patrick.net

A "grievance"?

He has a broker’s license, he says, but he doesn’t run a brokerage or sell real estate, and he is not a Realtor or a member of OCAR.

I agree. He is not subject to OCAR's jurisdiction at all. This is a nuisance action, and IrvineHousingBlog/Roberts should see if they have any relief under an Anti-SLAPP cause of action.

This just shows how pathetic the used house salesman industry really is.

isn't this going to fall under frivolous lawsuit category?

They need to do whatever they can to try to keep their image from sinking any further. I hope he files a suit and gets big $$$$ from OCAR.

The IR blog is one of the best, well-written, creative housing blogs out there. What a royal pain in the ass to have this happen.

PasadenaNative says

The IR blog is one of the best, well-written, creative housing blogs out there. What a royal pain in the ass to have this happen.

You can't beat those graphics. I don't know where he comes up with those, but they are absolutely hilarious.

This is going to do nothing but thrust him into the spotlight and make the OCAR look like complete fools. They actually want him to appear in front of them, behind closed doors in secret, for a "hearing", yet the accusers still choose to remain anonymous. The whole thing is a farce. I hope he does finally make it to 60 Minutes like his latest post suggests.

I hope nothing ever happens to Long Beach Housing Blog. That guy is hilarious.

They already threatened me over my previous tagline "What your realtor won't tell you"

So I changed that to be safer. Pretty sure they can't do much about me because I don't even belong to their evil lobbying group.

I like this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sicyi17cT2c&feature=player_embedded - realtor caught lying on television.

They already threatened me over my previous tagline “What your realtor won’t tell you”

You should change it back. They don't have any jurisdiction over you, and you're allowed to state opinion and provide this information. It's not defamation, and it's not a trademark violation. You aren't singling out any single realtor. They would be hard-pressed to come up with a cause of action. With their ease of access to the media, they have the ability to counter anything you said quite easily, so the bar is quite high.

I bet if someone challenged the trademark "realtor," they'd probably win. It has become a generic term to describe a used house salesman, whether such a person meets the technical definition that NAR made up or not. Similar to how Xerox almost lost its trademark back in the day, and how RollerBlade should probably lose theirs, and maybe even Kleenex.

ChrisLA says

I like this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sicyi17cT2c&feature=player_embedded - realtor caught lying on television.

Realtor caught lying? Is that similar to the video "human caught breathing"?

corntrollio says

bet if someone challenged the trademark “realtor,” they’d probably win. It has become a generic term to describe a used house salesman, whether such a person meets the technical definition that NAR made up or not.

That's a great point. Maybe we should all put together a pre-emptive lawsuit to challenge the trademark on "realtor". Would cost money I guess, but maybe it's possible to do independently, since there's overwhelming evidence that realtor has passed into the public domain as everyday speech, and means nothing special to most people.

That’s a great point. Maybe we should all put together a pre-emptive lawsuit to challenge the trademark on “realtor”. Would cost money I guess, but maybe it’s possible to do independently, since there’s overwhelming evidence that realtor has passed into the public domain as everyday speech, and means nothing special to most people.

I'm quite certain I had no idea there was even a distinction between "real estate agent" and "realtor" until NAr jumped all over you for the failure to put "R" behind the word realtor a while back. And I've worked in the mortgage industry since 2003.

corntrollio says

You should change it back. They don’t have any jurisdiction over you, and you’re allowed to state opinion and provide this information.

I'd rather not give them an opportunity to engage in a costly legal battle. They're the scum of the earth and would certainly do it just for spite. What would be better is to post a series of articles/discussions debating the legality of their cartel, asking why the DoJ hasn't indicted them for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, or for fraud. That way it's a "question", something they would have to repeat in any frivolous legal objection they make.

"This person infringed on our trademark and intended to tarnish our reputation in the item 'Realtors: How Does An Illegal Cartel Avoid Scrutiny from the Law?"

klarek says

What would be better is to post a series of articles/discussions debating the legality of their cartel, asking why the DoJ hasn’t indicted them for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, or for fraud.

Well that's just a great idea no matter what. Unfortunately, our anti-trust overlords have no taste for action. Realtors wouldn't even be the first on the list.

corntrollio says

Unfortunately, our anti-trust overlords have no taste for action.

