BUYS INC. ATTORNEYS responds to MyADSL

Hi folks

There has been quite a bit of speculation regarding the action against Hellkom and the law firms that was/will be used by Telkom. I have contacted BUYS INC. ATTORNEYS to try to gain some clarity on the matter, and they were happy to supply MyADSL with information about the situation and clarify some of the issues that are discussed here. I have to add that they were very friendly, approachable and professional regarding this matter (I might just start to prefer lawyers to telecom companies You can read the full reply in the news section.

Regards,

RPM
[email protected]

This does not happen often: A legal firm having to do PR work on why he actually did some work for a client.

Telkom's PR department should take note: Being associated with Telkom adds a stink to a company's name!

As for the Buys guys: The know alls at Telkom should test their "knowall" on their own in court.

A blank refusal by the legal fraternity to assist Telkom in any manner would be an enourmous boost for South Africa!

Unfortunately I'm sure that the legal people will always find ethical explanations why they can fill their pockets with the money of Telkom's victims.





South Africa needs World Class Broadband at World Competitive Prices.

They replied to me aswell. Yes they are approachable people and Reinhardt Buys is doing a sterling job for IT in SA. I suppose it was just my concern that such an excellent firm of IT Lawyers take up a case against Hellkom.
However in retrospect of saying this, I must mention that this is a democratic society and I quote a very clever young lady from Wits University as saying the following on the matter. I shall keep her name anonomous at the moment. She is going to be doing her case study on Telkom and finds the Hellkom Saga with Telkom a suitable topic.

This is what she had to say.
" Hellkom cannot be seen as inspiring people to "boycott"
Telkom's attorneys, and they cannot be seen as inspiring the public to get
Buys to withdraw from the Telkom case. We live in a democractic country, and
after all the issue between Hellkom and Telkom is one of freedom of speech.
That being said, if Hellkom allows posts on it's board from people decrying
Buys' involvement and posts encouraging others to "flood" Buys with nasty
emails, then Hellkom's actions could easily be misconstrued as being
anti-democratic. Democracy means that even the obviously guilty are allowed
legal representation from those they choose to represent them. Hellkom must
be careful about it's supporters engaging in such activities as I fear that
ultimately Hellkom could be held responsible for their supporters actions. "




<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by BTTB</i>


This is what she had to say.
" Hellkom cannot be seen as inspiring people to "boycott"
Telkom's attorneys, and they cannot be seen as inspiring the public to get
Buys to withdraw from the Telkom case. We live in a democractic country, and
after all the issue between Hellkom and Telkom is one of freedom of speech.
That being said, if Hellkom allows posts on it's board from people decrying
Buys' involvement and posts encouraging others to "flood" Buys with nasty
emails, then Hellkom's actions could easily be misconstrued as being
anti-democratic. Democracy means that even the obviously guilty are allowed
legal representation from those they choose to represent them. Hellkom must
be careful about it's supporters engaging in such activities as I fear that
ultimately Hellkom could be held responsible for their supporters actions. "

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unfortunately "democracy" equates to the size of your pockets. The USA presidential election circus is most probably the best example of this.

Back to Hellkom: "Legal democracy" can only work if both parties have access to the same legal resources.

If "Hellkom" could afford the equals of Buys Inc and A&A, then we would have seen democracy at work. Obviously he can't.

We are witnesses of "legal democracy" skewed to the favour of the stinking rich.

"Hellkom" will most probably have to surrender to Telkom and its legal teams long before it gets to the court house for the simple reason that "legal system" allows the rich to bancrupt their opposition. It is seldom that a lawyer will take on a case such as this "pro bono" Lawyers also have to buy bread in the end, and the threat of an empty stomach diverts attention to better paying cases.


Obviously Buys Inc and A&A can't be blamed for the legal system being skewed as it is.

I hope they remember Hellkom when they write their cheques to Telkom!


South Africa needs World Class Broadband at World Competitive Prices.

I think the letter from the Buys Attorneys was well thought out and well written. I appreciate them taking the time to set the record straight. Thanks for posting, RPM.


----------------
United we stand!
----------------

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If "Hellkom" could afford the equals of Buys Inc and A&A, then we would have seen democracy at work. Obviously he can't.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I wouldn't say that. Mad/Gregg hasn't revealed his cards yet and I know more of whats going on. He has actually very good backing. Telkom should be afraid IMO.



<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">

The difference between the Buys approach and the Adams & Adams approach is very revealing.

First of all, I don't recall seeing any "blogs" or other internet-savvy stuff coming out of A&A. Just typos, mistakes and a lot of white male faces. OTOH, the Buys approach is professional and "with the program". Good for them.

I wonder what the stuffy A&A lawyers and Telkom people are going to make of the www.f**ktelkom.co.za? There is a link to it from www.2600.co.za

Donn Edwards
http://privacy.4mg.com

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I wonder what the stuffy A&A lawyers and Telkom people are going to make of the www.f**ktelkom.co.za? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well you see what is happening - TelScum have stirred the hornets nest with their heavy handed 500 pound dumbass gorrila approach. Every disgruntled user with entry level Internet knowledge can register a domain and point it wherever they want.

