business/association statement on the issue to only cover the business ethics part of this case then I think we could succeed - but I am just not sure if we can keep that limit...

PhilC

08-28-2005, 11:56 AM

I think that the seo community was against TP's practises for different reasons. Some of us find that their methods were fine, but it was NOT fine to use them without the clients' knowledge of the risks and full agreement. Other people faulted them for the methods they used as well as not informing the clients.

But those details shouldn't enter into the current situation. We all found that TP abused their clients, and that's the only thing that matters if the seo community as a whole comes together to support the individuals who have been sued.

I really do hope that SEMPO and SMA-NA get together on it with real practical and financial support, even if the financial support includes starting a fund that all SEOs can contribute to, as well as the organisations themselves. I hope the support isn't in the form of moral support and passing resolutions, as in the "Life Of Brian". I hope that something much more practical can be achieved.

Of course, I'm assuming that the people who have been sued would actually want it.

Marcia

08-28-2005, 12:00 PM

I think we really need to take a hard look at what the core issues really are in this matter, and ask some serious questions about those issues.

projectphp

08-28-2005, 09:15 PM

Stuff SEO, TP broke general busness rules if they lied to clients about the facts surrounding their strategies and a ban by Google in particular, and search engines in general. That has nothing to do with Hats or SEO ethics, but pure business ethics. If we can't all agree on that, there is no hope.

jewboy

08-29-2005, 11:17 AM

It amazes me how Aaron Wall's first ammendment rights are being trampled upon by Traffic Power's lawyer.

I am no legal expert, but I'm almost 100% sure that we are privelaged to write whatever we believe to be true about Traffic Power, or any other business.

I find it appalling that Traffic Power is attempting to use the legal system to intimidate Mr. Wall. The ultimatum: remove perfectly legal, non-libelous posts (no financial cost to Aaron), or hire an attorney to fight these frivolous charges (Hundreds of dollars / hr).

I say don't go down without a fight!

seomike

08-29-2005, 12:00 PM

Dude they are claiming he libeled them. First ammendment doesn't cover defamation of character.

They're also sueing him for handing out their trade secrets (Java Cloaks, and having clients link to those java cloaks) ooppsss sorry not a trade secret, good luck proving that. Spammers have been doing that for years. Well spammers aren't dumb enough to let their clients link to the java cloaks. TP invented that part. Hell if I were part of that class action then I'd be watching this case like a hawk. Because if you can get them to admit what they're trade secret is, you can prove they knowingly harmed their clients LOL.

TP... Here's your sign. :D

mcanerin

08-29-2005, 01:45 PM

Lets Look at this claim, shall we?

The Top Bit of the claim shows that it was filed in Nevada (TP’s home). This means that the rules that are used default to those used in Nevada, unless it’s clear it’s not an appropriate venue. It probably is.

Then they complain and allege damages, including:

That some unknown people (DOES and ROES) caused them damage

That Aaron worked together with them, and therefore TP are suing them through him. They call all 3 of them "Defendants”. They claim that “all times relevant, that Defendants, and each of them, including the ficticiously named DOE or ROE, were the agents of the other and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting within the course and scope of such agency and with the consent and permission of the co-defendants.” Of course, if they can’t prove on a balance of probabilities that Aaron was working with, agent of, and acting with the consent and permission of, this DOE and ROE, then this part of the case has no merit.

They then go on to complain about the fact that TP has a trade secret that an unidentified individual “misappropriated and disseminated through web sites Plaintiff's confidential information.”

They further claim that this trade secret is very valuable and gives TP a business advantage and that their competitors knowing the secret harms them. I’m not sure how getting your clients banned from a search engine is considered a business advantage, but I can certainly see how keeping that fact a secret would be. :rolleyes:

They then spend some time attempting to establish that they treated the information as a trade secret, and therefore it should be treated as one.
Of course, if this information is not considered to a trade secret by a court, then this part of the claim is also gone.

They then claim that TP’s employees are told that information they learn while being employed is a trade and that DOE and ROE started putting this information out on the internet.For the record, Nevada law holds that if a trade secret is leaked to the internet that it’s still considered a trade secret (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-600A.html).

They then say that the defendants (including Aaron) maliciously published or caused to be published false and defamatory information over the internet concerning TP’s business, and that people have read it. This, if true, would establish libel. If the information was true or opinion only, then it would not, usually.

They then claim that the information harmed their reputation, which is arguable, 1) I seem to remember someone from TP claiming that their business has increased. That would be a very helpful post to find. 2) In my case, they had been damaged in my eyes as much as possible when they got their clients penalized en mass the alleged "trade secrets" leaking didn't change that opinion in the slightest.

They then claim that Aaron knew that the information was false and defamatory, and printed it only out of malice. I doubt that.

Then my favorite quote: “Plaintiff has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty and truthfulness.” :D I’d question that statement. They have to say it because if everyone already has a bad opinion of you, you have difficulty claiming to be harmed by information that makes you look bad – the damage has already been done.

They then claim it’s cost them money in terms of loss and legal fees. This claim is necessary because if they can’t show monetary damage their lawyers job becomes very difficult. I’d *really* like to see those claims by TP that TP gained money/business during this.

Now that they have laid down the framework, they ask for the following:

They claim that Aaron knew that this was a trade secret and that he disclosed anyway, which cost them money, and they want 10K + costs.

They claim that defendants published false and defamatory information that cause damage to TP, and that they knew the information was untrue, and therefore they want 10K + costs (by the way, this is the same 10K plus costs being asked for in different ways – not a new 10K)

They ask that the defendants stop the disclosure of the trade secrets( aka Injunctive Relief)

They claim that the defendants said those terrible things because they wanted to be mean and nasty, and therefore the court should give TP extra money to teach them a lesson (aka Punitive Damages)

If I were defending this (but I’m not, because I’m not officially a “lawyer”, or member of a bar anymore now that I’m a full time SEO) I would:

Show that the plaintiffs claim of being harmed is at odds with their claims of making more money due to the publicity.

Sever the relationship between Aaron and DOE/ROE that implies that he knew them and conspired with them. If they had just shown up in his comments and posted things, that would do it, for example.

Show that the information released was true or pure opinion, and not false or malicious. It strikes me as difficult to prove that something is at once a trade secret and false at the same time. One would tend to contradict the other.

Show that Aaron was not aware of the claim of “trade secret” status, and/or disputes it.

Show that Aaron acted in a good faith manner related to the dissemination of news and views, rather than as a premeditated, malicious and false attack.

Show that TP’s reputation was so poor before the specific information got out that there was no significant further damage to their reputation due to it’s publication, and therefore no damages attributable directly to it. I’d love collecting and presenting that evidence – I suspect it would be “volumous”. ;)

But that’s just me, and my personal opinion.

Ian

jewboy

08-29-2005, 01:45 PM

To quote the Wikipedia.org, libel is "making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation".

Just search your favorite engine for "Traffic Power" and see how many people got burned by this scam. Even Google has blacklisted the site. Traffic Power has a poor reputation to begin with, and I don't believe A. Wall has said anything about TP that is false. Thus, IMHO his posts are fully protected by the first ammendment. It's a shame that he has to give in to some malignant attorney - or spend thousands to protect his legal actions.

mcanerin

08-29-2005, 01:57 PM

Thus, IMHO his posts are fully protected by the first ammendment

Nope. The First Amendment only covers the government of the USA trying to stop you from saying your piece.

People are free to be jerks to other people under the US constitution all they want, but have to answer in court directly to the people they are being jerks to.

The constitution is (by and large) a rulebook for government, not citizens. Completely separate issues.

Ian

Chris Boggs

08-29-2005, 01:59 PM

Show that TP’s reputation was so poor before the specific information got out that there was no significant further damage to their reputation due to it’s publication, and therefore no damages attributable directly to it. I’d love collecting and presenting that evidence – I suspect it would be “volumous”.
and your points 4 and 5 in the "damages" paragraph are the crux. You nailed it Ian and the problem is will Aaron be able to get it thrown out before trial or not.

seomike

08-29-2005, 02:11 PM

Hell all he really needs is Matt Cutts to write a statement saying Google banned them and their clients for x,y,z. Hell you can go right down the TOS, cold calls, tricky redirects, cloaking etc. Not a hard thing at all to challenge.

And then prove to the judge that their trade secret is well known.