I have to agree that that's true. Microsoft commits continuing and blatant violations of the anti-trust act frequently, and nothing happens to them in the US. That's why the only serious anti-trust actions against them were in Europe. Similar for us cellular carriers. AT&T buying TMobile is an outrageous assault on already weak competition, but it will probably go through.

Anyway, it proves US laws are not enforced, or are twisted to prevent enforcement, if you can pay for enough lobbying in DC.

Anyway, it proves US laws are not enforced, or are twisted to prevent enforcement, if you can pay for enough lobbying in DC.

I hear that, but I wasn't just thinking of Microsoft or AT&T. What about the "Too Big to Fail" banksters? My impression is that the reason bankster consolidation to make banks "Too Much Bigger to Fail" put BofA above the 10% of deposits mark.

Also, media consolidation -- Clear Channel in radio, or some of the big players in local TV. The old FCC rules on this have either been ignored or modified to allow bigger and bigger shares of media markets.

There are plenty of companies that could use being broken up, and we'd probably all be better for it.

corntrollio says

I hear that, but I wasn’t just thinking of Microsoft or AT&T. What about the “Too Big to Fail” banksters?

Definitely! The banks are the main beneficiary of legalized corruption in DC. I should have pointed that out. Microsoft and AT&T are evil, but the big banks are evil on an even bigger scale.

Basically, the big banks are using the government to confiscate public money to pay their own private debts, and they are calling that the "free market" somehow.

Those banks should not just be broken up, they should be given the corporate death penalty of dissolution, with zero compensation to stock holders or bond holders. Like that's going to happen, I know.

Those banks should not just be broken up, they should be given the corporate death penalty of dissolution, with zero compensation to stock holders or bond holders. Like that’s going to happen, I know.

Exactly right! When you or I manage a business and lose that much money or mismanage that much risk, we either file bankruptcy, or if the business might still be viable, we get ousted from management and someone else takes over and restructures the business.

These jerkoff banksters ran their businesses into the ground, engaged in transactions that conflicted with their clients, got massive bonuses, stayed in power through insolvency, and asked for handouts from the government and received huge handouts and subsidies, both through transparent methods and less direct and more opaque methods. Then, they had the nerve to bite the hand that fed them by complaining about regulation and "socialism"[FN1] while paying record bonuses on the government's dime. And we apparently need to thank them for that!

What we should have done is ride this incompetent fools out on a rail and taken apart their businesses to redeploy assets efficiently into profitable businesses, as Patrick said.

FN1: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

corntrollio says

You should change it back. They don’t have any jurisdiction over you, and you’re allowed to state opinion and provide this information. It’s not defamation, and it’s not a trademark violation

I strongly recommend against this course of action. If Johnson & Johnson can sue American Red Cross over there use of the red cross symbol copyright that they held for over 100 years, do you honestly believe any court is going to up hold your claim that the word Realtor is public domain after 95 years? (copyrighted in 1916) Before recommending someone take a reckless action, perhaps you should educate yourself a little about copyright law, or put up the cash for Patrick to fight any lawsuits and awarded damages. It's pretty easy to ask someone else to jump off a bridge when you know you will not have to endure any of the pain when they hit the ground.

TechGromit says

If Johnson & Johnson can sue American Red Cross over there use of the red cross symbol copyright that they held for over 100 years, do you honestly believe any court is going to up hold your claim that the word Realtor is public domain after 95 years? (copyrighted in 1916) Before recommending someone take a reckless action, perhaps you should educate yourself a little about copyright law, or put up the cash for Patrick to fight any lawsuits and awarded damages.

Maybe you should learn the difference between a copyright and a trademark before posting asinine comments.

Using the word realtor is not a trademark violation in the way Patrick is using it. If you think it is a trademark violation, please explain.

TechGromit says

If Johnson & Johnson can sue American Red Cross over there use of the red cross symbol copyright that they held for over 100 years,

Read...

http://chapters.redcross.org/ok/okc/OKCBombingRecovery/emblem.htm

More like JJ would be fined for using the cross.

What is the significant Section of the U.S. Legal Restriction?
It is contained in Section 706, Title 18, U.S. Criminal Code, part 18 which reads as follows: "Whoever, whether a corporation, association or person, other than the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United States, uses the emblem of the Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof or the words ‘Red Cross’ or ‘Geneva Cross’ or any combination of these words- "Shall be fined..."

