"Court Order" to remove certain threads on PM. I say BS, what do you say ?
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 132
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Coastal Dogpatch, SC, USA
    Posts
    51,526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3002
    Likes (Received)
    5866

    Default "Court Order" to remove certain threads on PM. I say BS, what do you say ?

    I could sort of see it on a topic started by Orange Vise as basically self advertising. But on a topic started by a member....or Orange Vises just being mentioned in a thread by a PM member about vises in general, seems over the top. And the icing on the cake expecting me to do the legwork to remove the "offending" threads or surgically remove certain posts is beyond the pale. Thoughts ?

    ========================

    To Whom It May Concern:

    Attached is a Court Order signed by the Honorable Judge Thierry Patrick Colaw, issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Orange County. Please reference p.2 , line item 16-19, which states the following information:

    "all media outlets relating to Orange Vise Company must be removed...to do whatever is necessary to remove all content from any and all websites that refers or relates to the Orange Vise"


    The following threads are in violation of this Court Order:
    1. A user review of the Orange Vise
    2. Way Covers on your Vice?

    3. Opinions on 4" double vises from Kurt, Glacern and Orange Machine.
    4. One Lok Vise By Chick Workholding
    5. Chick Vice Soft jaws - for system 5 vices

    Please remove them ASAP. Your kind cooperation is much appreciated. Please feel free to contact us should any questions arise. Thank you.


    Regards,
    Office of the General Counsel
    Legal Department
    Glacern Machine Tools






  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,089
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    263
    Likes (Received)
    378

    Default

    I don't get it, why must they be removed?
    The 1st amendment protects you, does it not?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama
    Posts
    1,437
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    114
    Likes (Received)
    126

    Default

    It says websites, but earlier it says "media outlets". Would PM be a "media outlet"? Welcome to litigation. You've got an attorney to run this past right?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    marysville ohio
    Posts
    10,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2876
    Likes (Received)
    6812

    Default

    Seems unlikely that some judge in california can tell you what to do in SC.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    4,717
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    18828
    Likes (Received)
    4561

    Default

    Well, at least we now know who is pissed off at Sol.

    I still do not see any real REASON for this other than trying to silence their previous employee / new competitor.

    Did the judge order ALL COPIES of the MMS printed articles to be confiscated? I think not. Something about 1st amendment and stuff might apply. The term pound sand comes to mind.

    Post the attached court order. Many times the attorneys will 'interpret' the meaning of the court order for the layperson, which then ends up completely changing the intent. I hate attorneys.

  6. Likes dstryr, Jashley73 liked this post
  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama
    Posts
    1,437
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    114
    Likes (Received)
    126

    Default

    I'm going to have to paint my vise orange. And forever start referring to it as the orange vise. I am in "Tiger country".

    I was just looking into ordering a keyless chuck from Glacern. Now I'm not so sure. Don't know which side to take, but don't like seeing litigation and censorship.

  8. Likes Curious Yellow, dekamdylan liked this post
  9. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Coastal Dogpatch, SC, USA
    Posts
    51,526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3002
    Likes (Received)
    5866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonlight machine View Post
    Seems unlikely that some judge in california can tell you what to do in SC.
    Seems unlikely some judge in SC can tell me what to do in SC for a case such as this, considering I didn't do anything other than being the owner of a website that serves as a vehicle for conversations between individuals.

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    5,454
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milacron View Post
    Attached is a Court Order signed by the ----
    I take it you have that Court Order. Does it look legitimate? How did that get to you, email or real mail?

    Regards,
    Office of the General Counsel
    Legal Department
    Glacern Machine Tools
    Was that signed exactly like that? Some thing fishy there. I find it hard to believe that a company the size of Glacern has their own "Legal Department". Surely they would have employed a law firm to go after Orange Vise. And surely you would be expecting to be hearing from that law firm, acting for them.

    Regards Phil.

  11. Likes MichaelP, thermite, baldwin, Tommy, Edster liked this post
  12. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.E. oHIo, USA
    Posts
    2,356
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milacron View Post
    Seems unlikely some judge in SC can tell me what to do in SC for a case such as this, considering I didn't do anything other than being the owner of a website that serves as a vehicle for conversations between individuals.

