While it could be said that nothing is fair in love, war and business, I, personally, find unethical business practices to be quite loathsome. Sometimes a company that tries to win through intimidation and questionable legal threats deserves to have the world know what they're up to.
My grandmother once gave me a piece of advice that's stuck with me- "Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." Years later, I think about that and I wonder, how many people are running their businesses with a smile on their face and a knife behind their back.
So yeah, there are plenty of times where airing dirty laundry is a shallow thing to do, but there are also times where you can finally see the true colors of a company and what they really stand for.
If someone like WP or another company is going to send a letter like this, they should operate on the assumption that it will be made public (especially if it might later end up in litigation.) That would seem to just be good practice with any document you're issuing outside of your company, especially when you're basically initiating a disagreement.
edit: Yep, sorry, I was not clear, the kind of chuckling one does when a business freely publicizes an act of stupidity that could cost them customers.
I know this is going to get down-voted, but seriously, it is 2012. Who buys a monocle? I want to buy one and wear it around as a joke.
The name of course is also a little to invented.
Nothing wrong with that but it reminds me of the way people used to name investment firms trying to sound all distinguished and "we've been around for 100 years". There are actually examples of companies that have scammed people using a particular type of made up name.
Here is how they made up the name:
When do you think this company was founded? Surely it was founded by an enterprising young frontiersman in the 1800's. 1850? 1900? Actually it was founded in 2009.
Watch this piece of work:
Marketing like this is a few steps removed from the "pet rock" of the 70's. Wrapping an everyday product in some kind of crafty acceptability. At least with the pet rock everyone knew it was a gimmick.
Edit: Think our links show the same video?
If nothing else, it is a blatant ripoff of Coudal's Field Notes.
As for the open letter, thanks for sharing the dirty laundry, that's awesome! Just kidding, I don't really see the point of sharing that publicly except for gathering some pity buys.
Someone with only one eye?
EDIT TO ADD: [. . .] and with facial disfigurement / prosthesis that makes wearing glasses uncomfortable or difficult.
This was CS's way of laying out their case. Apparently there are others who think Classic Specs pulled shenanigans, and CS need to make their position clear to those people. Note that sending a letter to them directly doesn't expose the story to the rest of the world.
If one business sends a C&D to another, then they can't expect it to be kept private. You can argue about the wisdom of posting it, or what this says about the poster's attitude; however, Classic Specs is certainly within both legal and ethical standards in doing so.
But posting a customer's personal information without permission is unacceptable.
If anyone from Classic Specs is reading this: You need to remove that P.S., and you need to remove it now.
People try this all the time; my parents constantly receive fake booking emails from competitors in order to wheedle their pricing structure out of them.
If they mentioned her name, or address, or something actually personal I'd agree with you...
(of course; the whole post makes them look like dicks, but that's another matter)
Much classier would be to have sent the glasses with a note saying "I hope you enjoy these glasses blah blah blah," and never have mentioned it in a blog post that's knocking your customer's husband's company.
Let's be honest, now... in the age of social media, Google, Facebook, etc., that cat is long since out of the bag.
PS: I'm now going to give classicspecs.com a try
Or sales volume? 389/month
Lesson? Haul-ass once you find product-market fit.
the NY Times link within the post: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/fashion/eyeglasses-on-spec...
I've been buying that style of glasses for years from goggles4u for £20 a pop. Nice and cheap, look terrible but can take some punishment.
[*] NHS = National Health Service; it's a British expression based on the fact that the only glasses covered by the NHS are the cheap, thick and most of the time unfashionable frames/lenses.
there are a lot of us out there who don't wear "hipster"ish eyeglasses that pretty much all look the same. please offer more variety.
but yeah, we need more than just bk-style :)
After today: I'll never remember either of these sites.
and yes... the final dig was pretty funny.
Ray Tsai (蔡瑞芳), one of Taiwan's pioneers in laser eye surgery, said yesterday that he will no longer perform the procedure because it violates his medical ethics.
He has observed situations in which visual acuity worsens suddenly and rapidly long after the LASIK procedure itself.
There are situations in which medical procedures fail, sometimes immediately, sometimes many years after the fact. That does not indicate a problem with the procedure.
My assumption was that if there were long-term negative side effects, corneal replacement (or complete eye replacement) would become feasible within a decade or two. Corneal transplants are already done (using cadavers), and I don't think synthetic corneas are more than a few billion in research funding away with current tech.
It shows just how deceptive selective phrasing can be. "Substantially identical" implies that the text was a copy of copyrighted material, but the selectivity is the bias- they never show that the text was copyrighted or copyrightable, for instance.
You see this a lot when people want to spin something and they are very careful about what they say to give a false impression. I can think of lots of examples, but probably the best is every evenings nightly news. Whatever the story they are covering, political or not, they are putting spin on it. Even if the spin is just to heighten ratings or make the station itself look prestigious, its always there. Yet people live in a perception of reality where they think this is objective information, many times.
Imagine if that lawyers letter had been a blog post about how some YC startups website was ripped off? (much like the complaint 37 signals had about being ripped off...) that article would be the top post, and the rebuttals would be spread out thru the comments, and missed by most people.
What do you mean "they never show that the text was copyrighted"? Do you know what is required to copyright content? There is no office where you file a copyright application. Using a (c) and/or other types of copyright notices is optional in a post-Berne American court.
 Is there a way to download the pdf of an embedded scribd asset? Reading the document is painful...
Copyright is given de facto, but there is in fact an office where you file for a registered copyright.
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration...
If you're going to imply someone isn't reading what they wrote, the least you can do is read what they wrote.
That content can't be a mere statement of fact, for one.
1) The original comment you replied to noted that the lawyers making the allegations did not show that the text was copyrightable. This is a reference to the article pointing out that some of the text in question consists of mere statements of fact.
2) You replied with a sarcastic rhetorical question about whether the commentor knew what was required to be protected by copyright.
3) I replied to you that the content can't be mere statement of fact. This is the relevant characteristic in determining whether that content could be protected by copyright, not whether it was registered with the copyright office.
4) You got confused and started talking about the style of legal letters.