Sunday, December 02, 2007

The first rule of Dozier Internet Law is - you do not talk about Dozier Internet Law

This is old, but hilarious. I didn't realize that Dozier Internet Law's browserwrap license actually prohibited people from mentioning Dozier Internet Law:

Dozier Internet Law, P.C. has a lot of intellectual property on our site. For instance, we are the creators of all of the text on this website, and own the "look and feel" of this website. We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so. In addition, you should not make any copies of any part of this website in any way since we do not want anyone copying us. We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission, except that you must maintain the link in our Copyright Infringement Warning Button as it is designed. The name "Dozier Internet Law, P.C.", and similar derivatives of it, constitute our trademark and servicemark, and should not be used in any manner without our permission.


I guess Dozier isn't a fan of Dozier Internet Law Sucks or Dozier Internet Lawsuits, then!

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Dozier Internet Law and the language of violence

Considering the pattern unethical, if sometimes hilarious, things to come out of Dozier Internet Law, references to killing shouldn't surprise me. But they still do:

From John W. Dozier, Jr's personal blog:

Dozier Internet Law continues to monitor and evaluate developments in the law of the web. Right now it looks like the laws and decisions are continuing to catch up with the "Wild West" mentality that is so prevalent among the "scofflaws" of the web. It's good to remember that some pioneers get arrows in their backs, I guess.


I've previously analyzed Dozier's nuisance lawsuits as a form of violence at Dreaming 5GW, which led to a reply by curtis at Phatic Communion, but I believe John's words are the first that include reference to direct, life-altering bodily harm.

Weirdly, in an earlier piece, Dozier defined "sadists" bloggers as those who are the first to recommend physical violence. Granted, John didn't recommend physical violence yet... "I guess."

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Dozier Internet Law, PC: Give us seven million dollars. Stop laughing.

Dozier Internet Law, PC, those legal beagles in charge of the Cuppy's Coffee and DirectBuy catastrophes, didn't start there.

Thanks to dEarth / dx, I learned about their attempt to get seven million dollars from a website for criticizing "Manchester Who's Who."

From the article that inspired the lawsuit:

She asked, “Will you be using your membership for networking or credibility?”

I explained that I would probably be using it for both. “Being I high school drop-out, I have always had to struggle with public opinion on my credibility…”


$7,000,000. Hahaha. That's even better that "Bull," "Cyber Lawyer," or "Super Lawyer."

God bless you, John "$7,000,000" Dozier. You bring the smile to the face of everyone you threaten.

Monday, October 29, 2007

The origins of Dozier Internet Law's "intellectual property" Part 1: Javascript Code

My thanks to Freesome to demonstrating how one can view Dozier Internet Law, PC's source code without violating the terms of use. I had been relying on Slashdot's reporting, but I'll use Freesome from now on.

Because Dozier has issues with intellectual honesty, I was curious how much of the javascript (the code that is executed on your computer) is original, and thus can rightfully be copyright by Dozier. In particular, there are four javascript functions defined on the page:

function CSClickReturn
function CSAction(array)
function CSAction2(fct, array)
function MPOpenPopupLite(action)


a quick trip to Google Code Search reveals numerous pages with the first three function. For instance, they are included in this "netscape bugfix code. Dozier does not acknowledge this lifting, however.

The law firm is a bit more honest with "MPOpenPopupLite," where they provide this acknowledgement:

OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004


On a standard website, of course, this would be no big deal. But Dozier's pecular terms of use (see a description over at Public Citizen) apperas to claim exclusive rights over other people's work.