    Wholly shit!! What if they try to impound the "vehicle"??


    Rex

  13. Likes GregSY liked this post
  14. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Coastal Dogpatch, SC, USA
    Posts
    51,526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3002
    Likes (Received)
    5866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machtool View Post
    I take it you have that Court Order. Does it look legitimate? How did that get to you, email or real mail?
    It does look legit but is not from Glacern "legal department" but a court document forwarded via email pdf file. I think the key statement with regards to PM is the order for owners of Orange Vise-

    to do whatever is necessary to remove all content from the Orange Vise Company - CNC Machine Vises, Fixturing, and Workholding Products and any and all other websites that refers or relates to the "Orange Vise";

    But of course that is OrangeVise's problem, not mine. They have "done whatever is necessary" and have failed as far as I am concerned. And then there is the situation that if they have Orange to the point of not being about to advertise or sell any more vises, what the hell difference does it make anyway that the Orange name is "out there" on websites here and there ?

  15. Likes Keith Krome, thermite, Ox liked this post
  16. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    near Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    5,556
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    444
    Likes (Received)
    2089

    Default

    Sounds like a load of horse shit to me... Especially if it was emailed.. I would imagine court orders affecting you are going to come via registered mail from the court themselves...

    If it is a fraud, I am sure the court in question might be interested in whoever is impersonating them...

    The only way to be sure is for you to get legal advice on your own.... But even in this country you cannot be forced to delete stuff unless it is illegal in the first place... Like defamatory comments and stuff like that... And the US freedom to speech is far far far far superior to ours..

  17. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    4,717
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    18828
    Likes (Received)
    4561

    Default

    Well, it looks like this action was filed on 12/12/2012 due to 'breech of contract' and is starting to get nasty. Glacern's initial 'complaint' was 41 pages long. Really? I hate attorneys.

    Looks like I am not going to buy any Glacern products anytime in the future if for no other reason than they are giving Sol a hard time.

    Did I mention I hate attorneys?

  18. Likes cnctoolcat, lazlo, mikeknell, JRIowa, RandyZ and 5 others liked this post
  19. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    5,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5014
    Likes (Received)
    2021

    Default

    Milacron, I'm certainly not a lawyer, but this does not fall under the DMCA or other "take down" laws. This is pretty clearly a lawyer for Glacern overreaching. We'd have to look at the actual court order to see if the judge is overreaching too.

    This is the main problem scenario, which may not apply here: Glacern is asserting theft or misuse of Glacern's intellectual property by Orange Vise, and fears loss of IP value (perhaps due to the brand-new first-to-file patent ruling or dissemination of trade secrets) due to public disclosure by Orange Vise.

    Discussion of Orange Vise the company, its staff, its tradename and trademarks are irrelevant to the problem scenario. "Refers or relates to Orange Vise" is probably greedy or sloppy lawyer talk. In the US you cannot require expunging all references to a legally registered company. That's black helicopter ju-ju.

    What is relevant, and what PM might be legitimately required to deal with, is discussion of the method of operation of Orange Vise's products. But then there's the question of jurisdiction, etc.

    Added in edit: If company A breaches a contract with company B, it is out of the question for company B to go around getting all mention of company A removed. In fact, if A or B are at all notable, it usually makes the trade press.

    Added in second edit: The case SACV11-1641 DOC concerns some property management software Sun wrote for Glacern. So that's intellectual property, but it's never been the topic of discussion here on PM and most certainly has not been posted or archived here on PM. The Orange Vise vises aren't related to that legal case at all. Has anyone got more recent or different references for the legal battling between Glacern and Sun and/or Orange Vise?

    Philabuster, can you point me at what you found? Googling didn't turn up a new action on 12/12/2012.

    Added in third edit: The Orange County case 30-2012-00617730-CU-BC-CJC 41 does indeed claim the Orange Vise product is Glacern intellectual property. So that goes beyond the earlier SACV11-1641 DOC, and gets into stuff we did indeed discuss here. Still no requirement for PM to do anything!
    Last edited by sfriedberg; 03-23-2013 at 04:34 AM. Reason: Backfilled detail from the new lawsuit

  20. Likes thermite liked this post
  21. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Yankee Hill / California
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    344
    Likes (Received)
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RC99 View Post
    Sounds like a load of horse shit to me... Especially if it was emailed.. I would imagine court orders affecting you are going to come via registered mail from the court themselves...