Are the Words "Red Cross" Copyrighted? Is the Red Cross on a White Background a trademark?
No. The Red Cross name and emblem are not the property of the American Red Cross as a corporation. The American Red Cross is entitled to use the name and emblem only because it is the officially designated volunteer organization envisioned by the Geneva Conventions to assist the United States government in carrying out its treaty obligations. The treaties anticipate the existence of such an organization in each country bound by the treaties and authorize such organizations to make use of the name and emblem in carrying out the humanitarian activities for which they are established

If anyone should be suing about the Red Cross, it should be Switzerland.

StoutFiles says

If anyone should be suing about the Red Cross, it should be Switzerland.

If you read the link thomas provided, it also is called the Geneva Cross, so it directly implicates Switzerland.

What is actually hilarious, not because TechGromit knows anything about IP law, but because of sheer coincidence, is that corporate copyrights for items published before 1978 actually do expire into the public domain 95 years after publication.

However, NAR is claiming realtor as a trademark, not a copyright. TechGromit doesn't know the difference and further doesn't know anything about trademark or copyright law. Anybody can lose a trademark! Xerox had a campaign back in the day to encourage people not to use "xerox" as a generic word, so as not to lose their trademark.

corntrollio says

This is a nuisance action, and IrvineHousingBlog/Roberts should see if they have any relief under an Anti-SLAPP cause of action.

Survey says, ding ding ding:

Scott Sims, attorney for Larry Roberts, who writes the IrvineHousingBlog.com, says in a new letter to OCAR that Roberts' opinions constitute "free speech protected by California's anti-SLAPP statute.

I believe California's anti-SLAPP statute also mandates attorney's fees, so OCAR may have been off more than it can chew here in filing a frivolous suit.

corntrollio says

Anti-SLAPP cause of action

Anti-SLAPP is a "defense" not a "cause of action." If you are going to be a prick to others, at least make sure you are always right.

ch_tah says

Anti-SLAPP is a “defense” not a “cause of action.” If you are going to be a prick to others, at least make sure you are always right.

Wow, you didn't hold that for very long, and all because I told you there's no such thing as an "IPO option" when you were trying to argue with me about the substance of secondary exchanges and IPO lockups without knowing anything about them.

Yes, anti-SLAPP statutes allow you to write a motion to strike.

corntrollio says

Yes, anti-SLAPP statutes allow you to write a motion to strike.

So, it is a defense, not a cause of action. Not sure you know anything about the law; probably should stop posting about it. Clearly someone should know the basic difference between a cause of action and a defense. We're not talking about a minor difference here.

And you were a prick above to TechGromit, not just me.

ch_tah says

And you were a prick above to TechGromit, not just me.

Sure, and I owned up to the fact that I made a mistake in terminology, unlike TechGromit and you, ch_tah. Just to make it clear: I used the wrong terminology above, and ch_tah called me out on it.

The other difference is that my mistake made no substantive difference because I understood the concept -- you will note that IHB's lawyer actually did exactly what I said. In contrast, TechGromit's and ch_tah's mistakes showed that they didn't understand the concepts, and further questioning proved that with respect to ch_tah.

It's like if I said "X's lawyer filed the order." Technically X's lawyer *lodged* the order, but substantively, there is no problem. When you start talking nonsense about the secondary market for non-public stocks and don't understand 6 month lockups after IPOs and can't explain what each of those things mean and what they do, that's substantive, and using the wrong terminology was indicative of that in that case.

Speaking on a forum on the internet doesn't really connote tone, so maybe that's why you thought I was being a prick, ch_tah (you said you didn't understand something, and I agreed and provided the right terminology for you). As for TechGromit, if you read carefully above, you would see that he was being a dick ("Before recommending someone take a reckless action, perhaps you should educate yourself a little about copyright law"), so I responded similarly aggressively.

corntrollio says

Sure, and I owned up to the fact that I made a mistake in terminology, unlike TechGromit and you, ch_tah. Just to make it clear: I used the wrong terminology above, and ch_tah called me out on it.

Okee dokee. Yes, using "cause of action" instead of "defense" is a mistake of terminology. Just like when I said you were being a "prick," I just used the wrong terminology and really meant "nice guy."