Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Spam SEO Company Traffic-Power, aka 1p.com
Posted 15 February 2006 - 09:37 AM
Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:28 AM
If you had thousands of customers, and something you were doing was getting them banned from Google, would you know it? Traffic Power told their customers that they had been banned from Google because of Google's re-indexing, but I'm guessing they had to know what was really going on. I'd like to hear what real SEO's think about this.
Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:31 AM
Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:46 AM
I loved the excuses they made up at the time. What was that one about the guy that was blackmailing Google? Remember that? They claimed that somehow that caused their sites to drop out of the database.
Posted 16 February 2006 - 04:23 PM
"What happens when a large company like 'Traffic Power' gets banned from doing something naughty? They get mad, start to sue people for comments about them, then change their name to 'First Place'!"
"Hopefully after the name change they still won't resort to the same tactics."
I have a copy of the article in case someone wants to read it at my website: webrankingconsultants.com/seo-info/seo-articles/google/google-posts-truth-about-traffic-power.html
Edited by Jill, 16 February 2006 - 04:55 PM.
Posted 18 February 2006 - 07:46 PM
Posted 18 February 2006 - 08:30 PM
Or maybe his wikipedia entry:
Or maybe the fact that anyone who has actually attended an industry seminar or conference has met him, and that when I was at the Googleplex last summer he was there representing Google, or....
Well, you get the picture.
Sheesh...it's like asking for proof the Pope is Catholic....
If TP actually knew *anything* about the industry they would know that. So either that's incompetence or a BIG FAT LIE, in my opinion. You know what? I'm not even sure that I know which of those 2 choices are likely to be the answer, given their actions and the consequences of them...
Edited by mcanerin, 18 February 2006 - 08:35 PM.
Posted 13 April 2006 - 09:15 PM
Reading what the tpsucks guy's attorney sent in for a dismissal of the case, it looks to me like that one should be dismissed eventually also.
TP certainly has NO leg to stand on in this. It's really quite a joke.
Posted 17 February 2007 - 01:22 PM
Posted 03 January 2008 - 09:30 PM
The question of whether their spam techniques are considered a trade secret is actually very interesting.
A. Will a court protect Spamming teqniques as trade secrets (possibly making it harder for antispammers, from Matt Cutts to mail servers, to do their job or use the information gained by various restricted practices)?
B. Can something be considered a trade secret when it appears in a 'for dummies'? It may be secret from their clients, but not from the industry. I believe that this can be easily demonstrated, particularly with Google onside.
interesting stuff. Now concluded. Good oppurtunity to write a short industry case study. Maybe even sneak it into the new Commercial Law & E-business textbooks that are bound to be written shortly to support all the new Uni COurses on the subject.
Posted 03 January 2008 - 11:50 PM
I do know that the common law (the basis of most of the laws in the UK, US, Canada, India, Australia, etc) contains the concept that there are some things that can be technically protected but a court will refuse to use court resources to protect because it's against the public interest, or because it would cause a greater injustice. This is still in effect in the legal systems in all common law countries in various forms simply because it makes sense. I believe it's also in many other countries, but I can't speak with any direct knowledge of them.
Examples include the following scenarios, where a court will NOT uphold the contract or whatever:
1. A contract where the goal is the commission of a crime - a contract killing, agreement to split up the bank robbery proceeds, etc. Yes, there have been cases on this!
2. A contract or privacy complaint where the goal is to hid from or prevent the proper operation of the court - ie a trespassing complaint where a search warrant is in place. It's still trespassing, but it's not enforceable by a court.
3. A contract where the goal is something the court feels is against the public interest to uphold. Examples include prostitution, even in places where it's legal, where one party accuses the other of not upholding the agreement and demanding, uh, "satisfaction".
4. Complaints about privacy, secrets, etc where the person complaining has made a living of not being private or has placed themselves in a position where it makes no sense to have privacy or secrets. For example, a nudist once wandered into a crowded park and then wanted everyone there arrested because by looking at him naked, his privacy was lost. Yes, it was a political statement, not really a privacy issue, and yes, the court refused to arrest everyone.
All of these are examples of things that are basically against public policy to protect. I would be prepared to argue in a courtroom that saying that spam techniques should be protected as trade secrets is not enforceable due to it being against the public interest. The ability to hid how you are ripping people (and search engines) off does not strike me as something a court would want to spend taxpayer money on protecting.
But that's a position that *I* have. As far as I know, it's never been tested in a court. That would certainly be my argument, of course.
As for calling something simple to be a "trade secret", it's a bit more vague, but in general, it needs to be a secret for it to be a trade secret. It also has to give or appear to give a commercial advantage to the party with the trade secret. I'm not sure TP's case would hold up with a competent lawyer on the other side. They seem to do pretty well when they are the only side with the lawyers, but as far as I know have lost every time someone fought back with their own lawyer.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users