Anyhoo just laywer up and give them hell Aaron.

mcanerin

08-29-2005, 02:11 PM

In my opinion (and I will suggest to the SEMPO B.O.D.--I am involved in a few SEMPO committees), this would be the time to stand together and release a joint statement on the issue, instead of trying to paint one organization as better than the other. I find it a little disturbing that you have taken this tact, Ian, but I feel that we can work together as organizations. SEMPO has change a lot since it's problems of 2004...

Fair enough, Chris. For the record, my comments were not aimed at "taking shots" or being self serving, but rather at SEMPO's stated aims as not wanting to get involved in standards (http://www.sempo.org/faq.php#notstandards):

SEMPO is not a standards body or a policing organization. Membership in or involvement with SEMPO is not a guarantee of a particular firm's capabilities, nor does it signify industry approval or disapproval of their practices.

Thus, my interpretation that SEMPO would not want to get involved in an issue between two members of the SEO community (and TP is, whether anyone likes it or not, a member of the SEO community) over an issue related to standards.

To be fair, I'll note that the above quote is followed immediately by:

In the future, SEMPO members may decide that they want to take this on as an additional mission.

But it is my understanding that this has not been decided yet. There was no ill-will intended, simply an acknowledgment of the differing roles and goals :)

For the record, although I don't speak for the SMA-NA any more than you speak for SEMPO, I'd be personally VERY interested in working together to form a common statement of acceptable business practices. *extends olive branch*

Ian

PerformanceSEO

08-29-2005, 02:41 PM

:mad: Hopefully Traffic Power has just put the final nail in their own coffin. These people have been fighting law suits since they went into business.

They are THE LARGEST contributor to the bad reputation of this industry. I used to receive calls weekly from people who had their websites grey-barred from Google because of what TP did to their sites.

TP suing ANYONE for "revealing trade secrets" is like a bank robber suing the police for foiling their next hit. They are telemarketers first, and an unethical SEO firm second.

I STRONGLY URGE Aaron to put up a donation button on his site. I can guarantee that every previous client of TP would throw in a few bucks to defeat them. TP needs to be put down like the rabid dog it is.

jewboy

08-29-2005, 02:58 PM

You are 100% right Ian, I'm forgetting my grammar school education! :eek:
I feel silly that my friend up north needs to correct my misinterpretation of the US Constitution :D .

I, Brian

08-29-2005, 03:08 PM

I think that the seo community was against TP's practises for different reasons. Some of us find that their methods were fine, but it was NOT fine to use them without the clients' knowledge of the risks and full agreement. Other people faulted them for the methods they used as well as not informing the clients.

But those details shouldn't enter into the current situation. We all found that TP abused their clients, and that's the only thing that matters if the seo community as a whole comes together to support the individuals who have been sued.

I really do hope that SEMPO and SMA-NA get together on it with real practical and financial support

Good overall points - there are a number of SEO organisations and in a high profile case as this we should hope that at least one of them would look to approach Aaron privately and advise as appropriate.

If any organisation is going to claim to represent the interests of the SEO industry, then a relatively high profile event like this needs to be seen to be acted upon.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

08-29-2005, 03:19 PM

Very good post, Ian. It should now be clear to anyone what the case is really about and the various options.

If any organisation is going to claim to represent the interests of the SEO industry, then a relatively high profile event like this needs to be seen to be acted upon.

As Ian points out neither SEMPO or any of the new SMA-groups have, as of today, any written and approved standards that would cover the TP issues. They could off course be written and then used to support Aron against TP but I think it's dangerous to do this on top of on ongoing case.

That, however, should not limit us all, as individuals, from giving Aron support. I agree that it would be a good idea for Aron to put up that donate button, as suggested. And maybe even take it further and allow donaters to stand out up name. I am sure a lot of high profile industry people would be happy to show support for Arons case. If nothing else, I am sure it would help make Aron feel better.

jewboy

08-29-2005, 03:37 PM

I will surely donate to Aaron's cause. Let us unite to protect the good people of our industry, with or without SEMPO's aid.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

08-29-2005, 03:45 PM

At this point, I think it would be a good idea to hear from Aron what he wants' After all, he will have to do the fight - all anyone can do here is support him (with name, money or other help).

I, Brian

08-29-2005, 03:50 PM

As Ian points out neither SEMPO or any of the new SMA-groups have, as of today, any written and approved standards that would cover the TP issues. They could off course be written and then used to support Aron against TP but I think it's dangerous to do this on top of on ongoing case.

It's true that it would be a dangerous step to have SEMPO and SMA-USA policing SEO methods - but the key issue of the TP case is not about the methods that were used, but of the business practices involved.

PerformanceSEO

08-29-2005, 04:01 PM

What Aaron nees right now is sound legal advice more than anything.

I'm definately not the one to give it to him, but I do find it hard to believe that TP would actually take this all the way to court for $10k. That barely covers legal fees, and any lawyer working on contingency would know this is a long shot win.

I have a feeling this was a desperate PR attempt by Traffic Power to "save their name" (as if they ever had one). They probably just didn't see farther than the end of their nose that it was going to backfire on them. Which wouldn't be surprising either because they have to be dimented to actually believe they are the ones wronged here.

BTW, notice they took down their "Leadership" page. As if to hide the identity of their management. And in case nobody knows - they also go by the name "First Place" or www.1p.com.

seomike

08-29-2005, 04:21 PM

They are only asking Aaron for 10k, not that he's small time. But he's a one man show. A company on the other hand may have a higher dollar amount to offset the loss they would make on Aaron.

Bad PR is still PR, and there are definitely low profile clients that need a cloak now and then.

mcanerin

08-29-2005, 04:25 PM

neither SEMPO or any of the new SMA-groups have, as of today, any written and approved standards that would cover the TP issues. They could off course be written and then used to support Aron against TP but I think it's dangerous to do this on top of on ongoing case.

I agree that writing a general statement of principles directly in response to this would be a bad idea. "Hard cases make bad law". A general statement of practice should keep cases like this in mind, but not be tailored directly in response, else it could have unintended consequences simply because of a biased viewpoint.

However, if asked, I'm pretty sure I'd support an amicus brief to a court on the behalf of the SEO community about what we think about TP's reputation, in support of a defense related to the information published not being newly damaging.

I could poll them, but I'm pretty sure the response of the members of the SMA (and probably SEMPO) would be that TP's rep was in the toilet long before DOES and ROES made their statements, and that the new information was not measurably more harmful than the rankings loss experienced by their clients (how could it be?).

First, only SEO's would be able to understand the nuances of the technique, so the "outing" only applies to other SEO's, not the public. The public only cares about the end result (ie bans, penalties, loss of rankings/business etc).

Second, since those "trade secrets" resulted in the penalties, no SEO in their right mind would use them! they are welcome to getting their clients banned all they want - TP's assumption that I would steal that idea is ludicrous. Frankly, their losses to competitors are related to the fact that the competitors DON'T use those "trade secrets"!

Whether the competitors know them or not is irrelevant if they would never act on it or use it. There is not causal relationship between the information leak and TP's alleged losses, IMO.

Any losses they suffered are related directly to Googles treatment of their "trade secrets" long before those secrets became public, IMO.

The loss they experienced, in my opinion as a professional SEO, was not related to the trade secrets getting out, but rather the trade secrets being used by TP and detected by the search engines in the first place. Google was the one who figured out the "trade secret" and caused the loss. Maybe TP should sue them...

My opinion,

Ian

Gurtie

08-29-2005, 04:46 PM

I agree with absolutely everything so far but I think it;s important to remember that judges are very unlikely to understand SEO.

With a good 'expert' witness and a convincing enough case TP may actually cause problems for Aaron, from a purely non web-savvy standpoint it's actually plausable to convince someone that there might be a basis to some of their claims (of course as soon as you know that they were so incompetent pretty much anyone who could view source could copy their techniques and if you can bring a couple of their clients in as witnesses then you can probably overcome that - but it's still based on making the judge understand it...)

seomike

08-29-2005, 04:51 PM

PerformanceSEO

08-29-2005, 05:52 PM

The term "Trade Secret" is really what stands out here. I was recently threatened with a lawsuit from my previous employer warning me about stealing "Trade Secrets".

Our lawyer informed us that any company must prove that their "Trade Secrets" are just that - SECRETS and not Public Domain. Whether or not Traffic Power is the only one that implements their techniques (because it's harmful) is irrelevant if they can't prove they are the inventor of that process, and haven't documented it.

