Funny…he hasn’t responded.

I wonder why?

The name change actually helped. Initially, some subscibers did think EMetrolink was part of the SCRRA, even with multiple clarifications to the contrary on my site. Changing to LAPassenger.com removed this confusion and visitors recognized us as a grass-roots passenger run website, something they wanted to become a part of. Our membership has accelerated since.

The end game is this: the more passengers using LAPassenger.com, the faster delay and cancellation alerts will be delivered. Second, the larger our online Metrolink passenger online community becomes, the more we can collectively work to better our transit systems including Metrolink.

I do applaud and thank bloggers like Mr. Arkow for challenging Metrolink’s motion. As a web-entrepreneur and designer, its important that the web’s legal frontier be defined by pioneers such as he. This will establish an accordable internet ripe for business, bloggers, government, and individuals.

You said:

“If a site is not using Metrolink’s name to generate revenue it’s probably not a problem.”

Then why did you go after me and not these people?

http://www.metrolink.com

Seems to me that they are making a buck, but they not making negative comments about Metrolink….

Explain….

I rest my case….

Bob Arkow
bob@metrolinkrider.com

Francisco is not telling you the whole truth.

Metrolink did NOT go after Metrolink.com, a commercial site that does infringe on Metrolink’s trademark. Instead they went after me with a vengeance.

Around the same time that Francisco sent a “cease and desist” letter to me, Metrolink had a sheriff approach me and threaten to arrest me for disorderly conduct if I refused to sign my monthly pass.

Signing a monthly pass is a Metrolink rule, NOT a state law (fare evasion).

In fact, I have to appear on June 3 in court to plead on yet another false charge of fare evasion.

Oh…did I mention that when Metrolink’ lawyers (LA County Counsel) sent me their complaint to the WIPO, by certified mail, POSTAGE DUE? This is a clear violation of the California Bar rules of professional conduct.

There are other issues as well, which in the coming months I intend to pursue and publicize.

I used to be the greatest fan of Metrolink. As a nine year rider, I had little to complain, that is until I contacted Metrolink customer service about the Metrolink survey of 2 years ago, which on its cover said “Internal Use Only.”

As it turns out, the survey people, who wore Metrolink badges, were really not Metrolink employees, but the employees of a private research firm. And worse yet, Metrolink failed to seed the data that they made available to this firm, thus exposing all of the passengers to the various problems associated with data theft. (Seeding data, a common practice in the list business, involves putting decoy names in the list to detect list abuse or hijacking.)

I am conisidering other legal actions as well, such as reverse domain hijacking.

I suspect, when you consider the filing fees, lawyer’s fees and administrative costs, Metrolink has already spent about $10,000.00.

I thank you taxpayers and riders in advance for paying for this.

So stay turned, there is more to come.

Meanwhile, enjoy the fare increase!

Robert Arkow
bob@metroinkrider.com

Francisco slips a little nugget into the bottom of his screed:

“He has the absolute right to express his opinion without question, as long as he gets his facts straight.”

Either we have the right to an opinion or we don’t. If it’s conditional (“get your facts straight!”) then we can expect to see websites getting shut down sometime soon, simply for satire, error or perhaps even blatant lies.

But it’s not a conditional right, in fact the Washington Supreme Court has even upheld a politician’s right to tell a lie in the course of campaigning for office.

I’m not arguing for the right to lie but I am challenging Francisco on his subtle assertion that a person’s right to express their OPINION is conditional.

This, of course, is simply my opinion. It has not yet been vetted or challenged by the Metrolink and if it is found to be at odds with the opinions of the Metrolink, its partners, subsidiaries, staff, consultants or advisors, it is subject to challenge and possible reversal. (unlikely, improbable but entirely possible; no warranties intended and all rights reserved)

INDENT

“We really don’t care what Mr. Arkow is saying on his site. He has the absolute right to express his opinion without question, as long as he gets his facts straight. We hope anyone who creates a forum to discuss Metrolink and other transit topics in our region would be responsible enough to do that.”

In other words Metrolink’s suit to “protect your trademark” was an attempt to flex political muscle to quiet a critic. Fortunately domain name orgs swim in a different political pool.

I always thought this domain name stuff was crap. Back in the early 1990′s there were a bunch of spoof sites up at domain names that made the spoof better. People Eating Tasty Animals and Joe McDonald were I believe the first groups/people to get sued under copyright and lose their domain names.