Lawsuit

designalchemy's picture

I recall Hrant taking about the big typeface
lawsuit a while back that involved just about all major type foundries vs. fred nader (aka Apostrophe). Here are the court findings...

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2001/2001fct1170.html

hrant's picture

Actually, "Someguy"'s link is exactly what Apostrophe had to say.

BTW, that $1000 (#2 in "Reasons for Order and Order") is Canadian, which is currently around US$630.

hhp

hrant's picture

> I don't think he'll be having much to say.

From what I understand, he'll soon be saying even more than what he's said already...

Maybe the actual morons are the sue-happy misers who might just lose a few hundred thousand dollars as a result of a juicy counter-lawsuit? Aaah, if one could only pay the bills with regret as the currency!

In any case, the reason you are obviously so angry is because you lost the battle - and in a major way. But you can really only be angry at yourselves. Don't hate little ol' me, I'm just the messenger - alerting you to your misguided value system.

Respect is what you really want - but you can't get it through intimidation. Leveraging the legal system is no substiture for decent behavior. First, you have to make good enough fonts; then, you have to treat *others* with respect; lastly, you have to educate people as to why they should respect you. And even after all this, you still won't have everybody on your side - but that's life.

Learning to handle your loss, and subsequently admitting your fault(s) are the first steps to a happy (or at least less miserable) life.

Peace.

hhp

hrant's picture

> from a single court document
> just going for the headlines

Wrong.

> will the costs to the defendant get inflated

The defendant might actually end up *making* a few hundred thousand dollars...

> why take me seriously

It's not at all a matter of taking you seriously or not, it's a matter of taking you for a coward who has something to hide - something that reflects very poorly on you, and hence your stance and opinions.

If your name has been tainted by previous misdeeds, then there's only one thing you can do to exist in harmony within the type community in general and this forum in particular: apologize.

I hope you have it in you.

> with no backup whatsoever

Wrong again. I might just have more backup than you!

> is no better than Apostrophe anyway

Riiight - what an accurate comparison...
And that's why -on the TypeDesign discussion list- Apostrophe was confronted most strongly by *me*, and subsequently got kicked off the list simply for being Apostrophe (without actually harming the discussion list itself - usually the only reason to get kicked off). Your "friend", on the other hand, was kicked off THREE TIMES for his incessant, misguided flaming. Among very many other things, he equated me with a rapist. Twice he was allowed to rejoin based mostly on his reputation, but after the third time he was not allowed back. This whole ordeal took almost a year and a half, and the list is still squirming from the wounds. I hope we don't have to repeat this here - the outcome will be the same. And you're not getting any younger.

Making good fonts (even if they're just display fonts) is no excuse for indecent public behavior.

The list archives say it all - just go read the entire sordid story. I have nothing to hide - unlike you (plural).

The Nasty Queen and her fellow ogres are sitting in feces. And instead of getting up and washing themselves off, they're actually developing an apetite for eating feces. CHANGE. Now.

You're angry because you lost the battle(s), and you're losing the war. And not because you were the underdog - but because you committed a greater fault than the people you were hunting, in your rabid berserker rage. First, you must regret your actions - just like Apostrophe did, btw. After that, you will probably see the road to harmony clearly on you own.

> he is trying so hard to bait and embarrass.

Not at all. At the very beginning, yes, but I got over that a while ago. Now I'm back to my original "core issue": to get people to behave decently. Why? Because it's good for the type community. What you did was not decent - in fact it's almost as bad as what Apostrophe did.

Don't assume I'm like you - I have reasons distinctly my own, and a lot less dishonorable than yours. I am greater than you.

> Who has standing here, Papazian because he puts his name? And what is that worth?

You want a dollar amount, you materialistic cretin?

Standing?! You're not using your name because you don't have any yourself! I am what I am, and refuse to hide it. And I'm not worried, because -as much as there's so much room for improvement- I'm still a better person than you and your miserly cohorts.

> that was harsh!

Riiight.
I grew up in a civil war, with car bombs, snipers, no running water, the works. At 17 I was guarding my high school with a "klashin" (AK-47). This little conflict -which is destroying your lives- is essentially just entertainment for me.