From what I know, TP's SPAM tactics are something the entire industry is familiar with (correct me if I'm wrong here). They are just the only fools who use it.

stuntdubl

08-29-2005, 06:16 PM

I think this would be a fairly cut and dry case to those who have been around legitimate forums for a reasonable amount of time. Aaron is definitely among the top percentage of good honest seo's that I would have help work on my site. As for the others, if they were on fire I doubt I'd stop to wizz them out.

Trade secrets of how to steal from people and call it what a lot of us do for a living? If anyone has ever had a positive thing to say about them that is not a plant, I'll shut up.

Hell all he really needs is Matt Cutts to write a statement saying Google banned them and their clients for x,y,z. Hell you can go right down the TOS, cold calls, tricky redirects, cloaking etc. Not a hard thing at all to challenge.

And then prove to the judge that their trade secret is well known.

Anyhoo just laywer up and give them hell Aaron.

I echo pretty much what seomike says. Give 'em hell. If anyone is SE TOS-non-compliant it is their work. Enough said. You need to help convince the world that SEO's aren't all like the prank callers they got from Las Vegas. I would say you can probably draw in quite a few expert witnesses who wouldn't mind visiting Vegas.

Aaron if you don't put up a donate now button I guess I'll just have to buy your seobook

Or buy it over again. I think a donate button is a great idea for micropayments from those who just read your daily knowledge.

Good luck mate.

Jill Whalen

08-29-2005, 06:35 PM

This seems weird, but as I understand it, Google could ask to "enter the lawsuit" or something like that. They can say that they have information that would be useful. If that ever happened, TP wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Since Google has the money to fight this, it would be nice if they would step up to the plate and do the right thing. Since they are on the side of good not evil and all...

Chris Boggs

08-29-2005, 08:09 PM

SEMPO's stated aims as not wanting to get involved in standards...
Thus, my interpretation that SEMPO would not want to get involved in an issue between two members of the SEO community (and TP is, whether anyone likes it or not, a member of the SEO community) over an issue related to standards...
For the record, although I don't speak for the SMA-NA any more than you speak for SEMPO, I'd be personally VERY interested in working together to form a common statement of acceptable business practices. *extends olive branch*Ian

you are a fine gentleman, Ian, and I hope we can do something together to help Aaron cause. thank you as well for reminding me of SEMPO's current policy on this matter. I knew I was forgetting something :p Maybe it is time for SEMPO to decide that they want to take this on as an additional mission. An offcial stance on a case such as this would be a bold first step, and one jointly delivered by SEMPO and SMA-NA would carry even more weight. I will contact a few people when I am back in the office tomorrow, and I will try to see if anyone wants to go on record at least in here for starters.

SanDiegoSEO

08-29-2005, 09:19 PM

TP Sucks.com was served as well. He called the lawyer that signed the paperwork, and that lawyer had no clue what he was talking about. Maybe anyone being sued in this case, should contact the lawyers involved and find out specifics.

rustybrick

08-29-2005, 10:29 PM

I wonder if SEW will get sued for this thread. :confused: Or maybe everyone who commented in this thread. :confused:

kctipton

08-30-2005, 12:42 AM

I didn't see anyone point out this PR spin for the other guys: "Local Company victimized by Negative Forum, Blog and Post Scams" (http://www.lasvegastribune.com/webexclusives1.html)

mcanerin

08-30-2005, 01:13 AM

I love the LV Tribune! Lots of fun. It's a freebie rag with a complete disregard for traditional journalism. I recommend picking one up when in LV. They do some great stories uncovering sleeze and so forth, and tend to pick on a local strip club with alledged mob connections a lot. They also do some very funny stories on local politicians being involved with local scandals.

But it's kind of like being defended by the World Weekly News and having your face placed on a doctored photo of Bigfoot. It's a mixed blessing. PR is PR though...

Just for fun, check out their "official" discussion board for a nice view of their editorial policies: http://disc.server.com/Indices/208779.html

I'm not knocking them - I honestly have a lot of fun reading it. But it's not the Wall Street Journal, and it doesn't pretend to be. ;)

For the record (and not implying anything, of course) the author of the story, Peter Romano, has only written 2 stories ever for the LV Tribune (and apparently no where else, according to a Google search) - both of which are defending TP and/or 1P.

Some more fun links:

http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20050701/webexclusives2.html (This is the authors latest story on TP)

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/213

Ian

Marcia

08-30-2005, 02:34 AM

I understand this code was being used back when Google caught all the on_mouseover going on

<body onmouseover="eval(unescape('%6C%6F%63%61%74%69%6F%...
...6E%2E%68%72%65%66%3D%27%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F...
...%77%77%77%2E2E%63%6F%6D%2F%27%3B'));">; It brings up a lot of references just doing a Google search for that query string in quotes.

Seems the bots couldn't detect the redirects because they only happened when mousing over and bots don't have mice.

mcanerin

08-30-2005, 02:39 AM

OH MY GOD! Marcia! That's a trade secret. ;)

Ian

PerformanceSEO

08-30-2005, 03:29 AM

"in the long run this type of activity will be a serious blow to the Internets credibility." said a traffic-power representative."

Now THAT is credible jounalism!!!

It seems as if this Peter Romano character is a Traffic Power "representative" who just happens to stunt double as a freelance writer for the LV Tribune.

And did I seriously read something about Traffic Power's 300 employees??? I wonder if that includes their outsourced telemarketing firm or their sales reps across the country who make cold calls out of their house on 100% commission??

aaayoureweb

08-30-2005, 01:50 PM

I used to work for 1P formally aka TP back in january and was fired becouse i did not agree with their SEO promotions.Not much has changed in their practices. However i signed a 1 year agreement not to disclose any information so my lips are sealed for now.

David Wallace

08-30-2005, 02:48 PM

Not much has changed in their practices.
Thanks for confirming what many of us already suspect. I am sure it is easy enough for companies like this just to change their name and move on.

However, one of these days, people are going to be a lot wiser regarding SEO and they will not fall victimn to a sly sales pitch and a bag full of tricks. ;)

PerformanceSEO

08-30-2005, 03:02 PM

aaayoureweb

08-30-2005, 04:45 PM

However, one of these days, people are going to be a lot wiser regarding SEO and they will not fall victimn to a sly sales pitch and a bag full of tricks.
I can say this that most of their practices when i worked there are common practices in SEO and they stressed the importance of Googles rules for proper SEO. As for their Trade in their "NEW" technology they use for their promotions the only one i can legally refer to is their SERP technology called "DOROTHY" which is public info and you can test run from 1p.com they use this info for telemarketing their clients. I Disagreed in their marketing tactics for which i was fired for, however all their clients were showed for the most part to my knowledge what they where getting when they signed up for their website promotion packages. "Including the mouse over Redirects were shown to prospective clients". I believe however since they have stopped using this type of Optimization technique as google frowns upon it.

hoyaguru

08-30-2005, 05:45 PM

I will say this:

If anyone is actually still falling victim to this scam, it only means that they haven't done the slightest bit of research. For goodness sake, all you have to do is type "traffic power" into Google and read the first result from Mark Carey.

As business owners, they should be smarter. Especially when putting something as valuable as their website in the hands of someone else.

So for that, it really is their own fault and a hard lesson learned. Unfortunately.

OK, have to step in here. Do you think people are being called by Traffic Power any more? They are not going by Traffic Power any more, and haven't for quite some time. They changed to First Place, (1P. com), then adnetpros, and several other names. Word is that they are registering business names in other states now and starting all over.

hoyaguru

08-30-2005, 05:52 PM

I can say this that most of their practices when i worked there are common practices in SEO and they stressed the importance of Googles rules for proper SEO. As for their Trade in their "NEW" technology they use for their promotions the only one i can legally refer to is their SERP technology called "DOROTHY" which is public info and you can test run from 1p.com they use this info for telemarketing their clients. I Disagreed in their marketing tactics for which i was fired for, however all their clients were showed for the most part to my knowledge what they where getting when they signed up for their website promotion packages. "Including the mouse over Redirects were shown to prospective clients". I believe however since they have stopped using this type of Optimization technique as google frowns upon it.

If plagiarism and getting your customer's banned from Google were common practice, I don't think there would be many SEO companies left. I was a Traffic Power "victim", when they cold called me they had a Satisfactory write up with the BBB, and gave me several of their current customers that I could call (later investigation proved them all to be fake).

kctipton

08-31-2005, 12:10 AM

The WSJ has written about it (free access for this one!) : Blogger Faces Lawsuit Over
Comments Posted by Readers (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112541909221726743-mVzkKuCzJYZr6fxe38o5ejK_1jA_20060830,00.html?mod=r ss_free)

AussieWebmaster

08-31-2005, 01:19 AM

OH MY GOD! Marcia! That's a trade secret. ;)

Ian

A Google trade secret if anything!

