Traffic Power Files Suit Against SEO Book

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by aaayoureweb

I used to work for "TP" also known as "1P" there was no telesales scripts that we read from that was online or on a computer. Our scripts were written on a notebook by us. In our training class they may have given us paper copies but our job was to contact business who ran ads on the right hand side of googles result pages and we read from a script that was given to us in our training class for telesales. This was of January this past year.

This is a timely arrival... hope you hang around and the TP mob does not make you disappear!

[Marcia]

There is a lot flying around by different camps who have differing perspectives, including comments by those who don't do SEO or who have non-commercial sites as such and who may be "anti-commercial sites" from a personal point of view, believing that informational sites should rank higher.

There are many of those people around, and to many of them, any who attempt SEO for any commercial sites in any manner may be considered spammers. In those cases, the source needs to be considered, same as with any of the other camps surfacing who have personal issues or perspectives of different types that can interfere with a reasonable evaluation of what the broader implications are.

There are those who believe that there are critical issues being raised by this action that are beyond the scope of any individuals or companies, and this article from Wired News is touching on some of those issues

Legal Showdown in Search Fracas

The SEO issues in the claims are covered by the quotes from Greg Boser

Not surprisingly, Traffic-Power.com's attack has also rankled some of Wall's peers. Greg Boser of WebGuerrilla, a search marketing consultancy, points out that it's impossible to protect a search engine optimization trade secret because "the secret is in the HTML code that gets published on a publicly accessible web server."

As for the libel portion of the lawsuit, Traffic-Power.com would have to show it had a good reputation within the industry that was damaged, and that Wall published damaging information he knew to be false.

"The fact that Traffic-Power is the same company that got banned from Google pretty much establishes the fact that they do not have a good reputation to protect," Boser said. And how could Traffic-Power.com prove that Wall made up a bunch of lies with the intent to damage its reputation "when there are literally hundreds of independent posts/websites on the internet that have published the exact same thing?"

The most potent implication, that of retention of civil liberties, is covered in this quote:

Kurt Opsahl, an Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney focusing on civil liberties, free speech and privacy law, agrees. Traffic-Power.com's lawsuit "appears ripe for an anti-Slapp motion," which, if successful, would strike it down. Slapp stands for "strategic lawsuits against public participation" -- suits that have no merit but are brought by companies to silence critics by forcing them to burn through money to pay for legal defense.

[PhilC]

The content of the first quote has been covered in this thread, Marcia. The ideas that there are no trade secrets in seo, and that TP would have needed to have had a good reputation at the time for it to be damaged, were posted earlier.

The second quote may be correct, but it may also be that the person quoted has little knowledge of the finer details. For instance, he may think that TP was behind the fake forums, as many people do but nobody proved, or he may not even be aware of the fake forums issue. He may only have an overview of it all.

I'm still stuck on Aaron's statements about those fake forums. If he can't prove those statements to be true, then they are "false and defamatory information", imo - even regardless of TP's reputation at the time, and regardless of the afterthought that was significantly lower down the page. I asked if that opinion is correct, but nobody replied to it. Just because a person or company is bad in some ways doesn't mean that we can make false statements about them in other ways. I'd like to hear Ian's view of it. Ian?

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here. I am thinking that there really may be genuine cases to answer, and that we are defending the situation on the grounds that (a) it's Aaron and we know him, and (b) it's Traffic Power and we know them, and not on the basis of reality. In other words, I think our views may be unrealistically biased. I hope my thinking about those blog and site comments are completely wrong, I really do, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions - especially Ian's.

[Brad]

I'm still stuck on Aaron's statements about those fake forums. If he can't prove those statements to be true, then they are "false and defamatory information", imo - even regardless of TP's reputation at the time, and regardless of the afterthought that was significantly lower down the page.

I'm no lawyer, but at some point Traffic Power will be forced to be more specific about the specific instances of alleged defamation - under oath. I assume a good lawyer can subpeona whois registration from the registrar and the hosting company. It is amazing what can come out when a good trial lawyer starts examining people under oath. The burden of proof remains on Traffic Power so they will have to prove up each and every claim.

[PhilC]

Yes, whoever was behind those forums can be discovered using the law, but my concern is what if it can't be proved that TP were 'officially' behind them? Unless the company or the owner, or somebody like that, was paying for the hosting, and if the registrant(s) can't be proved to be 'officially' TP, what then? Are those statements of Aaron's "false and defamatory information"?

[PerformanceSEO]

Marcia, thanks for including that article. In lieu of Phil's post above, it is refreshing to see objective outside reporting on the subject.

I'm sitting front row on this case. I truly hope the "anti-SLAPP" motion is called and it sends a message to SEO's with money who think they can bully and send legal threats to anyone they feel like (a la Philipp Lesson at Google Blogoscopped for reporting honestly on "another large SEO firm"). http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050506-135836

Some people think they are untouchable and they can throw legal threats around at the drop of a hat. Until one day they mess with the wrong person who has the means to open up VERY BIG cans of worms that they have been trying to keep a lid on for so long.

This case is about (honest) David and (dirty) Golaith.