> bragging about this act of piracy
> dared the designer to do something about it

More distortions. Don't believe the hype, as they say. Read the archives, and decide for yourselves what *really* happened. I have nothing to hide, especially not my name! The only thing I'd like to avoid (but probably less than you) is wasting time repeating history.

The bottom line -in this context- is this:
You cannot harm me. Against my clear written warning, you decided to make an enemy out of me. But this is *not* payback - it's just lack of self-censorship. If you had not made an enemy out of me, you would simply be assured favoritism from me, in the form of keeping my mouth shut to help a friend in need. I have a weakness in being too honest, and here I see no reason to shut up. It's that simple! And I told you this would happen.

Also note this: as a favor to one of you who *did* ask me nicely to keep my mouth shut, I did not reply to Ole's original post. But when I saw yet another attempt at spin-doctoring from your gang (and I do mean gang) in the form of "Though I don't think he'll be having much to say" I got provoked into correcting that attempt at distortion. The truth is that Apostrophe won (and might win even more soon), and you're trying to hide it. The fact that he *shouldn't* have won (as far as I'm concerned) does not relieve you of the responsability to be honest. You will understand that as an Armenian I have a particular aversion to historical revisionism.

The only thing you can -and are- doing is harming Typophile. Do not drag Typophile into this - it can only bring more grief, especially to you!

So maybe you should be kicked off from here as well. Unless you can admit defeat and regain your senses. Pronto.

----

Now that you've read the above in anger, please do everybody a favor and re-read it calmly with just a little bit of objective self-doubt: if my remaining iota of faith in you is justified, you will realize this: you need to change. And don't worry about me.

hhp

hrant's picture

> nobody should jump to conclusions based on partial facts

1. There is no jumping - it's just walking, and imperfect lighting will not deter me. If I sound cagey sometimes, it's because I've made certain promises.

2. You're not seeing the spin-doctoring that's the entire point of everything they've posted since what "Someguy" wrote.

> Nasty queen? Feces?

The truth hurts - it surprised me too, when I started realizing it. You have no idea of the disgusting things going on in the background. Everything I myself have done on the other hand is in plain view for all to see and judge.

I have some -but not a complete- idea of their actions because I was one of the victims, and as a result now have a "channel" of sorts. But really, now I'm only the messenger.

They tried to make an example out of me, and not only did it fail, but now they've lost my favor, so I don't feel the urge to go out of my way to be nice to them, that's all. Until/unless they apologize. If they would just treat me with some respect, they would find me on their side again - instead of being the too-honest neutral party.

I'm not singling them out. This is how I treat non-friends who commit wrongs.

> things are getting just a _little_ out of hand?

These are just the ripples from horrible decisions made a while back.

> Why does every thread on this board have to end in a _(insert_name_here)_ vs. Hrant flame?

Simple: I'm one of the few people both willing and able to uncover distortions. Both in stagnant typographic practices, as well as misguided social values. Those who would benefit from the status quo and/or those who have something to gain by hiding the truth can't stand me, of course. But they have to realize that I'm just the catalyst - not the actual problem.

They want to force me out of the type community - but is that community served by such cyberterrorism? Anyway, as soon as they realize that I'm here to stay, maybe they can regain some of their dignity.

> Is there a remedy?

You can never completely erase confict - and you shouldn't anyway. Now, I do agree that anonymity *can* have value, but in practice it's mostly serving to further petty agendas.

Solution? A possible compromise:
Allow a *single* *unique* username per *valid* email address, and make the email address public. This would preserves anonymity, but to some extent hold the poster accountable, in terms of third-party reactions to his posts.

hhp

hrant's picture

> I am just a bystander

And how in hell are we supposed to know that.. or believe it?...

> cite your evidence.

I'm sorry - my hands are tied. You don't have to believe me - but I hope there's more to your life than "evidence".

> You, Papazian, talk of Apostrophe as if he is some friend of yours

Nope.

> you've some sympathy for his cause!?

You're seeing this as black-and-white, just like so many others are, just like your entire society forces you to be. I think Apostrophe did something very wrong. I think his hunters did something almost as bad. Get it?

> You want to accuse others of abusing the law, what would Apostrophe be doing then?