Marcia

08-31-2005, 02:51 AM

A Google trade secret if anything!Nah, those folks are far too sophisticated for me.

OK, have to step in here. Do you think people are being called by Traffic Power any more? They are not going by Traffic Power any more, and haven't for quite some time. They changed to First Place, (1P. com), then adnetpros, and several other names. Word is that they are registering business names in other states now and starting all over.See, like this:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv1-&p=linkdomain%3a1P.com

I'm afraid that's way over my head, if there are any trade secrets there they're perfectly safe.

I, Brian

08-31-2005, 06:09 AM

If SEMPO and SMA-NA are really going to make a joint statement on the issue, today's WSJ coverage of the SEObook case means the iron is hot.

aaayoureweb

08-31-2005, 06:58 AM

OK, have to step in here. Do you think people are being called by Traffic Power any more? They are not going by Traffic Power any more, and haven't for quite some time. They changed to First Place, (1P. com), then adnetpros, and several other names. Word is that they are registering business names in other states now and starting all over.
Traffic Power is known as 1p. i used to have to make the pitch and get past the gatekeeper, and datamine to see wether it was worth our time or not. when you did the yahoo domain link search some of those sites were partners of 1p who they fly into vegas and wine and dine for a few days and learn how to promote 1ps search engine placement products. They do receive a nice commission for reffering business to 1p as many people would know that their average package is up their in the 4 digit range.

aaayoureweb

08-31-2005, 07:50 AM

http://www.sep-reports.com/cnn.com/Aol.com_cnn.html this ia a link to 1p.com and their serps which they use in their presentations to potential clients

kalius

08-31-2005, 10:20 AM

NFFC

08-31-2005, 10:38 AM

aaayoureweb, they do the SEO for CNN??

Marcia

08-31-2005, 10:45 AM

kalius, I think what you quoted is saying that it isn't the old TP company name being used any more.

Anyway, what's really the pertinent issue, rather than their marketing efforts, is the circumstances surrounding what they're trying to do with this kind of frivolous attempt at litigation.

They WERE banned, their clients WERE banned (and 1p.com doesn't seem to be doing too well in Google), the facts are the facts and their "technology" is common public knowledge. Why didn't they just put it behind them and move on? It makes no sense whatsoever unless it's emotionally motivated.

hoyaguru

08-31-2005, 10:47 AM

Traffic Power is known as 1p. i used to have to make the pitch and get past the gatekeeper, and datamine to see wether it was worth our time or not. when you did the yahoo domain link search some of those sites were partners of 1p who they fly into vegas and wine and dine for a few days and learn how to promote 1ps search engine placement products. They do receive a nice commission for reffering business to 1p as many people would know that their average package is up their in the 4 digit range.

OK, and in reality land, a lot of these people who are suckered in to sell 1P's services get a whole bunch of new victims to sign up with 1P, and then 1P contacts these customers directly, give them a slightly better rate, and deal with them directly, cutting out the middle man. The sucker who did all the work getting these customers gets nothing, and 1P dumps them. I have emails from several different people who have had this happen to them.

Come on, hit me with another one, anything good you can say about Traffic Power I can prove is a lie. I'm in contact with at least 10 different ex-employees who tell me all kinds of stuff, I could fill several pages with information. Of course, this website you are reading will most likely be sued for what has already been written. If the lawsuit goes against Aaron and the others being sued, Traffic Power will be rubbing their hands in glee, and the lawsuits will be flying. Just do a search for Traffic Power on Google, every site that says anything against them will be served, and with the precedent of a win over Aaron, Traffic Power will just sit back and collect the cash from every blogger and hate site out there. Buh Bye free speech!

seomike

08-31-2005, 11:44 AM

hoyaguru

08-31-2005, 12:09 PM

aaayoureweb my question is this.

Did they know that their javacloak would get their clients banned if they had the core sites linking to it?

It's probably better stated like this. Did they know what they were doing was aggressive and could affect the client?

You could be Aarons star witness :D

I can answer that: They might not have known that the bannings would happen when they started doing it, but once they found out, they did nothing to fix the problem for about a year. Then, when all the negative publicity came out about them, (and 93 complaints to the BBB), they emailed all of their current customers and told them that they were "changing with the times", and had a new "better" way of promoting their sites. They told all of their customers to take all of the code off of their own websites, and Traffic Power was going to create new websites that Traffic Power would have 100% control over. They also gave their customers a couple of extra months of advertising for free. Of course this started a whole new scam, where the new websites were mass produced and linked to to each other. Then the ones that somehow made it up on the search engines were used for blackmail. Once the years promotion was up, the sucker who paid for the promotion was contacted and told to pay more money, or Traffic Power would contact their competition and sell the sites to them. If the customer didn't pay whatever Traffic Power asked, they ended up paying for promoting their copetition's website, all TP had to do was change the links in the pages.

aaayoureweb

08-31-2005, 04:36 PM

aaayoureweb

08-31-2005, 04:43 PM

aaayoureweb

08-31-2005, 05:11 PM

hoyaguru

08-31-2005, 11:59 PM

what hoyaguru stated above is true in the most part. However traffic power aka 1p.com only takes the top 3 in each industry then closes that industry out to keep competition and quarrels apart from their clients. As i stated before that their practices has not changed much and legally to be honest with you im not sure what i can say do to i signed an agreement for 1 year with them about not letting their practes be known.Google also frowns on the practice of hosting thousands of optimized wepages for other sites on 1 website location, and this is public knowledge. This alows for their linking structure to related websites to boost popularity and PageRank.

OK, and again in reality land, your trying to tell me that Traffic Power would tell number 4 in the industry "Sorry, can't take your money, we already have three clients in your industry..." Please, Traffic Power employees would steal the batteries out of their grandmother's pacemaker if they thought they could make a buck from them. They will even charge their victims an extra fee, usually a thousand dollars or so, to "guarantee" that they won't promote the same keywords to another company. Once they get the money, they immediately call the next sucker on their list and sell the same keywords, and the same guarantee. Trust me, I know more about Traffic Power than you, and the many different ways they rip people off. Oh, and "Google also frowns on the practice of hosting thousands of optimized pages blah blah blah", since when did Traffic Power care what Google thought about anything? Was that before or after they got thousands of people banned from the very search engines they were paying to be listed on? Come on, bring on the lies, I'll shoot every one of them down.

hoyaguru

09-01-2005, 12:04 AM

I have payed attention and noticed that when they would use certain practices Google would add a new rule on proper SEO and we would be informed on it. This happened on 3 seperate occassions to my best knowledge. Of couse when it came to the computer generated optimized pages that was left to the programers and website designers, however we were always informed on what was going on becouse we had to pitch the potentiall clients and our scripts changed frequently.

OK, so Google would see what Traffic Power was doing, and based on this they would create new rules that would make these practices ilegal and then inform you about it? Are you on drugs? And when you mention computer generated and optimized pages, are you talking about the ones created on the stolen/pirated software, or the pages that were stolen word for word from other websites? And as for the scripts, I could go on about them all day. Each page should have said "How to completely rip off total strangers over the phone", I've never seen such blatant rip-off tactics in my life.

aaayoureweb

09-01-2005, 12:07 AM

By no means am i sticking up for 1p.com im just telling you the best of my knowlede when i worked for them back in january. Who feels sorry for them? certainly i dont. They threatened me. I went to work for them to learn the ground up and that is where i started on the telemarketing floor. We had a disagreement in their marketing practices and yes i do have further knowledge of their tools they use in website promotions however like i said i signed one year agreement so im not sure what i can legally say or not.

hoyaguru

09-01-2005, 12:10 AM

I have many contacts in the wireless industry. I have managed 2 successfull wirless locations in Las Vegas, I had my own leads i brought into 1p witch i worked. I e-mailed alot of the clients and was successful at setting up presentations for big-time clients like Jamster and mediaplaza. I was constantly yelled at for not being on the phone but the thing is that these clients i was working with wanted to purchase 20,000 to 50,00 keywords . That would be a highly optimized page for every ringtone song out there.These companies payed google big money every month to have their banner on the top of their results page. I was fired 2 days before my second presentation with these companies, and you guessed it they would not have to split that big payday with me. they told me sending e-mails to these companies was spam, however they were my leads i brought in, and some they provided that were expired and trying to re-sign them. they also said all my leads were now theirs and i could not contact any of my former contacts in the wireless industry or they would come to my house and seize all computer equipment. I took no information home with me nor did i have any on my computer except all my own leads and contacts.