    If it is a fraud, I am sure the court in question might be interested in whoever is impersonating them...

    The only way to be sure is for you to get legal advice on your own.... But even in this country you cannot be forced to delete stuff unless it is illegal in the first place... Like defamatory comments and stuff like that... And the US freedom to speech is far far far far superior to ours..
    Exactly! If it smells of fish, well you know...... Emailing a court order, I doubt it also. Don does the email addy look legit?

  22. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    IL/WI border
    Posts
    3,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1237
    Likes (Received)
    1070

    Default

    Sounds like somebody is playing a joke. Court order sent by e-mail, Legal Department of Glacern Tools... They just BS you.

    Ask your Legal Department to contact the Security Council of the UN and hand the Plaintiff your Ultimatum.

    ...or just reply to the e-mail asking them politely to [email protected](# off... errr... contact your Legal Dept. by mail.

    P.S. But you chose the best way of dealing with this: you made it public. Bravo.

  23. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ridgefield, WA
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    134
    Likes (Received)
    538

    Default

    Can you post a .pdf copy of the court order? This sounds a bit suspicious to me. As the publisher of this website, you can't be held liable for what others post on the site. 1st ammendment protects you. I seriously doubt they could compel you to remove a posting unless it was libelous or slander, and even then I have my doubts. Seems like someones got their panties in a wad...

  24. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    4,717
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    18828
    Likes (Received)
    4561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelP View Post
    Sounds like somebody is playing a joke.
    This is NOT a joke. Glacern is actively taking Sol to court. I just looked up the case number: 30-2012-00617730-CU-BC-CJC 41

    The joke is the attorneys demanding Milacron to purge PM of all Orange Vise content.

    In typical attorney fashion, they are literally flooding the case with a mountain of paperwork, which equals a LOT of BS for Sol and the court to sift through and a LOT of billable hours for the attorneys. Cocksuckers.

  25. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA USA
    Posts
    985
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    61
    Likes (Received)
    297

    Default

    Interesting. If this happened on my forum, I'd be mighty curious, and I think I'd check in with the owners/moderators of similar forums (fora?) to see if they'd had similar contact. And, perhaps I'd also e-mail officers of Glacern to see what they had to say before I made any decisions Glacern does still advertise on machining forums, yes? Maybe if you get a more personal view of the "case" you might feel inspired to do a little work for their benefit.

    Come to think about it, THIS thread is about Orange Vise, too, so maybe it falls under the same court order. . .

  26. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    IL/WI border
    Posts
    3,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1237
    Likes (Received)
    1070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Philabuster View Post
    This is NOT a joke. Glacern is actively taking Sol to court. I just looked up the case number: 30-2012-00617730-CU-BC-CJC 41

    The joke is the attorneys demanding Milacron to purge PM of all Orange Vise content.
    That's what I call a joke. Attorneys can demand anything they want. Court gives the orders. If Milacron receives an official Court Order, then it won't be a joke.

    Personally, I doubt that any sane judge will ever issue a demand like this. But, again, how many sane judges are left over there?

    P.S. By the way, I would hardly support Orange Vise and its founder since I, generally, don't like thieves. But I don't know all the details, so I might be wrong.

  27. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama
    Posts
    1,437
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    114
    Likes (Received)
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RC99 View Post
    Sounds like a load of horse shit to me... Especially if it was emailed.. I would imagine court orders affecting you are going to come via registered mail from the court themselves...
    Yes, sounds like "Glacern legal department" is boilerplate for "attorney Glacern retained". Any real court order upon Milicron would be with his full knowledge before hand, i.e. he (or his attorney) has stood in front of a judge and received said court order verbally and in writing.

    This is the lawyer for Glacern forwarding a legitimate court order, trying to scare you into compliance. I'd ignore it, or run it by your attorney.

    I am not a lawyer, do not construe this as legal advice. I have at one time received a court order however, so I have a glimmer of insight into the legal process.
    Last edited by Keith Krome; 03-23-2013 at 04:00 AM.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •