|
The
January 2, 2007
VIA REGISTERED AND CERTIFIED MAIL
**SLAPP Threat
Victim's Name**
**Advocacy Group Name**
**Street**
**City, State, Zip**
|
Re: |
False & Confidential
Information Regarding IP&R / Amazing Innovations on
**Name** Website. |
Dear **SLAPP
Threat Victim's Name**,
I am writing as general counsel for Inventors'
Publishing and Research LLC / Amazing Innovations ("IP&R"),
as encouraged by your **Name** Terms and Rules to give you notice of
postings on your Forum that are each false, defamatory, inaccurate,
malicious, and unlawful in a number of ways
(1). Several persons claiming to be former
employees of IP&R
have posted such information about
IP&R on the
**Redacted**.
The first post relating to
IP&R was made
on or about September 19, 2006 by username "Former
IP&R employee"
and is entitled "Ip&r
Is a Scam!, Former
IP&R Employee." We have identified the writer of this post
as **Whistle Blower Name**. This post contains numerous
falsehoods, unsubstantiated rumors and misleading exaggerations
presented as fact. (2) These
statements constitute "trade libel". (*) (Mann v. Quality Old
Time Service, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 328, 340.) In
addition, to the extent that the information about
IP&R's
operations and/or sales data in this posting is accurate, revealing
it constitutes a breach of confidentially under **Whistle Blower
Name** employment agreement. (3)
Please see the enclosed copy of my letter to **Whistle Blower Name**
in this regard.
False accusations of criminal conduct are defamatory
per se. (Cal. Civil Code ##44-46;
Fisher v. Larson 1982 138 Cal.App.3d 627.) Her effort to keep
others from doing business with
IP&R
also constitutes unlawful interference with
IP&R's
existing contracts and/or with its business prospects.
(5) (Pacific Gas &
Electric Co, v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118.) Her
conduct also violates California's Unfair Competition Law.
(cal. Business & Professions Code ##17200, et seq.)
In
addition to **Whistle Blower Name**
there are two (2) other users of the same Forum section who
we have not identified (6)
certainty, who claim to be former employees of
IP&R:
"inventorman" and "InventorGuard." Just like the first
posting, these two postings contain numerous falsehoods,
unsubstantiated rumors and misleading exaggerations
presented as fact (7).
Woven in with these libelous remarks are true statements
that reveal
IP&R's
confidential business methods (8)
Page 2 of 3
**SLAPP
Threat Victim's Name**
January 2, 2007
and data. Assuming they
were employees of IP&R , these two users must have signed
confidentially agreements as a condition of employment.
Therefore, these postings constitute unlawful breaches of
their promises to
IP&R.
(9)
Inventerman and InventorGuard
have gone even further than **Whistle Blower Name** by
naming individuals at IP&R, such as Steve Barbarich and Ajay
Gupta, and by posting false and defamatory per se statements
about those persons (10).
Those two posting also lump
IP&R
in with several invention promotion companies (some of which
have been investigated, fined and otherwise reprimanded by
public agencies) (11)
as examples of fraudulent businesses. This association
is both improper and unfair as to
IP&R.
(12)
InventorGuard's posting also
contains inaccurate data regarding
IP&R's
success rate and inaccurately states the result of his own
calculation using his own data.
(13) he states that
IP&R's
"licensing rate is approximately .0077%." Adding,
"This percentage is well below the average of 1%....."
IP&R's
actual rate is 4.2% and by his own calculation, the rate
should be 0.77%. Both of these postings go beyond
merely posting their opinions and accurate information for
the benefit of inventors. They display their personal
animus by advocating that
IP&R
be shutdown (14) and
requesting help to "put these guys out of business." I
strongly suspect that both of these users are also
competitors of
IP&R
(15) who have used your
Forum as an instrument of unlawful and Unfair Competition as
defined in California's Business & Professions Code ##17200,
et seq.
As these three users no doubt
intended, the publication of these false statements has
caused economic injury to
IP&R
and has inspired others to post similarly false statements
about IP&R
in the same forum, compounding the damage to
IP&R.
(16)
Now that you are aware of
these issues affecting your Forum, we ask
(17) that you take immediate action to remove the
entire thread begun by **Whistle Blower Name**, since it is
all derivative of her posting. If that is not
possible, at least the three offending postings by those who
claim to be former employees must be removed from all
locations on the site(s) you control.
IP&R
is also entitled to publication of an acceptable retraction
and apology (18) for the
damage we have already sustained.
If the offending material is
not immediately removed, we demand that you stop protecting
the identities (19) of
inventorman and InventorGuard, and provide them to me so
that we can pursue directly that which you will not resolve
indirectly (20).
This letter does not constitute a complete or
exhaustive statement of all of
IP&R's rights
or claims against you or your users (21).
Nothing stated herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to
constitute, a waver or relinquishment of any rights or remedies,
whether legal or equitable
IP&R will use
all legal means to protect its reputation in the business community,
and it expressly reserves all rights and remedies it may have.
(22)
Page 3 of 3
**SLAPP
Threat Victim's Name**
January 2, 2007
Please
(23) confirm your agreement
to comply with
IP&R's
requests by removing the offending materials and signing
this letter below and returning it to me on or before
January 9, 2007.
Sincerely,
INVENTORS'
PUBLISHING & RESEARCH
Signed:
Anthony R. Flores, Esq.
I represent that I have taken
the steps necessary to remove the postings on my **SLAPP
Threat Victim's Name** **** Forum made by the three persons
who claim to be former employees of
Inventor's
Publishing & Research. I also agree that I will
prevent or upon notice, immediately remove, future postings
of the same nature regarding
IP&R
or its affiliates. (24)
Place of signature
**SLAPP
Threat Victim's Name**
|
(1)
This is a bit long on hype and short on
facts. The facts are that InventorEd has also heard
from both employees and clients who feel victimized and
their stories have been consistent with what the referenced
ex-employees have said.
(2) Sorry
Mr. Anthony R. Flores, Esq. but your claims are
unsubstantiated and as far as we know you have libeled the
party which you allege made the post. For that reason
we have redacted the name.
(3)
Why would the public care if there is a
breach? And what makes Anthony R. Flores, Esq. think
that he has any right under the law to compel a party who is
not under contract to help him silence a whistle blowing
ex-employee? This kind of bluff is in our opinion an
abuse of the process of law.
Also, no one is prevented by a civil
contract from bringing wrongdoing, especially when such is
contrary to law to the attention of the authorities.
In other words, if you are an employee, ex-employee, or any
other party you are not bound by any civil agreement to not
discuss these issues with law enforcement authorities.
Do not let any two bit corporate stooge dissuade you from
exercising your rights.
(5)
These claims are only true if the allegations being made by
a multitude of clients and employees are false. If
what they allege is true that is an absolute defense against
a claim of libel.
(6)
As far as we know you have not identified any with
certainty. Also, we have had feedback from both
employees and clients to the effect that
IP&R
turnover is very high, meaning that
IP&R
has so many ex-employees that it is virtually impossible for
IP&R
to stop all of those employees from spilling the beans.
(7)
Anthony R. Flores, Esq., you keep making incredibly broad
claims and has offered very little proof to back up those
claims. The best advice he could give to
IP&R
is that they should start marketing inventions on a
contingency basis. If the company is as effective as
they are claiming they could work on contingency and
prosper, on the other hand if they are as useless as a
multitude of EX-clients have claimed they would no doubt
expire in short order.
(8) We
have received a great deal of information about
IP&R's
marketing methods, and frankly I don't see how they are any
different than many companies who have proceeded them.
Where IP&R
does stand out as different is the fees they charge, which
are much higher, in some case up to five times higher than
other invention promoters.
(9) To
the degree that there are breaches it is a civil matter and
of no concern to the inventor community. What is of
concern is the use of confidentially to hide possible
wrongdoing by
IP&R.
(10)
Steve Barbarich and Ajay Gupta have through an incredibly
massive marketing campaign spread their names and pictures
far and wide. In addition they have taken very large
sums of money from aspiring inventors via a large and
growing number of companies. Unfortunately, according
to employees and clients alike they have not been anywhere
near as effective at keeping either group satisfied, and it
is that dissatisfaction which has led to broad criticism of
both them and
IP&R.
It would behoove them to address this underlying
dissatisfaction.
(11)
Most certainly it is true that with the exception of having
published complaints on the USPTO web site there has not yet
been any action. But then such investigations often
take years to become public (we know because InventorEd
works with many agencies to reign in invention promotion
fraud).
(12)
Unfair! We are hearing from many
inventors who feel that they have not been treated fairly.
(13)
Perhaps if
IP&R were to finally comply with the American Inventors
Protection Act of 1999 we would have meaningful numbers.
(14) I
would guess that perhaps 80% of people have an innate grasp
of morals, ethics, and the difference of right and wrong.
The other 20% are solely guided by rules, but due to their
impairment they have great difficulty knowing where the line
should be drawn and are incapable of understanding why the
other 80% might be quite indigent about their inability to
play well with others.
(15)
Where is the proof?
(16)
Is the damage due to what people say, or is it due to the
way IP&R
conducts it's business?
(17)
Is Anthony R. Flores, Esq. and
IP&R
asking or are they demanding? Is
IP&R's
attempt to abridge the First amendment appropriate. Is
IP&R's
letter a threat of a SLAPP?
(18)
Just what is the rational for demanding an apology from
someone maintaining a web site?
(19)
What is the basis to demand that a web hosting service do
IP&R's
investigative work? Wouldn't a better approach be to
have a satisfied customer base and employees?
(20)
Anthony R. Flores, Esq. and
IP&R
already have the means at hand to address their image and
public relations problems. Start satisfying the
majority of the people they interact with and these problems
will go away.
(21)
Be advised that I am passing your letter on to Paul Levy at
the Public Citizens Litigation group. They have been
known to take a very dim view of this kind threat.
(22)
The public also expressly reserves "all rights and remedies
it may have". One of those rights is to speak out
about injustice, to petition government, and to expose abuse
of the process of law.
(23)
Is this a "Please" or a demand for censorship?
(24)
Now this is an outrage, and a perfect example of the mindset
at IP&R
which has led to so much criticism of
IP&R
by employees and clients alike.
LAST POINT
Any letters we receive
from
IP&R
or any
IP&R
stooge will be published!
There is a huge difference
between taking on the person you picked on with this letter
and getting into a firefight with a professional inventor
who has gone head to head with large corporations and
prevailed. This is a lesson which
George
Davison has
learned the hard way. He messed with us and we
engineered his rather dramatic attitude adjustment. We
hope that
IP&R
is a bit more cautious. |