Awww, so YOU got ripped off by Traffic Power. And how many people did you rip off while you were there? How many companies did you help put out of business? How many employees had to be fired because a company's website disapeared off of Google after you suckered them out of $5000.00, and their orders went from 100 a day to 3 a day? Do you even think about these things? You probably laughed about it while you were doing it, high fived the thief sitting next to you when you made a big score. That should make some nice stories to tell your grandkids someday.

aaayoureweb

09-01-2005, 12:11 AM

you must of misunderstood me. 1p.com uses alot of different seo practices and when google would update on new rules for ethical practice we were informed on them and our scripts were re-written for the presentation to potential clients.

aaayoureweb

09-01-2005, 12:15 AM

why do you think i dont work for them anymore? i would not produce! sorry but i ripped no-body off.

projectphp

09-01-2005, 02:12 AM

Why don't you two continue this discussion via PM?

mcanerin

09-01-2005, 03:11 AM

That would be a good idea.

TP threads *tend* to get emotional on any SEO forum, but that doesn't mean they *have* to.

Ian

PerformanceSEO

09-01-2005, 04:37 AM

aaa, I think your expertise on TP would best be suited for a defense in Aaron's case. Hopefully his attorney (hopefully he has one by now) will see this thread and subpoena you as a witness for Aaron. In which case your "confidentiality agreement" with TP would be put well aside to make room for expert testimony on unethical business practices.

Marcia

09-01-2005, 05:32 AM

OK, let's take a little breather and get this back into balance so we can let the thread keep going and not have to shut it down.

We are not attorneys, this is not a court of law and we're not doing depositions or taking affadavits - IOW, let's stay away from getting embroiled in bashing and planning legal maneuverings.

Rather, let's stay with issues that concern all of us as a community of webmasters and SEOs - namely, the effects this will potentially have on the SEO industry as a whole - and the issues involved with reporting events and expressing opinions in publicly viewable venues about publicly reported events. Of course Aaron is of particular concern to all of us and so is how this affects the whole "scene" of internet webmaster communities online.

But let's stay on level ground with this - let's not play Judge Judy with a keyboard. ;)

PhilC

09-01-2005, 08:36 AM

This thing has nothing to do with the expressing of opinions and writing about events, Marcia. There's nothing that TP can do about those. It's about the publishing of what TP claim to be their trade secrets.

I didn't see everything that is/was in Aaron's blog, but it isn't possible for TP to have any trade secrets in this business, because everything they could possibly do to promote a website in the engines was public knowledge long before TP did it. For instance, if they were the first to think up the idea of an onmouseover script in the body tag, it isn't a trade secret for 2 reasons:-

(1) The onmouseover event is part of standard HTML. Javascript is also standard, and putting the 2 together is as old as the Internet hills.

(2) The moment they put it on a published webpage, it becomes public knowledge.

They weren't the first to auto-generate websites, and linkages, and it's a common practise. There's nothing they can do in promoting a website that isn't publically available knowledge. I've no idea what the "javacloaking" is that people have been referring to in this thread (I wish people would use the terms that we all use instead of making up new ones and expecting everyone to know what they are talking about), but cloaking isn't a secret and neither is javascript (I assume it refers to javascript and not to java). They may wish to keep some things they do secret, as Ian pointed out earlier, but that doesn't make them "trade secrets".

I don't see that TP has a leg to stand on.

dannysullivan

09-01-2005, 11:15 AM

ephricon

09-01-2005, 11:21 AM

I agree with Phil's post above. I really don't believe there are any "trade secrets" in this business, as far as optimization goes anyways.

Pretty much everything considered "white hat" (lets not get into this, I'm just using this term for descriptive purposes, you know what I mean...) is spelled out on Google's webmaster page. Further details are definitely public knowledge - i.e. this very site, all forums, shoot half of us probably blog about SEO tips and such on a regular basis! They must then either be referring to some info about cloaking or automation of optimization - neither of which exactly flies under the radar.

I'd like to see some specific examples of these "trade secrets".

ephricon

09-01-2005, 11:26 AM

I think the point Marcia is really trying to make is this. This thread is meant to be a discussion of the suit TP has filed against SEO Book. Discussing some of the alleged trade secrets at issue is fine, as is discussion of the facts around the case. But this isn't meant to be a wideranging analysis of Traffic Power employment practices or even really how they've gained customers or customer complaints, along with some other issues that are getting tangental to the discussion.

Good point. Never know when a few opinionate comments about a certain "SEO" firm may end up resulting in a law suit! ;) Poor taste?

What sort of "liability" is placed upon the author(s) of the comments in question? To my understanding Aaron is being sued b/c he has allowed such comments to appear - to me that is free speech. His site is a media outlet of sorts, and he's merely providing a platform for others to voice their opinion. When he starts to remove comments, he's censoring people's honest opinions. Its certainly his right to do so as the owner of the site, but I do not believe he *should* have any responsibility to censor others.

seomike

09-01-2005, 11:34 AM

Aaron is going to fight you can donate to the cause here

http://www.seobook.com/archives/001140.shtml

PhilC

09-01-2005, 11:51 AM

I do think it is the responsibility of a blog or forum owner to remove any comments that are likely to break the law. If it isn't a legal requirement (and I think it probably is), then it ought to be, imo. But I can't imagine anything that could have been posted as comments that could possibly be described as "trade secrets". Even things like those posted in this thread (e.g. TP charge $1000 to not target competitors, and then target them anyway) could be considered confidential but they are not trade secrets - such business pracises are fair game if they are discovered.

aaayoureweb

09-01-2005, 12:40 PM

The only "trade secret" of theirs "tp" would be of their pattened technology and software they developed in order to run their automated promotional programs that i can think of. How they use that technology would that be a trade secret? Looks like im going to have to buy the book and read further into Arons blog to see exactly what was written about...

mcanerin

09-01-2005, 12:48 PM

Ummm - for the record, by definition anything patented CANNOT be a trade secret.

If you want to protect something, you either 1) keep it a secret (trade secret), or 2) let everyone know that you own it in a protected venue (patent).

If they are telling people it's patented, then it would be reasonable and appropriate to assume it's not a trade secret, IMO.

Sometimes, you can patent something and then have separate trade secrets related to it, but the two are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other.

Ian

*added* I just checked their site for any mention of anything patented, but nothing. There were mentions of "proprietary" though. That is sometimes used as marketing-speak for trade secret (though it's not accurate, technically).

Ian

PerformanceSEO

09-01-2005, 01:08 PM

I know of a couple other SEO companies who claim what they do is proprietary when it isn't. Their SEO processes are not patented (although you can Patent a process), and their practices can be found just about anywhere.

Yet they send out legal threats all the time to previous employees, other SEO firms and jounalists around the web who write about them.

I think this case stands as a good example for such SEO firms that this industry is driven by community....as much as they would like to believe they are "inventors" of SEO, they are not.

PhilC

09-01-2005, 01:14 PM

I agree that "proprietory" doesn't mean "trade secret". In TP's case it just means they've written their own software to do the work. Big deal. Heck, Years ago I wrote a program that did everything to promote a site after you gave it the searchterms. You could go on round the world trip and leave it running - it did absolutley everything, including redoing stuff for searchterms that didn't succeed. But the fact of using proprietory software isn't a trade secret, and what the software actually does isn't a trade secret. The code itself is proprietory, and may come into the realms of trade secrets, but nobody published any code, did they?

Isn't part of the suit concerned with libel? People seem to have assumed that the libel is to do with those fake forums. If someone published that Traffic Power was behind the fake forums, and they weren't, then it would be libel - yes?

Many people have published that TP got their clients banned from Google, which is provable, so they can't seriously expect to get any damages for that. But how people wrote about the fake forums, and what comments about them were allowed to stay in forums and blogs, might be worth looking at.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

09-01-2005, 01:29 PM

although you can Patent a process

No, not entirely true. In US you can, so in relation to the TP case you are right but in most of the rest of the world this is NOT true. Please remember that US law ONLY cover the US

Chris Boggs

09-01-2005, 01:52 PM

No, not entirely true. In US you can, so in relation to the TP case you are right but in most of the rest of the world this is NOT true. Please remember that US law ONLY cover the US

and wherever our Marines happen to be at any given time :p Good point you bring up though, should this "defamation" only be considered harmful within US borders? What about if you search TP or related terms overseas or on a foreign based search engine?

