RTMark admin on Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:50:42 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> RE: FW: How about this

You have a "sense" about our "openness," and this is of course not a court
of law ("Your Honor, my opponent is being polemical, and I have a sense" 
wouldn't fly), so you have the right to remain silent and not answer our
questions. But needing answers, we have interpreted your response to mean
the below; to show whether you agree or disagree, you may simply nod yes
or no: 


We are not terrible people, we Autodesk folk. We have wives or husbands or
even same-sex partners, we have kids, some have pets, some of us own our
own homes and want to own bigger homes, we all own a car or two we have to
make payments on. We're just your basic American folk, white or black or
otherwise colored, living in the U.S.A. and doing what we believe to be
right by God and country and wife/husband/lover.

Now in order to feed that wife/husband/lover, and the kids, and make all
those payments, we have to make money. So do Autodesk shareholders. 
Autodesk is a machine to make money for its shareholders, and there's a
whole lot of money involved, and fortunately for our pocketbooks, we've
been hired by Autodesk to help them out with this mighty big task. It's a
win-win situation for us and the Autodesk shareholders.

Now we--here I'm talking as Autodesk, not as me and my friends--have some
trademarks. They're very important to us, because they're important to our
shareholders. If they gets "diluted," we lose money, that's the thinking,
and so our stockholders get very angry. That's when we--me and my
friends--get kinda nervous. 

So when we hear about something that has a name sort of like one of our
trademarks, we jump. No matter what it is. We send a letter. We demand
things, in a legal kind of way, so it sounds like it's legal. Big things. 
Not because we're vicious, heartless, ruthless bastards, but because we
need to feed the kids and the w./h./l. and so we need to protect the damn

Sometimes we demand a lot more than we think we could get if it got
*really* legal and made it to court. We do this because there's a kind of
bargaining that happens in court, where your demands and your opponent's
demands are sort of evened out. Also, most "little people" who get these
letters just really freak out and lose it and maybe start to go crazy, and
then they buckle and just give us exactly what we're asking for right
away. That's because it's super, super, super expensive to actually fight
things all the way through a court case, and everyone knows that, and
hardly anyone's willing to risk their life's savings and more--even for
years of hard work or whatever it is we're trying to take. (etoy was
eventually paid the $40,000 it cost to defend their domain against eToys,
but who can front that kind of money? So that's the second reason we
threaten as if we were bastards: it's a kind of feint, a fake punch, a
jousting little SLAPP.) 

So listen, you big ornery not-open terrorists: we're just following the
law, just doing as much as the good people of the U.S.A., human and
corporate, have said we're allowed to, while we do what we have to, which
is making a buck to feed the husband/wife/lover and pay off the car and
the house and the kids' education. What's wrong with that?


Is that right, Mr. Konopken? All you have to do is nod or shake your head. 
Then we will answer that last question there. (Oh, and please specify
which head is being shaken/nodded, so we know who our audience is.)

Bringing IT to YOU.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 martin.konopken@autodesk.com wrote:

> We did receive a swarm of e-mail complaints, and, as I explained to Mr.
> Anderson when he told me the problem had been long-since resolved, the
> writers apparently were not aware of his subsequent actions.  I'm sure you
> will not dispute that your questions have a polemical tone and I have the
> sense you are not open to listening to our side of the story.  This is your
> right.  We've tried to respond fully and people will have to make up their
> own minds about the matter.  I appreciate your making the space on your site
> for Autodesk's response.  Thanks.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTMark admin [mailto:admin@rtmark.com]
> Sent: February 09, 2000 2:56 PM
> To: martin.konopken@autodesk.com
> Subject: RE: FW: How about this
> "You"--actually, the outside firm of Hickman, Stephens, Coleman &
> Hughes--demanded on Jan. 27 that Mr. Anderson relinquish control of the
> domain and identity, The3DStudio.com, which he had worked for months to
> build up. "You" demanded he do this within 15 days. 
> In the subsequent days Mr. Anderson tells us that he, as well as many
> users of The3DStudio.com who were immediately made aware of this very
> frightening situation, wrote "you" (Hickman and Autodesk) many urgent
> e-mails explaining the situation in detail and begging you to lay off.
> Apparently neither he nor any of the other writers received the slightest
> response from anyone at Hickman or Autodesk as the day-count rose
> towards 15. 
> When a corporation like Autodesk demands that a person like Mr. Anderson
> give up within 15 days a big part of what he has worked very hard to build
> during the last several months, and then the corporation maintains a stony
> silence as the days creep towards the declared execution date, can you be
> surprised when it is taken as a declaration of war, to be taken quite
> seriously and acted upon with immediacy? 
> I do not think your excuses for not responding ("I was out of town until
> the night of February 5, my remote e-mail was not working, and I didn't
> know he had responded to the earlier letter") are valid, given the very
> intense, aggressive and frightening wording of "your" threat, nor given
> the fact that there are many, many employees at Autodesk who could have
> responded--like the one ("The Super-user <rootcsh2@autodesk.com>") who
> finally did, Saturday, when RTMark came into the picture. Why did that
> person, whoever he or she is, not respond sooner to earlier pleas?
> And why did "your" initial letter demand that Mr. Anderson relinquish the
> domain and identity, The3DStudio.com, whereas the very conciliatory note
> from "The Super-user" said the issue was a "3D model on the
> www.the3dstudio.com web site"--an issue that Mr. Anderson says he took
> care of the very day it was brought to his attention two months ago? 
> Why does "The Super-user" refer to "the 3D model," whereas you make it
> seem like there were a swarm? 
> "The Super-user":
> >We are favorable to the steps taken by Mr. Anderson (removing the 3D
> >model on the www.the3dstudio.com web site which had the ownership
> >issues 
> You:
> >We had been bombarded with flame mails accusing
> >us of copyright infringement on our website, which 
> >actually wasn't ours but Mr. Anderson's. Because of 
> >the name confusion our reputation was being severely 
> >damaged. Hence the letter from the outside lawyer.
> Was it "the 3D model," and were you "favorable to the steps" (taken months
> before "your" legal threat of January 27)... or were you being
> "bombarded," still, on January 27, so that your "reputation was being
> severely damaged"? There seem to be two rather different versions here. 
> If there was only "the 3D model" and you were "favorable to the steps"
> (taken months before), as "The Super-user" says, why the threat from
> Hickman et al?
> Is "The Super-user <rootcsh2@autodesk.com>" a lawyer? Or is he or she
> telling the story from a different point of view, with a different
> audience in mind? Seeing this as a "story," with "audiences," would
> explain the different versions, at least.
> Please let us know your answers.
> RTMark
> http://rtmark.com/
> Bringing IT to YOU.
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 martin.konopken@autodesk.com wrote:
> > You've asked why we didn't send Mr. Anderson another letter before
> February
> > 7.  I was out of town until the night of February 5, my remote e-mail was
> > not working, and I didn't know he had responded to the earlier letter. I
> > called him Monday when I got into the office.  No one was waiting to be
> > threatened.  I had instructed our outside attorney, Mr. Hughes, to take no
> > action during the week I was away so that Mr. Anderson would have time to
> > respond.  Mr. Anderson's reply would have been responded to on Monday in
> any
> > event.  I realize things move quickly in the internet age, but even these
> > days people leave town for a few days and aren't able to catch up until
> they