So TelScum is screwed - so they kill hellkom.co.za through pressure on Gregg who owns the hellkom domain - that doesn't mean that owner of f**ktelkom.co.za must do the same - branding on a site and the domain that points there are two separate issues...

I recon TelScum are going to have a tough time if they think that by simply putting pressure on the hellkom.co.za domain owner into releasing the domain that that is going to get rid of the hellkom HTML content.

I believe this is the way to really p*ss them off - as long as there is free speech in our constitution they CANNOT stop the hellkom hate speech from being displayed - I recon they probaly could pressure the closure of the hellkom.co.za domain - but hey so what - f**ktelkom.co.za already points to that HTML, and the next one and the next one and the next one etc.

It may be easy for TelScum to institute legal action against one lone MaD-man - but against every private individual who registers a domain in their personal capacity and points it to the hellkom HTML - this could be VERY costly for TelScum - lawyers aren't cheap and each action is a seperate action....

I would like to add that my intention with the logos, from the beginning, has not been to infuriate Telkom or get involved in legal wranglings. The logos were meant as a humurous diversion on the site and nothing more. Sure, they are downloadable, and yes some people do print shirts (although very few, I'm sure) but no-one says "God I hate Telkom because I just saw the Hellkom logo". The site is meant as a non-profit public information resource which is funny as well... not as a target of a R5 million lawsuit for the logos and the domain.

Personally I think the site is funny, and doesn't incite hate speech (it will never) and is not aimed at 'ruining Telkom's reputation'. A corporate who is willing to drag an individual to court who earns but a fraction of their daily profit surely has their colours shining brightly... whatever happened to a sense of humour? Or does the truth hurt?

How about "Hellkom: We'll drag your wallet over the coals". Eish man, that's not defamatory or hate speech, it's satire and pokes fun at Telkom. Surely after all these years of us 'obeying' them we can have some reprieve? I know I'm not alone in this fight - thanks to all for the help and support, much appreciated... But if it's a fight they want then that's what they will get, as an individual I refuse to have my freedom of speech and freedom of expression stifled, and I'm sure the same goes for the rest of us.



<font color="navy"><font size="1"><b>Where others have progress, we have Telkom.</b>
Hellkom website - www.hellkom.co.za</font id="size1"></font id="navy">

Telkom doesnt have to worry about their reputation its been RUINED for years already.

Isn't it true that:
Telkom - by sueing Hellkom is making a derogatory statement about Hellkom - more derogatory than any statement i've ever seen on the Hellkom site ?
Are they not in fact - by sueing Hellkom setting themselves up for a counter lawsuit ?
Isn't this argument the basis of the free speech rule:
i.e. Anybody who sues somebody succesfully for making derogatory statements has just made a derogatory statement against the person that they sued, and can of course be sued right back and so on and so fourth.

May a VoidHawk's distortion field not kill you.

Is it my imagination or does the Buys Inc logo contain the Telkom "keypad" as a subset of its logo? Is it going to sue itself?
See http://www.buys.co.za/images/top_logo.gif
and http://www.buys.co.za/images/bottom_logo.gif
and since it is representing Telkom in the case, maybe they should re-read http://www.buys.co.za/casestudies_trademarks.htm
and http://www.adamsadams.co.za/home.asp?pid=11

I have written to several law firms to ask how the public is expected to know that a logo is a trademark when the "TM" or "(R)" symbols are consistently absent. And "Telkom" is not a registered Trade Mark in the USA, even though Telkom is listed on the NYSE. So I think this whole trademark thing is bogus.

I think Buys has also shot itself in the foot by PUBLISHING the Hellkom logo in its latest newsletter. [:0]

After the "Swakste 4x4" case,
http://wwwserver.law.wits.ac.za/sca/summary.php?case_id=12831
they knew they couldn't go for a "badmouthing" claim, so Telkom's lawyers are hoping to go for a "Trademark" claim. Personally I think anyone who has seen the Telkom logo more than once can tell the difference between it and the Hellkom logo.

And I'm not sure whether a web URL can be regarded as a Trademark. That's why the Adams and Adams letter was so full of outrageous claims (and embarassing mistakes) because they were hoping to scare the web site owners. How stupid can they get?

<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards

Why is ADSL like a Cheeseburger? Find out at http://privacy.4mg.com

“Free-market advocates often warn that the only thing worse than a state-controlled monopoly is a privatised one.”

Hello Donn.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Is it my imagination or does the Buys Inc logo contain the Telkom "keypad" as a subset of its logo? Is it going to sue itself?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Good point. It seems using keypads as part of ones logo is very popular.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And I'm not sure whether a web URL can be regarded as a Trademark. That's why the Adams and Adams letter was so full of outrageous claims (and embarassing mistakes) because they were hoping to scare the web site owners. How stupid can they get?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lawyers make outrageous claims everyday. It goes with the territory.
But they can backfire when they are challenged.


<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">

Was walking around the Sanlam centre in Randburg today.

Saw a shop which had a big sign outside.

<b>Cell Kom</b>

Wonder if Telkom is going to sue them as well.


Of course I don't look busy.....I did it right the first time.