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

09-01-2005, 02:07 PM

and wherever our Marines happen to be at any given time

No, thats not a question of law, thats a question that I think we should not discuss here :eek:

Personally, I would not be afraid for a second to host every word that was put on Arons blog, here in Denmark - and welcome any mails from US lawyers on it - I have a nice fireplace and can allways use some more paper to burn. In fact, I have over time hosted a few things that have triggered angry letters from US lawyers. Can you guess where they ended up? And do you think they ever got a reply? And, do you think anything happend? :D

mcanerin

09-01-2005, 03:14 PM

Let's make sure that no one is encouraging anyone to break a law. :eek: If that information was posted independently, then it's a separate issue, but if (for example) Aaron deliberatly posted off-shore (or encouraged it) then there could be issues.

As an analogy, most countries have laws that state that citizens are not allowed to do something criminal outside of their country that they can't do inside of it. This is usually used in cases of child molestation, murder, etc but the laws are deliberatly vague in order to cover many possible circumstances as possible. Just because there isn't any law to speak of in some countries doesn't mean you can go over there and start hurting people without reprocussions.

Now, this is primarily regarding serious criminal actions ( you are unlikely to go to jail in the US for smoking pot in Denmark, for example - US citizen or not) But I'm not familiar with all the details of how this would play out regarding a US citizen being involved in a case like we are talking about here, and I wouldn not want to put poor Aaron on the hot seat without his permission.

If it's totally independent, that's one thing, but for the time being remember that this whole issue is over what *other* people said and did in an internet venue being visited upon an identifiable individual just because he had a minor, indirect connection to it and a lawyer could find his address.

Let's not repeat that here, without clear guidance. No need to muddy the water.

Ian

PerformanceSEO

09-01-2005, 03:25 PM

Without going too far off topic, I think we are bordering a discussion here about free speech. Let's not tread that far, but I will say that I have had a few clients fight websites that were dilliberately constructed to damage their reputation (paypalsucks.com, bosleymedicalviolations.com).

After years of these companies threatening law suits, fighting with the search engines for removal, and even threatening to sue the search engines themselves, their efforts were to no avail.

I have a feeling that this case is going to be no different. The internet is too new and First Constitutional Amendment is usually what ends up prevailing in these types of situations.

Mikkel deMib Svendsen

09-01-2005, 03:27 PM

Take a closer took at my wording: "I would not be afraid for a second to host every word that was put on Arons blog" - I don't think anyone else should (especially if you live in the us :)) and I don't think it would help Aron if he just hosted the material here. He would most likely be held responsible no matter where the hosting is - which I think is in essense fair. You shouldn't be able to hide from the laws of your country just because you host your material at another country.

So my point was just that if we assume that I was Aron Wall, living here in Denmark, posting what Aron did (including letting the comments in) I would not have to care much if some US lawyers wanted me to take it down. At least, thats how I personally operated so far, in good faith and with no problems. After all, you can't expect me to respect every law in the world - it's plenty just to deal with the laws of one nation :)

mcanerin

09-01-2005, 04:16 PM

After all, you can't expect me to respect every law in the world - it's plenty just to deal with the laws of one nation

I hear you on that one! For example, it's illegal in some fundementalist Muslim countries to publish images of human beings (that was the rule the Taliban had, for example).

So if I posted a picture of my smiling face, or some clip art of someone answering a phone, then my website is in violation of that law. Especially if the person was female and had their face showing.

But I'm not worried about it. I *would* comply with that sort of law if I chose to do business in that country (more likely I'd choose not to do business there, but that's a separate issue).

In general, a citizen has to obey the laws of their own country, and also the laws of whatever country they are currently in, whichever is more restrictive.

This was fine in the days of horse and steamships, but gets a little complicated in the age of the internet. Where *is* a website, anyway? Is it where it's hosted, where it's viewed, where it's edited, or where the "mind and management" of it is? There are arguments for all of these positions, and nothing is written in stone yet. Personally, I would lean towards "mind and management", but there are complications regarding that. What if it's a company with 4 shareholders and they all live in different jurisdictions?

This seems off topic for the thread, but the fact of the matter is that this US lawsuit could have reprocussions for the rest of the world, just as laws and rulings in other countries will affect US law.

Read this, you might find it very interesting:

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041102thompson/

Currently, US law holds that you can't sue someone for publishing libelous information outside of the country it's published in. However, Canadian, UK and Australian law all hold that you can.

The net effect is that US companies can be sued by anyone in the world at anytime, but can't sue back. I doubt that will last long, but you can see how these types of things can cause issues.

Currently, I could post mean things about someone in the US (like TP, for example) on my website hosted in Canada and they could not touch me under US law. However, if they say anything mean back, I could sue them under Canadian law.

That's not fair, but US citizens are probably more used to being sued than Canadians, and since I don't vote Democratic OR Republican, it's not my problem or my fault :D :p

This kind of thing just goes to show that the idea of "my countries laws vs your countries laws" really is a problem when dealing with something like the internet, which is country independent.

Ian

Marcia

09-02-2005, 05:09 AM

Another friendly reminder: Please, let's keep this thread on topic about the current legal action that's pending and the pertinent issues surrounding it.

mcanerin
This seems off topic for the thread, but the fact of the matter is that this US lawsuit could have reprocussions for the rest of the world, just as laws and rulings in other countries will affect US law.Not off-topic at all! One of the most compelling issues about this current set of circumstances is the potential for impacting how online venues function, and what the implications are for downstream repercussions.

aaayoureweb

09-02-2005, 05:40 AM

I know i would not like to be sued over an honest oppinion. For instance if someone wrote a negative site review about a popular website. The owners of the site could see this as slander right?

aaayoureweb

09-02-2005, 06:15 AM

I was sifting thru the searchenginewatch resources articles and found this:
SearchKing update: preliminary injunction denied
LawMeme, Jan. 24, 2003
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=863

Google wins in getting SearchKing's preliminary injunction request denied. The judge finds that Google essentially has the right to issue opinions about web sites. A good breakdown of key issues in the ruling.

I think this helps alot.

I, Brian

09-02-2005, 02:46 PM

Did the possible discussion of a SMA-NA and SEMPO discussion go anywhere??

PerformanceSEO

09-02-2005, 03:03 PM

I know i would not like to be sued over an honest oppinion. For instance if someone wrote a negative site review about a popular website. The owners of the site could see this as slander right?

Slander is verbally stating things about someone that are false and cause damage to them. Libel is the written form of slander. Regardless, people have the ability under the First Amendment to write their own opinions.

As I mentioned previously, I had two very large clients fight this legal battle before with websites that posted negative things about them (search "paypal" and "bosley medical" on google and you'll see what I'm talking about). There isn't anything they can do about it. And trust me, those companies have more money than TP. ;)

Chris Boggs

09-02-2005, 03:23 PM

Did the possible discussion of a SMA-NA and SEMPO discussion go anywhere??

The SEMPO BOD and President are aware of this thread and working towards a statement, in my understanding.

PhilC

09-02-2005, 04:19 PM

I hope the statement is accompanied by some tangible assistance, and not just another "Life Of Brian" type 'resolution'.

tpsucks

09-03-2005, 01:00 PM

Hi, I'm the owner of trafficpowersucks.com. I was served the same papers as Aaron on the same day. I've been going through my logs for the past couple of days, which is how I came across this site.

I'm not the most financially well off person in town, and fighting this lawsuit is going to take a bit of money. If anyone has a few bucks to spare to help out my legal fund, I sure would appreciate it. I have put donation buttons on each page of my site.

Everyman

09-03-2005, 01:15 PM

Web spammer Traffic Power sues web spammer Aaron Wall (http://www.google-watch.org/gaming.html#case2)

Priceless.

Donate to Google-Watch instead. Contributions there are tax-deductible.

PhilC

09-03-2005, 01:15 PM

Hi TPS.

Is it possible that you and Aaron could work together on it. I'm sure that the cases must be defended individually, but there must be a lot of overlapping data/information that would help both of you. For instance, the suit states that "18. Plaintiff has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty and truthfulness." among other things, that, if disproved, would cause the case to collapse. A pooling of data and information ought to be a good thing. Or maybe you are already doing it.

PerformanceSEO

09-03-2005, 01:20 PM

TP, I agree with PhilC. Aaron is most likely going to have a lot of money from his donations left over. I would contact Aaron directly. I also understand that there were more people served papers for the same suit than just you and Aaron? You could possibly look into a class-action, counter-suit?

Just ideas. Good luck.