> > return to the office.        
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: RTMark admin [mailto:admin@rtmark.com]
> > Sent: February 09, 2000 12:17 PM
> > To: martin.konopken@autodesk.com
> > Cc: webmaster@the3dstudio.com
> > Subject: Re: FW: How about this
> > 
> > 
> > Those e-mails will be posted shortly. Matthew Anderson sent them to us, we
> > just haven't had time to post them. Your e-mail below will be posted as
> > well.
> > 
> > Please clarify if possible:
> > 
> > > I'd like to state for the
> > > record that we reached agreement with Mr. Anderson because after talking
> > > with him it was clear that he was acting in good faith and shared our
> > > interest in reaching a reasonable solution.
> > 
> > Was your first contact with Mr. Anderson Monday, February 7? If so, why
> > wasn't contact made sooner? If you were indeed open to "a reasonable
> > solution," wouldn't the normal thing have been to write to him, rather
> > than wait to be threatened by RTMark?
> > 
> > http://rtmark.com/
> > Bringing IT to YOU.
> > 
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 martin.konopken@autodesk.com wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I've noticed your site contains an e-mail trail about the
> the3dstudio.com
> > > matter but doesn't include the e-mail below.  I'd like to state for the
> > > record that we reached agreement with Mr. Anderson because after talking
> > > with him it was clear that he was acting in good faith and shared our
> > > interest in reaching a reasonable solution.  I made clear to him that
> the
> > > reason we took action was because we were being accused by numerous
> people
> > > of wrongfully using their copyrighted images on our website, that site
> > being
> > > the3dstudio.com which of course is Mr. Andersons, not ours.  Mr.
> Anderson
> > > explained that the images were put up inadvertently and that he had long
> > > since corrected the error, and I responded that apparently quite a few
> > > people had not yet learned of his corrective action and were confusing
> his
> > > site with ours. When that was cleared up we reached an agreement to
> > resolve
> > > the matter in a way that will avoid this kind of confusion in the
> future.
> > It
> > > would be a mistake to assume that Autodesk would respond favorably to
> > > threats to shut down its website if we believed that someone was dealing
> > > with us maliciously or in bad faith.
> > > 
> > > Thank you,
> > > 
> > > Martin M. Konopken
> > > Senior Corporate Counsel
> > > Autodesk, Inc.
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Martin Konopken 
> > > Sent: February 07, 2000 10:07 AM
> > > To: 'matco@fc.uhaul.com'
> > > Subject: RE: How about this
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Matthew,
> > > 
> > > Your disclaimer looks fine.  Once it's up I'll find out who does the
> > linking
> > > on the ktx.com site here and tell him/her that the link should be
> > restored.
> > > I hope when you describe the resolution of all this you will let people
> > know
> > > that despite the misunderstandings caused by the tone of legal-sounding
> > > language, we're not really bullies but just trying to protect our
> > > reputation.  When we started getting flame mail from people who thought
> > your
> > > site was ours and that we had misused their copyrighted work, we got
> very
> > > concerned.  The people flaming us obviously didn't know that we weren't
> > you,
> > > and that you had already fixed the problem.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your cooperative attitude about all this--I'm glad we were
> able
> > > to work things out so quickly.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > Martin Konopken
> > > Senior Corporate Counsel
> > > Autodesk, Inc.
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: matco@fc.uhaul.com [mailto:matco@fc.uhaul.com]
> > > Sent: February 07, 2000 9:54 AM
> > > To: martin.konopken@autodesk.com
> > > Subject: How about this
> > > Importance: High
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Martin-
> > > 
> > > Check out the attached file, it is the main part of my home page....the
> > > formatting isn't all there because my site is all done in a database not
> > > just HTML so the text will be Arial and will be white on black (not
> black
> > > on white like it is here). Other than that it will be the same.
> > > 
> > > Let me know what you think, or if you want any changes made.
> > > 
> > > Also, if this is good I will make it live shortly, but I also want your
> > > word that ktx.com will add a link to my site on their learning page
> where
> > > it was before all of this happened. I will be printing the outcome on
> page
> > > when that link is in place again and will then notify the people at RTM.
> > > 
> > > Please reply ASAP so I know you got this.
> > > 
> > > Thank you,
> > > Matthew Anderson
> > > www.the3dstudio.com
> > > 
> > 

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net