Comments on: Lawyers Say You Can’t Even LOOK At The HTML Code Of Their Website

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:26:30 +0000

This is just a marketing ploy by the web site to make them look “Internet Savvy” to potential clients. It is bullshit and unenforceable. Anyone with the slightest bit of common law knowledge knows that.

By: Arturo

Arturo — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:31:07 +0000

Quote from their user agreement:
We do permit search engines to access our website for purposes of indexing search results.

but if we look at their HTML:
< meta name=”DESCRIPTION” content=”Dozier Internet Law and Dozier Intenet Law, PC are top rated Internet Lawyer Specialists representing business interests on the web as advocate and legal counsel. >
< meta name=”KEYWORDS” content=”dozier internet law, dozier internet law pc, dozier lawyer, dozier internet, internet lawyer, internet lawyers, interent attorney, internet attorneys, john dozier, john w dozier, john w dozier jr” >

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t these lines only used for search indexing!?! Also, they should be embarrassed by their code. The lack of a quotation mark after “advocate and legal counsel.” really messes up the next tag. And they are “internet attorneys” but just one is an “interent attorney”.

By: Jägermeister

Jägermeister — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:52:04 +0000

#32 – TIHZ_HO

Have you tried FoxyProxy with the TOR router?

By: TIHZ_HO

TIHZ_HO — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:41:19 +0000

#19 ? To my knowledge there is no Mozilla add-on to circumvent the Great Chinese Firewall.

Cheers

By: Angel H. wong

Angel H. wong — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:26:17 +0000

Maybe they’re related to the bridezilla lawyer

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14139

By: SF

SF — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:45:04 +0000

Who’s the lowest, the lawyers or the judges who allow this kind of $hit to go on?

By: Balbas

Balbas — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:55:30 +0000

Also notice the fourth from the bottom paragraph in their online “user agreement”. The claim that if you “… are not a legitimate, bona fide prospective client, your access to any page of our website is unauthorized.”

In other words, Mr Dvorak is now liable for allowing all of us access without permission. (And no doubt we’ll all be prosecuted in turn.)

By: Balbas

Balbas — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:47:15 +0000

#26: As I understand it, yes! A website “look” can be copyrighted.

By: Jägermeister

Jägermeister — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:39:26 +0000

Now they can sue Google… Google has it in their cache…

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:11:35 +0000

But the design of a website can be copyrighted right?

By: Balbas

Balbas — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:13:43 +0000

Seen the website? Vitriol and angst and just a hint of sadistic pleasure over prosecuting endless amounts of defamation.

By: Master Lemming

Master Lemming — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:22:50 +0000

So if i click the botton just here on my browser i become a criminal??

OOOOO maby my first broken law could be a fun one. I mean why bother with murder or any of those other silly things when i could just click a botton and read some code. That in all honesty i would fail to understand in my present state of elation at this wonderfull news..

By: grog

grog — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:19:34 +0000

bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

html renders text and pictures on the screen and javascript does stupid browser tricks and css makes things pretty — as programming languages, their entire existence is confined to a trivial problem domain

nothing written in HTML/CSS/JavaScript is worth keeping secret, not that you could even hide it anyway

and anybody who thinks otherwise is a total idiot

By: sherifffruitfly

sherifffruitfly — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:11:53 +0000

Anyone browsing the website is a criminal then.

By: CultivatorX

CultivatorX — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:09:50 +0000

Someone should sue them for not being Accessibility Compliant with that crappy code!