PhilC

09-03-2005, 01:36 PM

Web spammer Traffic Power sues web spammer Aaron Wall (http://www.google-watch.org/gaming.html#case2)

Priceless.

Donate to Google-Watch instead. Contributions there are tax-deductible.From Daniel Brandt's page:-

Search engine optimization (SEO) is an industry that has grown up primarily around GoogleI thought he was more knowledgable than that. Google were late into the game, and seo had been flourishing for years before they arrived. Perhaps Daniel Brandt is also a newcomer. Either way, he is lacking in knowledge. I reckon it's Brandt that grew up around Google.

But the Everyman post sidetracks the topic of this thread, which is about TP's suit against Aaron (and trafficpowersucks). It's not about whether or not Aaron wears a black or white hat.

Everyman

09-03-2005, 02:02 PM

But the Everyman post sidetracks the topic of this thread, which is about TP's suit against Aaron (and trafficpowersucks). It's not about whether or not Aaron wears a black or white hat.
It could easily be about Aaron's hat color if it goes to trial. If the court decides that SEObook is a direct competitor of Traffic Power, then this bears on the intent of the defendant's alleged behavior. The real question in this case is whether it will get thrown out because it's a nuisance suit and it's trivial. But if it goes to trial, I suspect that this will be a weaker case for Aaron because of his own black-hat techniques.

Even the Wall Street Journal referred to a lawyer who said that if Aaron is viewed as a competitor to Traffic Power, it presents a problem for him. It does not take a rocket scientist to show that Aaron uses spammy techniques, and I'm sure Traffic Power is capable of making this point. Google-Watch has already made it, and it wasn't particularly difficult.

PerformanceSEO

09-03-2005, 02:14 PM

Everyman, so what you are saying is that if Aaron was a "white hat" that he wouldn't be a competitor of TP?

I don't think the methods of Aaron's SEO has anything to do with this case. And neither will the courts. There is no question that he is a competitor. It's simple - both companies offer products/services that pertain to Search Engine Optimization. It will be more than enough for the Judge to even understand what SEO is...

PhilC

09-03-2005, 02:31 PM

It's certainly possible that the 'competitor' idea will cloud the issue briefly, but it's not something that will be significant, imo. It can be shown that the entire seo community (a community of competitors) berated TP for what they did to their clients, and that the community as a whole doesn't do anything like that with other competitors. So I really don't think that the 'competitor' angle will have much weight, other than clouding the issue briefly.

If it goes to trial, it will be down to whether or not Aaron did what TP claim he did - knowingly publish, or allow to be published, trade secrets, and knowingly publish, or allow to be published, false and defamatory comments in his blog. It's a case of either he did or he didn't, and I don't see that being a competitor makes any difference at all. He isn't going to be found guilty just because he's a competitor if he didn't actually do those things.

In seo terms, there are no trade secrets, and if the things that were written about them were actually true, then there was nothing false and defamatory written about them.

On the other hand, what trafficpowersucks published might well be seen as trade secrets. I'm referring to the images of TP's telesales pages/scripts, which I've just seen. It would be interesting to hear Ian's view on those.

tpsucks

09-03-2005, 03:01 PM

tpsucks

09-03-2005, 03:04 PM

On the other hand, what trafficpowersucks published might well be seen as trade secrets. I'm referring to the images of TP's telesales pages/scripts, which I've just seen. It would be interesting to hear Ian's view on those.

Actually, the images you are referring to were not published by me, and are nowhere on my site. I received an email from someone when I first put my site up telling me that they were on another website, some place called "Image Shack". I merely placed links to them, and commented on them. I would think that if these images were what Traffic Power was worried about, they would be suing Image Shack.

PhilC

09-03-2005, 03:20 PM

tpsucks

09-03-2005, 03:50 PM

Yes, I now see that you only link to them. I'd still be interested in Ian's thoughts about even linking to them from your particular site. For me, you didn't publish them, but I wonder if it gets a bit cloudy when you linked to them maybe knowing that they were some sort of trade secrets, or used them to berate TP when they may not even be genuine. What if it can't be proved that the pages are genuine TP scripts, and TP deny that they are theirs? I'd like Ian's take on it.

My guess is that they are the real thing, but I don't know for sure, which is why I put the following on the page: "Disclaimer: I do not know the origins of these pictures, or their veracity, all I am doing is linking to them. I personally believe they are the real thing."

If they are real, how embarassing, I wouldn't want to work at a company that gives soemthing like this out to their salesman.

mcanerin

09-03-2005, 03:57 PM

I'd like Ian's take on it.

OK :)

There was a recent case about direct media linking:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/0,2000061791,39202379,00.htm

That resulted in this thread here:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=6837

...that may be relevent. The judge ruled that by linking in that manner, you were basically using the other site as "offsite storage", which would be different from simply linking to another website, or even website page.

I believe you would generally be protected if you link to websites, but linking directly to media files without permission seems to be over the line. You would have an easier time arguing you were entitled to use the images due to issues of fair comment, journalistic freedom, etc, than hoping they would not be considered connected to you.

What makes this even more clear is that the only realistic way of seeing or finding those images is by clicking on the link from TPsucks, AFAIK. I imagine it would be relatively easy to argue that joe or jane consumer could think this is part of the tpsucks site. Many sites have multiple URL structures for various things, like forum software, ftp,etc.

Remember that just because this is my opinion, doesn't mean it's the law or even an accurate representation of the law. For one thing, this is an Australian case, so it's not authoritative in the US except for the logical parts of the reasoning. It has no legal force by itself.

But if I had to take a bet, I'd lean towards the US following suit. The reasoning is sound, IMO.

Ian

PhilC

09-03-2005, 04:02 PM

Thank Ian :) I was about to post this, and I'll still post it. I think it fits with your post...

I wouldn't be too overconfidant about those links, TPS. Your commentary about each page is derogatory to TP, and if it were me who linked, I'd be thinking that I ought to find a way of proving that the pages are genuine TP scripts.

Another thing. In his blog, Aaron states that TP are the creators of the fake forums, but, to the best of my knowledge, nobody established who was behind them. Personally, I came to a different conclusion at the time, which may or may not have been right. What if it wasn't TP who created them? It would amount to a false and defamatory statement, imo. It wasn't wise to write about the fake forums in that way.

Perish the thought, but it's quite possible that TP could actually win these suits.

Just out of interest, TPS:-
I believe it is common practise for telesales companies to have that kind of script. I started a sales job once and they gave me a whole book of stuff. The one thing that made me laugh was what happens after the "sales question" was posed. The book said, "The next one who speaks loses!!!" I haven't got a clue why. The book went on about it, but I'm not a salesman, and I didn't really take it in.

Everyman

09-03-2005, 04:09 PM

I don't think the methods of Aaron's SEO has anything to do with this case. And neither will the courts. There is no question that he is a competitor. It's simple - both companies offer products/services that pertain to Search Engine Optimization. It will be more than enough for the Judge to even understand what SEO is...
Courts can call expert witnesses if they don't understand something. All a witness would have to do is testify that both Traffic Power and SEObook has a commercial interest, and various techniques that each uses, in manipulating search engine rankings that were intended to be objective by the search engine.

Consider this: A nonprofit exposes dodgy web techniques. For example, the World Privacy Forum issued a detailed report in July on web scams that fool customers into paying money for credit reports that are available for free. Many techniques, including typosquatting, affiliate link farms, and so forth are described in detail. Does this amount to revealing a trade secret? No way. In fact, the FTC read the report and sent out take-down notices to 130 spammy web sites. Admittedly, this is a special case because federal law gives FTC jurisdiction over credit agencies. But it's still an example of how exposing what might be considered a trade secret is actually a public service in a different context.

Hypothetical case number two: A nonprofit, tax-exempt public charity that runs zero ads on its websites exposes dodgy SEO techniques. However, there are no federal laws involved. Does this amount to revealing trade secrets? No, it's still a public service.

Hypothetical case number three: A search engine optimizer who uses spammy techniques exposes a competitor who uses different spammy techniques. Does this amount to revealing trade secrets? It's possible, if it ever goes to trial.

All three cases involve the exposure of spammy techniques. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the exact same spammy technique was exposed in each case, and it was a technique used mainly by a single spammy SEO company. How would a judge look at the three cases?

Certainly, the intent behind the first two cases is much less suspicious, and more acceptable, than the intent behind the third case.

seobook

09-03-2005, 04:38 PM

thanks to everyone but Daniel Brandt for you thoughtful and interesting feedback and kind support.

PhilC

09-03-2005, 04:43 PM

Everyman, you are treating the seo methods that a company uses as "trade secrets", even though every method they use was well-known long before they started using them. The only secret is that they actually use them. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see that previously well-known methods could be considered to be "trade secrets" - confidential information, perhaps, but not trade secrets.

If the "trade secret" is that they use well-known methods that are likely to get their clients banned from the search engines, and people are not allowed to write about it, then there's something terribly wrong with the laws concerning trade secrets, and I doubt that there is something wrong with those laws.

My understanding is that a trade secret is something that would give a competitor an advantage - as the suit says. E.g. the formula for a soft drink, a new shape of car that a manufacturer is in the process of producing, and things like that, but not things like an seo company using auto-redirecting doorway pages and sites, and stealing other sites' content for the pages.

PhilC

09-03-2005, 05:18 PM

Interestingly, those fake forums have been removed. When did they disappear? One of the domains shows signs of activity starting just over a month ago - there are stats files there, but no forum. The usage is the same as what I've just been doing - wandering around the directories and stats files.

Everyman

09-03-2005, 05:58 PM

Everyman, you are treating the seo methods that a company uses as "trade secrets", even though every method they use was well-known long before they started using them. The only secret is that they actually use them. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see that previously well-known methods could be considered to be "trade secrets" - confidential information, perhaps, but not trade secrets. If all these techniques are so obvious, then please tell me how Aaron gets Yahoo to report 140,000 external backlinks for his blog (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.seobook.com+-site%3Awww.seobook.com).

Harvard has 251,000 external backlinks, and Yale has 242,000. Poor Webmasterworld has only 128,000. Why does Aaron's blog have 140,000? Isn't this a bit suspicious? Can I do this for my sites? How do I do it? Should I buy The SEO Book to find out? Somehow I doubt that the answer is in there.

Aaron is a web spammer.

Brad

09-03-2005, 06:06 PM

Aaron is a web spammer.

Heh, just about everyone in here with more than 100 posts could be called a spammer of some stripe - probably is - they all have guilty looks on their faces. hehe

Added: I just noticed I nave under 100 posts. D'oh!

PhilC

09-03-2005, 06:09 PM

I believe you mean that Aaron is a search engine spammer, Daniel, since there is no such thing as a "Web spammer".

There are plenty of search engine spammers around, Daniel, but I fail to see what that has to do with Traffic Power suing Aaron. And I fail to see what his backlinks have to do with it either. However, I do believe that I see an attitude.

If you are talking about pots and kettles, then you are way off. It was said earlier in the thread that the criticism that TP attracted was because what they did to their clients, they did without their clients' knowledge of the risks, and without their clients' agreement to take the risks. All colours of hats condemned them for it.

I think it would be better if you stuck to the actual topic.

<added>
Btw, you do know that the Yahoo! backlinks search is broken, don't you? There's no need to answer that, as it really is off-topic.

Everyman

09-03-2005, 06:31 PM

Yahoo's backlink figures were flaky for some sites for a time last month. But as far as Aaron's backlinks go, I've been tracking that one on Yahoo for 12 months. They have been consistent, as have Harvard's and Yale's.

Yes, Google is worthless for most counts. But Yahoo's figures, if they've been fairly consistent over a period of 12 months, are the best we've got. Obviously, there is no way to verify any numbers over 1,000 in either Yahoo or Google. That means Aaron's count of 140,000 is something that I'm unable to verify.

This thread is very much about web spam. One spammer is suing another spammer. A spammer is someone who generates sites, pages, or links for the purpose of ranking. How can this thread not be about web spam? Everyone is talking about sending donations to Aaron. Why donate to one spammer who is getting sued by another spammer?

tpsucks

09-03-2005, 06:38 PM

And what do you consider trafficpowersucks? I haven't made a penny on that site. I've been contacted by several companies offering me money to put their banners or ads up. I turned them all down. The one and only goal in having that site up was to get my money back from Traffic Power.

PhilC

09-03-2005, 06:44 PM

Yahoo!'s backlinks search is still broken. I have 96,900 for the domain, and yet I have 60,500 for the home page and 56,200 for an internal page. You see? It's still broken and unreliable - as if that matters to this discussion.

But the discussion isn't about one spammer suing another spammer. It's about an seo company, who abused their clients, suing an seo for publishing the facts as he saw them.

Everyman

09-03-2005, 07:18 PM

PhilC: External backlinks, not external + internal. Your external backlinks are 6,910 for your home page. Aaron has twenty times your number. Look at my link above to see how to do external backlinks.

tpsucks: I think your defense has merit. If you can prevail as a class action, then you may be able to interest the Federal Trade Commission in the SEO industry.

Both issues have to do with consumer protection and false advertising. But as we all know, government agencies are usually about five years behind the times.

dannysullivan

09-05-2005, 09:33 AM

Ian had pulled some posts for review earlier, which I've now reviewed. I've restored virtually all of them with some very slight edits in a few cases. I've also since deleted some additional posts. I'm tempted to close the thread, but I'd like to let it run a bit longer with these ground rules.

1) Be polite to each other. Don't make statements assuming that people have preset motives or side-remarks about hidden agendas and the like. If you feel someone is going to do something to some personal agenda, rather than to the benefit of overall discussion, contact a moderator rather than posting it to the thread.

2) Enough discussion of tactics by Traffic Power. How exactly TP operated obviously has some relevancy to the "trade secrets" accusation of the thread. We've had plenty of that now, and this thread isn't going to devolve into a further dissection of how the company operated then or now. I posted on this before, and I don't want to have to come back. In short, that aspect of the debate has been examined. Don't rehash it.

3) Enough discussion of tactics by Aaron Wall. Aaron's own activities have relevance in that TP itself has positioned him as a competitor perhaps with his own agenda. We've now had an exploration of that, and just as with TP activities, we don't need the thread to further devolve down that line.

4) Further to points 2 and 3, the main exception we'll have on revisiting tactics is if either Traffic Power or Aaron Wall wishes to respond to points.

5) If you make accusations, back them up in some way within your posts. As Ian posted before:

Opinions - OK
Facts - OK
Opinions dressed as facts - Bad

Make it clear what you are saying -- your opinion or a fact -- and if it's a fact, back it up.

PerformanceSEO

09-05-2005, 10:05 PM

I think it's futile (and borderline insulting) to compare Aaron and Traffic Power in any way other than the fact that they are in the same Industry. Aaron isn't the one who has faced a class action law suit from his customers, or has hundreds of complaints against him with the BBB, or is changing his name over and over in efforts to shake his past. Aaron is simply putting out a book for the public to buy or not buy. And if his book suggests SEO tactics that don't work or create damage to peoples' businesses, then people will simply stop buying his book. Therefore, it's in Aaron's best interest to offer something that works in efforts to sell more books (aka: creating more business). As it should be for any legitimate and ethical SEO...or any company for that matter.

Marcia

09-06-2005, 02:28 AM

I think it's futile (and borderline insulting) to compare Aaron and
Traffic Power in any way other than the fact that they are in the same
Industry. It isn't even borderline insulting, it's untrue, inaccurate, libelous and damaging. Nothing borderline about it, it's completely without any foundation whatsoever and is about the worst type of comparison that could possibly be made.

PhilC

09-06-2005, 06:32 PM

Another thing. In his blog, Aaron states that TP are the creators of the fake forums, but, to the best of my knowledge, nobody established who was behind them. Personally, I came to a different conclusion at the time, which may or may not have been right. What if it wasn't TP who created them? It would amount to a false and defamatory statement, imo. It wasn't wise to write about the fake forums in that way.I'm still concerned about this. In his blog, Aaron stated that "Traffic Power & 1P Launch Fake SEO Forums". Either that was true, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then isn't it "false and defamatory information" (quoted from the lawsuit)?

At the time of the fake forums, several of us tried to get to find out who was behind them - I spoke to one of the hosts, where I met a brick wall. So it appeared to us that there was no way we could find out who was behind them without some legal action. It seems to me that Aaron went with the flow of forum discussions, and reported that it was TP/1P who created them - and that concerns me about Aaron's case. And it concerns me more because there may be other statements in his blog that were assumed to be true, but could turn out to be false, or unprovable.

Also, I'm still concerned about the commentaries that tpsucks wrote about those script pages (graphics). If he can't prove that they really are copies of TP's telesales scripts, then he may well be standing on thin ice by defending the suit.

Is it only me that's concerned about those things, or am I barking up the wrong trees?