If someone asks you to remove a link to their site in a post where you criticized them, I would feel uncomfortable with it, but in this case you and them are acting in good faith, just remove the link. That they used a lawyer just means they really want you to remove the link.
Edit: Uh oh, looks like this innocuous reply is not compatible with uncritical outraged HN readers looking to punish someone, anything for all the bad things Shopzilla has done to them and the world. Let the downvotes commence I guess.
It's beyond the pale (as in the paling fence surrounding a town, the pale of settlement, etc...).
I'm not defending them. I'm just trying to make sense out of it.
Anyway, I'd recommend the same thing: contact them and see if the law firm does, in fact, represent them and isn't just 'Prenda Law'ing.
And yet they are suing over a hyperlink? I'll judge them by their actions.
I've got sympathy for them here: spam sites linking to you is a serious problem. One day the spam site has (undeserved) link juice. The next, Google's ban hammer comes down and you get unfairly penalised.
http://www.clevescene.com/64-and-counting/archives/2010/12/2...
But if some company is hell bent on suing you for linking to them and you want to get mileage out of it by going to the media with the story you're going to have to weigh your options carefully. Just remove the link, problem goes away no need for legal representation and you get on with your life.
Or you milk it for all it is worth, eventually go to court and you're vindicated in your laymans interpretation of the law. Or you find that the court - for whatever reason - sides with your opponent. Now you have a problem, and don't say it can not happen, there is no such thing as a slam-dunk lawsuit.
Pick your battles, carefully and make sure that you make the right choice.
In this particular case I think the plaintiff is dead wrong, they don't have a leg to stand on but it could still cost you a lot of time, money and effort to prove that and in the end it is their loss not yours if they lose their link.
For more information:
http://searchengineland.com/in-wake-of-penguin-could-you-be-...
He mentions that they have removed the link. Datadial are able to play both sides of the game here I think; they've removed the link to placate the lawyers, but are also pointing the threat out publicly either for the media attention or because they feel they should (both are valid). Of course, I've no idea about the potential legalities involved in such naming-and-shaming...
A very strange attempt by Shopzilla in the first place to control links to them, so it would be interesting to hear their side of this story. I looked up datadial - they're a London SEO shop, and their original blog post is typical of SEO blogs - lots of links to random sites strung together into a blog post to boost their blog's ranking for that topic - ecommerce in this case. I have to wonder if this little storm in a teacup isn't more beneficial to them the more absurd it sounds and the stormier it gets - even if it dies down later the benefit will still be there for them.
It's strange to see the court of public opinion function on sites like reddit and HN - the more controversial and snappier the original post, the more traction it gets, and nuances and truth are lost in the rush to condemn based on a very limited set of facts.
It seems a bit much to me. Someone from Shopzilla responded in the comments with an apology and explanation of what had happened. Seemed good enough for me, mistakes do happen and I'd be surprised if this was started by Shopzilla with malicious intent.
I don't know if this is good enough. Isn't he basically admitting that they send out thousands of C&D orders for linking? He's just apologizing for picking on someone with the means to fight back against this bullying.
Have you thought about writing a simple letter to the solicitors saying something like "Hello, you sent us a letter. Would you like to review our webpage here to see if we actually are infringing on your client's trademark? We seem to have been caught in some automatic system."
Be careful about 'no legal reason to take down an url' - there are a few. DMCA requests, anti-deeplinking causes in ToS / AUP, etc etc. See the Shetland Times vs Shetland News.
But instead of just giving them a call (it's not difficult, they're both UK based) they're going to Streisand themselves some negative PR.
I'll wait for the statement from Shopzilla's top brass, just to see if it's ran by 1000 monkeys on computers.
Two questions:
- does that keep with the spirit of the web? - what happened to the concept of electronic freedom??
Needless to say, I think you're dead wrong.
The jurisdiction is not even the litigant-friendly US, it is the UK...
There was a case about 'deep linking' (and maybe framing?) from the early www. One Scottish news paper was linking to another Scottish newspaper.
He even wanted a public apology. I, of course, ignored all of this and he went away.
It's ridiculous what people will try to sue you about these days...
