Traffic Power Files Suit Against SEO Book

[bragadocchio]

Anyone have a way to record a phone conversation?

That may not be a good idea. In many states, it is against the law to record a phone conversation without first gaining the consent of all parties to the call. In some states, it's required that at least one party consent to being recorded.

[hoyaguru]

If you had thousands of customers, and something you were doing was getting them banned from Google, would you know it? Traffic Power told their customers that they had been banned from Google because of Google's re-indexing, but I'm guessing they had to know what was really going on. I'd like to hear what real SEO's think about this.

[Jill Whalen]

Oh you would know it if you were doing things that TP was doing.

[BradBristol]

Most of the employees could very well not have know what is going on (my own employees are rather clueless about most management issues).

But the idea that management did not really know what was going on is, for me, more than a little hard to believe.

As a matter of fact, it looks very much to me like TP(Toilet Paper) Management was directing the action rather closely at all times.

[PhilC]

It's quite possible that some of the employees didn't know TP's seo methods - I mean the people doing the cold-calling. The people who actually did the seo work were (are) freelancers from all over the place.

[hoyaguru]

Is there anywhere online that has a bio or something of Matt Cutts, to prove that he works for Google?

[Marcia]

Is there anywhere online that has a bio or something of Matt Cutts, to prove that he works for Google?

You are kidding of course.

http://www.google.com/services/libra...ewsletter.html

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Is there anywhere online that has a bio or something of Matt Cutts, to prove that he works for Google?

I can verify, along with many others in here, that Matt does indeed work for Google

[AussieWebmaster]

LOL.... that is classic... Matt really works for Yahoo! - though Larry and Sergei don't know....

[hoyaguru]

Originally Posted by Marcia

You are kidding of course.

http://www.google.com/services/libra...ewsletter.html

Nope, not kidding. Can't just go in to court and say he works for Google, you have to be able to prove it.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by hoyaguru

Nope, not kidding. Can't just go in to court and say he works for Google, you have to be able to prove it.

Well next time I talk to him I will take a picture of his work pass....

[hoyaguru]

Originally Posted by AussieWebmaster

Well next time I talk to him I will take a picture of his work pass....

That would be great, let me know if you do that, just send the picture to webmaster@trafficpwoersucks.com.

[dannysullivan]

Is there anywhere online that has a bio or something of Matt Cutts, to prove that he works for Google?

Marcia's link to an official Google newsletter citing Matt as an employee should be proof enough. But even if you didn't have that, you could submit to a court that Matt is a well known Google employee, and your sworn statement would likely be accepted as a fact unless the other side wanted to dispute it (which they wouldn't, since it is indeed a true fact).

Put it another way. It would be like you going to court saying President Bush is president of the United States. You wouldn't need to provide proof. It's an easily verifiable fact that no one is going to dispute.

[mcanerin]

There is a legal doctrine of "Judicial Notice", where, for example, if a defendent says that the sky was blue, that the lawyers do not then have to go into detail proving the blueness of the sky. The judge takes judicial notice of the fact.

This isn't quite as obvious, but it's not something that is likely to be disputed, and if TP disputed it, it would make them look like they are attempting to waste the courts time.

For one thing, since Matt himself is not on trial, the court will not automatically assume he's a liar when his blog (the same one that has the TP post) states clearly that he's an employee, and is making a statement with the permission of Googles lawyers. Challenging that would be calling Matt a liar. He could sue

Bottom line, if TP challenged it, the evidence would be overwhelmingly harmful to them. They'd be better off trying to minimize Matt's importance, rather than bringing his qualifications in question.

If I was defending TP, I'd stipulate it and move quickly on. If I was defending Aaron or TPSucks, I'd strike up the band.

Ian

[Jill Whalen]

Ian, couldn't/wouldn't they just call Matt as a witness? Or get a statement from him anyway?

[AussieWebmaster]

This is one of the slowest processes I have seen lately.... maybe they are dragging their feet as they know it is not a winable position.

[hoyaguru]

Originally Posted by AussieWebmaster

This is one of the slowest processes I have seen lately.... maybe they are dragging their feet as they know it is not a winable position.

Well, the fact that TP filed a lawsuit, and the lawyer who filed it had no idea what he was suing TPSucks for, held things up a bit. Then 6 months later, TP's new lawyer (don't know if the first one was fired or if he quit) had to request a 30 day extension to come up with reasons to sue. Seems to me that the process was a little backwards, I think generally you have to have a reason to sue someone in order to file a lawsuit, you can't file and then try to come up with reasons for the lawsuit, but that's what happened. The court date is March 1st now, but I'm guessing there will be more delays. The defense against the claims that were filed will rpobably take several days to go through, as it is quite a lot of information. Then TP's lawyer will likely ask for another extension. Personally I don't see why they are even persuing this any more, Matt Cutts' admission of the banning pretty much proves that TP is the bad guys in all of this, I would think the judge would see that and know where the blame lies, and hopefully just throw the whole thing out.

[ewc21]

Now that the case filed by TP against SEO Book has been dismissed , I wonder what are their next moves.

[PhilC]

The TP Sucks case is still active.