Special Page for Inventor-Link InventorEd Response To Dozier
Internet Law, P.C. Click here to break out of Frame Please Notify Us Of Any Errors Of Fact
- Click ErrorOfFact Patently Dishonest? - Have you been Scammed? Find out what to do here.
Dozier Internet Law, P.C. Demand Letter #1 InventorEd, Inc. 10-12-07 Dozier Internet Law, P.C. Donald E. Morris, Esq., My name is Ronald J Riley and I am the Executive Director of InventorEd, Inc, a 501(c)3 educational nonprofit which helps aspiring inventors navigate the treacherous waters of marketing an invention and also helps those inventors become entrepreneurs. InventorEd is just one vehicle of several which professional inventors have created to help inventors succeed. You may reference my sig. file below to learn about some of the other entities. I am responding because you have sent a rather vague and threatening letter to Penny Ballou who is the President of InventorEd's Advisory Board. Since your letter referenced InventorEd I am confident that you understood our Publication Policy and the fact that we feel the most equitable way to serve everyone's interests including those of your still anonymous clients is to publish all correspondence. We feel that such publication is the best way to give your client's views equal exposure. Understand that we receive a number of SLAPP threat letters every year. Upon receipt of such letters we routinely mobilize our members and other interested parties to help us fully understand the nature of any business making these kinds of claims with the goal of shedding as much light as possible on the issues at hand. As data is acquired we will publish it so that potential clients can make informed choices. We welcome substantive feedback on such material and will correct any clear errors of fact. Please do not again overreach, limiting your comments to actual errors of fact. Also, we have forwarded your letter to a number of other parties, including Public Citizen litigation group who has been kind enough in the past to help us address fat headed invention promoters and their henchmen. Naturally I did a search with your firm name and your name and low and behold I see we have a friend in common at Public Citizen Litigation group. I was amazed that you tried to stop publication of your lame threats by abusing copyright law. Distribution includes a number of US Federal & UK agencies and organizations who have an interest in either invention promotion or First Amendment issues. We also routinely share letters such as yours with journalists who have an interest in the important issues you have raised. This is done pursuant to our published Publication Policy. If you are not currently aware of the public policy discussions surrounding the invention promotion industry it would behoove you to look into this issue so that you may best serve Inventor-Link's interests by helping them avoid conduct which might lead to suspicion of their motives. You have made some rather broad claims about dissemination of what little information is available about Inventor-Link, and also concerning questions which have been asked and opinions rendered in light of the fact that Inventor-Link's public presence is marked by much hype and few facts. There is a huge fraudulent invention promotion industry which is collectively taking in at least $500 million dollars a year and is relieving each inventor of up to fifty thousand dollars. In light of this caution is always in order when dealing when anyone without a track record or any verifiable references starts hawking their services. I am not an attorney, so I am going to need help understanding your claims. Prior to formally requesting help from national organizations such as Public Citizen's Litigation Group I need for you to explain clearly why you think that material used under the fair use doctrine, opinions, and or the questions asked amount to libel. That means that every example you have cited must clearly state the basis of your objections in detail. Because your letter was short on citing specifics we will not respond further until after you have clarified your position. It is important that the next communication we receive from you contain more facts and less bluster. When responding recognize that as long as your response is substantive we will publish so that all interested parties fully understand Inventor-Link's position. In light of the fact that Inventor-Link's claims have been painted with an incredibly broad brush and that you are making demands which clearly go beyond correction of errors of fact, my inclination is to interpret your letter as little more than a threat of a SLAPP. If you bring a SLAPP action we will seek all remedies allowed by law, including sanctions for misuse of the process of law and we will fully avail ourselves of discovery and share as appropriate any information which enforcement agencies may find of interest. This is a serious business and it is our expectation that you and your clients will conduct yourselves accordingly. It would behoove you to carefully study all of the Caution section of www.InventorEd.org. A review of how we have disposed of other threats and/or malicious activity by invention promoters should be enlightening. One thing is certain, and that is that it is easy to pick on an individual for some well healed corporate entity but a very different animal when dealing with public spirited well connected and funded organizations. Ronald J. Riley,
Read the Caution Flags List at http://www.InventorEd.org/flaglist/ . Another information source is: Invention Marketing Companies . National Congress of Inventor Organizations (NCIO)
Site Index - Contact Us - Inventor-Link Main Page © InventorEd, Inc., Page last revised 10-12-2007
|