Where did you get that idea?! My whole point is that the law doesn't even work! Do you get that part? Again: I DO NOT THINK LIKE YOU.

> Their only option was to seek legal redress.

Nope.

> Perhaps you're suggesting, with your civil war swagger and Kalashnikov that you know a better way.

Actually, the fact that I lived through that taught me that that doesn't work! And my point is that your cherished social systems are simply a bloodless version of that savagery.

> You are just so screwed up because they answered your call

Everybody's a little screwed up - but my screwiness has nothing to do with the font world. On the other hand, the screwiness of both sides of this confrontation has everything to do with self-righteous fundamentalism. Trust me, I know it when I see it.

> Apostrophe is a proven liar, thief and fantasist. His words carry no weight.

His words carry less weight than that of his opponents. However, the words of his opponents carry less weight than they did before the confrontation - and that's only *their* fault. Get it?

> You are a proven, captured and made to pay font thief.

More distortions. Read the archives.

> All you're doing is trying to shake the tree to see what falls out.

Nope. The tree has fallen, and I'm simply pointing that out.

> don't visit forums like this because of your rantings

They're free to ignore me! If they don't have the willpower to co-exist with somebody they don't like/agree_with, whose weakness is that?

> Places you'll *never* be invited to.

Why do you assume I want to be invited to places frequented by over-the-hill deluded misers?

> you're the one who has no respect or standing.

I can assure you that over time I've made a quantity and quality of friends to more than match this rag-tag collection of opponents. You're just not in the right circles.

Look at it this way:
I'm on an accelerated program: I've made more friends and enemies in four years than most people do in a lifetime. Why even make any enemies? One reason is that -when like me you don't care about being a politian- the strength of your friends is proportional to the strength of your enemies. Or maybe it's just the way I am. In any case, I *do* try to compromise - but it *is* a two-way street.

----

> you just wore out your welcome.

Among certain people, I was never welcome.
Among others, I'm more welcome than ever.

The type community isn't one big block - I'm disliked in some parts, liked in others. Normal.

> this isn't irreversible

Nothing is.

But the bridges you speak of, I'm not burning them. I simply refuse to cross some of them, occasionally speaking out as to why: those bridges lead to disreputable people.

You see, I enjoy a certain luxury: because I don't expect to make a living in type design, I can be honest, instead of suffering the internal nail-biting of a canniving diplomat. The good news is that along with the people I alienate (who aren't people I would enjoy associating with anyway!), I have endeared myself to some others. This is not my imagination.

All of us have some controversial positions - I'm just lucky in this context (but not the in the context of my day job, mind you) to be able to voice many of them! Are you envious?

> You're so far gone you don't even know what planet you're on.

You're too naive.

And no, I will never stop being Hrant. When they asked me in kindergarten "what will you be when you grow up", I responded: "I am the Hrant." Egomaniac? Probably. Candid? I try to be - unlike too many people around here.

What will *you* do, is what you should ask yourself.

hhp

hrant's picture

> If you know the truth

No I don't - and like you (or was it you?) so astutely wrote, nobody does know - and I would add that nobody *can* know. This is not about knowing the truth and teaching it to people.

"
1. Nothing exists.
2. If anything exists, it cannot be understood.
3. If anything can be understood, it cannot be communicated.
"
-Gorgias

> Otherwise your voice carries no weight.

It's not that simple.

> I'll counter the biased crap that trolls like you write

Please do - otherwise there is no progress.

"War {meaning conflict} is the father of all things."
-Heraclitus

And I will do the same as you - in fact that's how I started here.

BTW: Everybody's biased. Humans by definition are.

----

Now I'm sorry if it seems that I want to always have the last word - that is both a perceived as well as a very real problem for me, I know. But when somebody says something which *deserves* an answer, is it fair to ignore it?

----

Maybe this online medium is a hybrid world that we're still not used to. It's somewhat like real-time conversation (as opposed to "normal" written conversation), with one huge defficiency: you cannot make a subtle facial gesture to gracefully and appropriately end an exchange.

hhp

Miss Tiffany's picture

Start buying the type? (or) Buy the type?

hrant's picture

http://www.typedesign.org/
BTW, I encourage everybody here (except the two people who were previously kicked off...) to join that list, now that the storm is definitely gone... There's currently an interesting discussion about numerals, and usually there's a lot more than that.