[mcanerin]

I've been working with Aaron on behalf of the SMA-NA to get a law firm, but right now Aaron is out of town, so I can't/won't comment in detail on the results of that or anything related to this thread right now - it's his call.

Suffice to say I suspect the david/goliath scenario is about to be reversed.

Hey, did you know that TP's lawyer specializes in bankruptcy law? How handy...

Ian

[tpsucks]

Originally Posted by PerformanceSEO

I'm sitting front row on this case. I truly hope the "anti-SLAPP" motion is called and it sends a message to SEO's with money who think they can bully and send legal threats to anyone they feel like (a la Philipp Lesson at Google Blogoscopped for reporting honestly on "another large SEO firm"). http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050506-135836

Anti-SLAPP is different from state to state. The eff.org is working on finding out how it applies in Nevada. In the meantime, there are other ways to have someone who files a frivolous lawsuit pay for the lawyer fees and court costs, any and all of these methods will be looked into.

[I, Brian]

Did SEMPO or SMA-NA ever comment on the case, or are they preparing for when a judge rules on the matter before joining in the conversation with a public statement?

[The PR Guy]

It is the policy of SEMPO not to comment on any legal cases pending, particularly those that do not directly involve our organization. This matter in particular will be decided under existing case law relating to freedom of speech, libel/slander, and contract law. There is no compelling reason for a nonprofit group with a mission of education and market expansion to become embroiled in a legal discussion unless there is a specific reason for it such as providing expert opinion on definitions or methodologies; and if we had been solicited, then we certainly wouldn’t be able to comment.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by The PR Guy

It is the policy of SEMPO not to comment on any legal cases pending, particularly those that do not directly involve our organization. This matter in particular will be decided under existing case law relating to freedom of speech, libel/slander, and contract law. There is no compelling reason for a nonprofit group with a mission of education and market expansion to become embroiled in a legal discussion unless there is a specific reason for it such as providing expert opinion on definitions or methodologies; and if we had been solicited, then we certainly wouldn’t be able to comment.

The case is directly related to this industry and could have huge impact on what can be done in forums, blogs and even ad copy...
I would hope SEMPO and SMA wanted to be kept in the loop and also was supportive of not allowing small people to be pushed around and allow precedent to be made that would hurt the entire industry.
Part of educating and expanding markets is making sure the markets are not shackled by unwarranted lawsuits. It is cheaper to help someone now than have to fight against precedent created when a small guy cannot afford to battle and just allows a judgement.

[mcanerin]

I just blogged about the SMA-NA response to this earlier today, so rather than repeating the (as usual, long-winded and probably boring) post here, I'll just link to it: http://mcanerin.blogspot.com/2005/09...g-and-sma.html

Ian

[AussieWebmaster]

I know you have been supportive Ian.... as all Monkey Lovers have been....

[PhilC]

Originally Posted by The PR Guy

It is the policy of SEMPO not to comment on any legal cases pending, particularly those that do not directly involve our organization. This matter in particular will be decided under existing case law relating to freedom of speech, libel/slander, and contract law. There is no compelling reason for a nonprofit group with a mission of education and market expansion to become embroiled in a legal discussion unless there is a specific reason for it such as providing expert opinion on definitions or methodologies; and if we had been solicited, then we certainly wouldn’t be able to comment.

Good grief. Talk about how to win friends and influence people. That 'statement' sounds so 'superior' as to be sickening. Sorry The PR Guy, but that has to be the worst piece of PR that I've ever seen.

Ian, that's an excellent piece in your blog. And it's really good to know that at least one organisation is standing up for the 'right' with tangible support.

[tpsucks]

If anyone is interested, the same guy who wrote the article about myself and Aaron being sued by Traffic Power has written a new article about Traffic Power. I put him in touch with a bunch of Ex-Employees of Traffic Power and they gave him a bit of info on the company, you can read the article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...5Fstories%5Fhs
(requires a subscription). Aaron has soem of the article up on his SEOBook site at www.seobook.com/archives/001192.shtml. Enjoy...

[PerformanceSEO]

I read the whole article. It's the biggest slap in the face I think I've ever seen from a respectable news source...and I'm not complaining about it

I would be curious about Aaron's progress however. It seems since he posted a good portion of the article on his site, and made comments about it that perhaps a settlement was made?

[tpsucks]

Originally Posted by PerformanceSEO

I read the whole article. It's the biggest slap in the face I think I've ever seen from a respectable news source...and I'm not complaining about it

I would be curious about Aaron's progress however. It seems since he posted a good portion of the article on his site, and made comments about it that perhaps a settlement was made?

No settlement, in fact if you go to his home page and scroll down a bit, he posted the answer that his lawyer submitted for the lawsuit.

[tpsucks]

If you were unable to read the second Wall Street Journal article because it was for subscribers only, it is now up on another website where you can read the whole thing for free. Just go to http://www.startupjournal.com/ecomme...-kesmodel.html and enjoy...

[concernedcitizen]

checkout mattmarlon.com

[PerformanceSEO]

If this information is accurate, I say "well done" to whoever spent the time doing the research and posting the site.

The more this industry can expose this company, the better off we will all be.

I hear EVERY DAY - "we are hesitant to spend money on SEO because we were 'burned' in the past".