BTW, I cannot put the messages up because there are *hundreds* of them, with a very complex dynamic, and they span more than a year!! When I tell you that this forum will suffer greatly if the same witch-hunt is allowed to take place here, I'm not joking.

> Can you really say that you were not guilty of font theft

No. But I can say that I made reparations for my transgression (which was reported to them by none other than *me*, you should know) - but it was not enough in the eyes of the gestapo. And the people who tried -and failed- to make an over-blown example out of me were guilty of *much worse* than one font theft.

Their stance was and has been ludicrous, and now they're suffering the consequences.

> Will the archives earn you the respect you want?

Not from everybody, but I only want respect from certain types of people - again: I'm not a politician.

For these people, reading -and absorbing- the archives might surprise them, but will only endear them to me more. Not least because they will see me admitting to, and fighting my own faults. Even when faced against their tyrannical, puritanical fundamentalism.

Bottom line:
1. You cannot get more out of me than you already have - which was less than what you would have gotten if you had done #2.
2. It's better to have me as a friend than a critical non-friend. I don't say "enemy" because the pity in me overpowers the hatered.

----

> can they *ever* regain full citizenship in the type community?

The community isn't some country - it's essentially made up of individuals. So to answer your question in that light:

Among some people, easily. Among other people, with greater difficulty. Among the type of people I'm complaining about, only if:
1. I can't be more useful as an "example". But that didn't work...
2. I grovel and beg for mercy. But why would I, when they can't really harm me?

I lost a little bit - they lost a ton. Face it. Move on.

----

> Buy the type?

No, no.
For these fascists, that's not even close to good enough. But now they're starting to learn their lesson...

Human behavior has to be mutually reasonable. They weren't. Don't let them use Typophile for their deluded goals.

Anyway, this isn't about me, it's about how you fight *real* piracy, on the scale of Apostrophe. Conclusion: not the way they did it!!

hhp

hrant's picture

> Who are "the fascists," Hrant?

I'm about as stupid as you are curious.

----

> the only person to post in this thread who was actually a party to this lawsuit

Correction: The only non-anonymous person. Which is highly commendable.

BTW, the reason for the anonymity of others might be tangentially related to:

> no party to this lawsuit is at liberty to disclose the financial terms of the settlement.

But they might have anyway - you know that.

Also:
It's not just the "financial settlement" that's at issue, but certain repercussions from possible subsequent violations of various clauses in the whole agreement. You know what I'm talking about.

> the villainy of the commercial type industry

That's the type of thing Apostrophe might say - not me. Most type designers, and many type "managers" are good people. Most, and many - not all.

> welcome to air their grievances

Not so easy when the consequences can be a gestapo vendetta campaign! But in the end, it backfires - as it did.

----

In any case, I really need to offer a clarification, because -as you say- I did generalize too much:

Some of the people involved in this mess are basically good people, and the most they can be accused of is allowing their anger to be manipulated by the truly nasty fundamentalists. They were essentially swindled - and that's not really a crime. Plus I'm sure they're smart enough to learn who not to associate with from now on. Note, for example, that Adobe and a certain other party were previously teamed up in a suit, but in this subsequent action Adobe was smart enough to stay away.

So many lessons, so little time!

hhp

hrant's picture

You spin - I am gravity.

hhp

gulliver's picture

Can these anonymous posters make any argument that isn't rooted in name-calling?

David

hrant's picture

> You are under no restrictions here.

Yes I am.

> Then why did you say (post) it?

I didn't say anything remotely close to "the commercial type industry is villaneous". Because I don't believe that. My complaint is with a certain minority, people who are poisoning and polarizing the field.

> How do you know if they're good or bad?

I don't "know" it, I feel it. Just like you do!

It's basically the normal way people make their decisions about others - personal character judgment - but we each have our variations - which we need to mutually tolerate. Example: I talked to Rodrigo Cavazos for a few minutes at TypeCon98, and I could feel his goodness. I can't point to what I saw in his eyes, or what I heard in the timber of his voice, but I know what I feel. But also, I listen to who's saying what - and analyze what they really mean in the context of where they're coming from. I peel the layers, and look as deep as I can, while trying to peel my *own* layers which might interfere with a good evaluation. When I like or dislike somebody, I ask myself: why do I feel this way? And sometimes I realize that a psychological issue on my end is causing me to judge that person unfairly. So I correct it - or at least try to.

But I'd be an idiot to claim that I'm clairvoyant - I make judgment mistakes all the time - every human does. But at a given moment I believe what I believe, and I act on it. If I'm less tentative than most people, and that makes certain poeple uncomfortable, *they* need to deal with it.

> Do you know the whole situation on which you are commenting? Are you sure your "sources" have given you all of the facts?

I know *enough* of it, about certain entities - which I cannot allow myself to name - but is it really necessary anyway? People who I don't have enough "information" about (like you) I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. And when they come out like you did and openly ask rational questions with good poise and self-control, then I start to think better of them.

Sources? My best source is myself - other sources I always trust less than 50%. But I'm really not extrapolating very much. Trust me, I don't enjoy knowing what I know - but I'm very bad at looking the other way. Maybe I have a sick attraction to conflict, or maybe I can remain lucid under much greater "conflict-pressure" than most people, or a combination.

I can only hope that you believe me when I say that certain zealots in this industry are lashing out and victimizing people left and right, including people they should not alienate, including people who are still on their side but remain oblivious to their destructive fundamentalism. Why do they not see it? Maybe because it would hurt too much.

But whether you believe me or not is a non-issue for me - I'm not a politician looking for votes. I have no agenda. I am doing this because it's the right thing to do at this instant. Anybody who really knows me will tell you that I don't plan ahead more than a couple of meals. Which doesn't mean I'm reckless, at a given moment.

> you are throwing around some pretty heavy insults

The insults are commensurate with their actions.
When people make mistakes, they suffer the consequences. I didn't make up that law, I'm just part of the equation. The path to happiness is through self-improvement, not the punishment of others - and I'm enabling the communication (external and internal) necessary to the realization of this fact.

I think some people have a serious problem with me for a very simple reason: I am bad for business. Suffice it to say that I'm not exactly the biggest fan of capitalism... But in the end I am not the problem. Just like you, I am part of the solution.

hhp

hrant's picture

You spin - I am gravity.

hhp

hrant's picture

> How could anyone who frequents this board possibly object to this?

Jared, if you were listening you would have heard me condemn Apostrophe's actions - I always have.

Please don't fall into the "you're either with us or against us" fanaticism, which is exactly what I'm complaining about. You and others are aligning yourselves with these covert, rabid name-callers, whether you realize it, want it, or not.

The bottom line is that if we're going to reduce piracy, we have to be *stronger* and *smarter* than them. Alienating people who are essentially on your side but simply don't agree with you 1000% backfires - as it is doing now. Just because -as an example- I don't share some people's deluded dependence on the letter of the law doesn't mean we can't work together for a more harmonious co-existence. It certainly doesn't mean you come hunting after *me*! And diverting this discussion by putting a spin on an over-blown (not to mention *resolved*) incident from almost two years ago does not serve type design - it only serves to distract us from the failure at hand.

I am caught in the middle of people who would end up turning the world into a bitter, barren landscape. I did not choose this confrontation - they brought it upon us. Some of my opponents here simply do not realize what's happening (yet) - and those people I cannot hold too liable. But some of them need to be shunned - until they can abandon their manipulative fundamentalism.

Do no get caught up in this polarization. Remain a resonable human being, and you'll come out fine.

> If you aren't willing to back up your ....

Human opinion is not a US court of law.
I cannot give out the type of information you seem to want - for very good reasons. If this makes you discredit my views completely, then I can only feel sorry for your absolutism - but nonetheless ask you again for a little bit of your trust. The conclusions I've arrived are not set in stone - but neither are they the result of delusion - my thoughts and feelings on this have been forming for a while now. BTW, I am willing to share them in much greater detail in person - any time. Like ATypI's upcoming conference in Rome, if you like. I am sorry if my obtuseness here is frustrating - but think what it's doing to me!

And note this: I would indeed have stayed quiet if it were not for that original attempt at putting a spin on what really happened: "Though I don't think he'll be having much to say." If we don't realize and admit that Apostrophe is very much alive and kicking, in fact fighting *back* now, then we're shortchanging our long-term prospects. Why?

I have no vendetta - I am simply trying to pull down the unethical distortions that are being aired right in front of my eyes! I am slinging no mud - they are sitting in mud of their own doing - I have simply erected a roadsign alerting motorists. Now, some of the people are sitting in mud because they have mistakenly associated with unethical fanatics - they need to get up, and wash off.

My actions here are actually a reaction to their misleading spin-doctoring. This is a key point: I am not conducting some crusade, but simply trying to balance a wrong which I have seen aired before my eyes. I am ready to stop, as long as no new spins are introduced.

BTW, Jared, how come I can't voice my opinion freely without necessarily giving out "hard evidence", but anonymous people can conduct a vile, profane defamation campaign against me with no resistance? I think you are being unfair.

So go ahead you people, have the last word, throw more insults, whatever - and I'll stay quiet. Just please don't introduce new spins - I have great difficulty allowing myself to let it slide.

hhp

gulliver's picture

Hear hear. Thank you, Jonathan, for one of the very few bright spots of reason in this discussion.

David

anonymous's picture

I thought it was interesting that his site, apostrophiclabs.com was up until a few days ago, when it mysteriously disappeared without a trace....

Could it possibly be because of this response of his?
http://www.hardcovermedia.com/lab/Pages/Misc/PRTHIS.htm

anonymous's picture

The site's still there, you just got the URL wrong.

http://www.apostrophiclab.com/

Though I don't think he'll be having much to say.

anonymous's picture

Someguy:

>I thought it was interesting that his site,
>apostrophiclabs.com was up until a few days ago,
>when it mysteriously disappeared without a
>trace....

Anonagain:
>The site's still there, you just got the
>URL wrong.
>http://www.apostrophiclab.com/

Haphazian:
>Actually, "Someguy"'s link is exactly what
>Apostrophe had to say.

Spot the moron?

Haphazianagain:
>BTW, that $1000 (#2 in "Reasons for
>Order and Order") is Canadian,
>which is currently around US$630.

Spot the moron again?

anonymous's picture

POST ANONAGAINS IP ADDRESS SO WE CAN SEE ITS ORIGIN, PLEEZ.

anonymous's picture

FOOL, why do you want to know my IP address, what do you think it will tell you!? Great, I've a dialup/cable/dsl account with an ISP - tens of thousands of others use the same ISP, so what? You could take a guess at who I was, but it'd only be a guess - you can't even verify a physical location with an IP, all of AT&T's customer's resolve to New Jersey, because that's where their net block is registered.

Should we have them post your IP too, are you any braver than me?

If the admins of this board want to verify users then they shouldn't allow anonymous posts. If they want a membership scheme where everyone is absolutely known, then they should set one up. Don't moan about anonymity when you've already voted for it.

As to the moron. It's fairly straight forward. Someguy stated that a site was down. He was wrong, because, as you can see he wrote *labs.com, when the site URL is *lab.com, no "s".

Some other guy decided that I'd mispoke, because he couldn't be bothered to read the posts properly, and what was cited. I think that calling such a moron isn't to far from the truth.

Same guy thought he'd discerned the facts in a lengthy legal matter, took three years to be resolved, from a single court document - do you think there may be more documents, that discuss other aspects of this case, that are not published on the web? Seems likely to me.

You may also note that the legal document concerned is something like six months old, the case has only just been resolved - did something happen in the mean time, did something happen before this?

If you read the legal document properly, you'll see that the defendant is basically being accused of lying in his defence. The judge has odered that the defendant be subjected to a discovery process, sat in a room and asked question after question, all documented - the judge must therefore agree that there is something to the plaintiff's accusation of falsehood, though he doesn't strike out the defendant's statement at that time.

If you got this far, you'll see that the defendant was also ordered to pay the costs of this hearing before the court - again suggesting the judge had seen/heard evidence as to the falsehoods claimed, and accepted those claims.

I think that, if someone wants to start posting figures about this or that, then they should at least understand the process, and the figures they are quoting. Someone who didn't do that, just going for the headlines, would, in my opinion, rightly be called a moron.

You may also want to consider that the same person was ranting on a few days ago at Creative Pro, about how the defendant "never had to pay a single red cent" (see comments in response to John D Berry's latest dt font article). In a few days less than a "red cent" has been inflated to $1000, is he going to find some more "facts" (ie the real thing, not stuff he wants to opine about), will the costs to the defendant get inflated to $10,000, $100,000, a million!?

If we don't find the facts, will we *know* that it was only ever $1,000 - like he *knew* a few days ago that it was "nothing".

This same person has claimed costs to a single plaintiff were hundreds of thousands of dollars (posted here, and then deleted - I can't have been the only person that saw it). How does he know, does he work for any of the foundries concerned, does he cite some evidence. No he does not.

If that same person then went off tangentially, with no knowledge of the facts, and no evidence to support his statements to essentially berate those who had no choice other than to defend their rights (their rights protected by long-standing legislation), then I think again he would rightly be described as a moron.

But, why take me seriously, I have no standing as an anonymous poster. But do you really know who anyone is in this forum, are they all validated just because they gave a name, do they have any greater standing, are they really who they say they are?

There was a guy used to post to a mailing list with the mail address "nevillebrody@[an isp].fr", what do you reckon are the chances?

And now I got really upset, let's put this into perspective. This *moron*, this troll, this seeker of truth and justice, this fukcing idiot that will post anything he likes with no backup whatsoever just so he can point fingers and use innuendo to convict - is no better than Apostrophe anyway. This moron pirated a font, was discovered, and had to have debt collectors sent out after him to get him to pay the license fee.

The font he pirated, just happens to be put out by one of the foundries in this case, whom he is trying so hard to bait and embarrass.

Papazian, you are a worm, go back and crawl under your rock where you belong.

Who has standing here, Papazian because he puts his name? And what is that worth?

anonymous's picture

Wow, Tim, that was harsh!

anonymous's picture

My guess: Papazian, "someguy" and "anotherperson" are all the same person.

"anotherperson" seems here to be, yet again, trying to shift the blame on to someone else, someone else to target.

Look at the time stamps yourself, which appear to be Pacific time, see the proximity of two of those posts?

See the time on the "anonagainagainagain" post - seems unlikely to have been posted by someone on the West Coast, which is "anotherperson's" inference.

Anotherperson's post, just starting work in CA? You guess.

anonymous's picture

I know that the designer of this typeface had to face
Papazian bragging about this act of piracy. It wasn't
an accidental discovery, Papazian basically dared the
designer to do something about it.

anonymous's picture

Did you ever make
>Peace.
>hhp
???????

Did you ever
>subsequently admitting your fault(s)
???????

Are your rantings simply a pathetic attempt to justify what you did?

Joe Pemberton's picture

Since you're all guessing:

The time stamps on these boards reflect the time
on the server (Pacific time) not the time on the
user's computer.

Papazian, 'someguy', 'anotherperson',
'disgusted' and 'TheWorldWantsToKnow'
are all coming from unique IPs. I'll
leave it at that.

And yes, further still, all the anon(andyetagains)
are from the same IP. (Welcome back.)

And I promise this is really me. Really.

anonymous's picture

Joe, dialups most often give unique IPs on each connection, that doesn't mean it's a different person. If you have a trace route app you can see all the switches the connection goes through from you to the selected IP, if the last ones all belong to the same ISP... good chance it's the same person.

But at the same time, same IP doesn't make it the same person - even if it's simultaneous.

Joe Pemberton's picture

anonagain,

The fact is Hrant's IP is nearly ALWAYS the same
and there are as many unique IPs here as
there are posters. My intent is not to say we
definitively know the identity of our anonymous
guests...

But that's not really the point. I'm simply
illustrating that this thread isn't just you and
Hrant. Anonymous posting is a double-edged
sword and I'm just trying to keep things above the
table--while still protecting that anonymity.

I think the value of anonymous posting is yet
again proven here with your salient points.
Namely that nobody should jump to
conclusions based on partial facts or make
blanket indictments of entire industries.

Jared Benson's picture

Nasty queen? Feces? Is this not proof enough that things are getting just a _little_ out of hand?

Why does every thread on this board have to end in a _(insert_name_here)_ vs. Hrant flame?

Is there a remedy? We certainly have a few options that we've been considering. I'd love everyone's input.

anonymous's picture

Papazian, you continue to amaze me with the crap you come out with.

Don't keep referring to "you" as if I had anything to do with this court case or have had any discussion with you previously about this matter.

I have no financial interest in this case at all. I did not take part in the law suit, I did not give any evidence I do not work for any of the foundries. I am just a bystander who can see a little more to this than you permit yourself.

And my name is not Tim.

All you want to do is shout and pretend you know something - you know *nothing*. If that's not the case cite your evidence.

You, Papazian, talk of Apostrophe as if he is some friend of yours, you know what his plans are, you forsee him issuing a counter suit!? For what purpose? For getting named on a web site?

You've spent the last week or so baying for Apostrophe's real name, now you have it and you've some sympathy for his cause!?

You want to accuse others of abusing the law, what would Apostrophe be doing then?

What would you want these people to do. Their rights were violated, blatently, by this criminal. Their only option was to seek legal redress.

Perhaps you're suggesting, with your civil war swagger and Kalashnikov that you know a better way. Perhaps they could slip you $10 and you could sort it out for them?

You are just so screwed up because they answered your call, they went after you when you pirated one of their fonts. Now you're as fcuked as Apostrophe.

A dollar value on my name. No, no value on my name. No reputation to give weight or not to my statements - just my statements.

Apostrophe is a proven liar, thief and fantasist. His words carry no weight.

You are a proven, captured and made to pay font thief. You are all swagger and no balls. You are an idot that always must have the last word, no matter how much you need to wriggle out of your original proposition.

Don't keep relying on your "heroic" past, no one cares, we see it every night on the TV.

If you have the facts, post them. Don't keep alluding to things you know, you know nothing. All you're doing is trying to shake the tree to see what falls out.

A rotten apple: Hrant Papazian.

You want to accuse others of disrupting forums like this and mailing lists? Get this jerk off, I know of more people that have left mailing lists, and don't visit forums like this because of your rantings, than you can imagine.

And where do they go? Places you'll *never* be invited to.

You're the disrupter, you're the one who has no respect or standing.

anonymous's picture

Will this moron ever give it up!? I really doubt it.

There are only partial facts in this case, anyone can see that. At the same time you've got people putting spin on it from every angle. The fact is that the whole truth will probably never be known.

Does Apostrophe know the truth - in that screwed up brain of his I really doubt it. What ever he writes or says, or provides through "conduits", is the result of the mind of a fantasist, a dreamer.

Does Papazian know the truth, or anything like the truth? Come on!

Here he is playing the victim, saying how "they" are trying to drive him out of the typographic community. Surely "they" are the only other people, apart from Apostrophe, who have the inside story.

Apostrophe's a nut, "they" all hate Papazian (his terms).

Conclusion: Papazian knows nothing.

>Those who would benefit from the status quo
>and/or those who have something to gain by hiding
>the truth can't stand me, of course. But they
>have to realize that I'm just the catalyst -
>not the actual problem.

Here again, "I'm just the catalyst" (shaking the tree). These are the words of another fantasist.

What "truth" is there to hide? How come The Almighty chose Papazian as the guardian of the truth?

This is just the ranting of another conspiracy theorist - he should be writing for the X-files, he's wasted on us.

>They want to force me out of the type
>community

Another conspiracy?

No one's forcing you out dreamer. You took it on yourself, one by one, in your own private war of attrition, you just wore out your welcome.

Thing is, this isn't irreversible, you could rebuild those bridges. But you never will, because that ingnorant stubborness in you is what burned those bridges in the first place, and that's the same mechanism by which you'll never let yourself go back.

>- but is that community served by such
>cyberterrorism?

Does anyone have a clue what that means!?

The grand typo council is plotting the downfall of the internet, and Hrant Papazian is their first victim!?

>Anyway, as soon as they realize that I'm here to
>stay, maybe they can regain some of their dignity.

You're so far gone you don't even know what planet you're on.

anonymous's picture

If you know the truth, and the answers to all these questions you rhetorically pose, then you should write it, here.

Otherwise your voice carries no weight.

What will I do? I'll counter the biased crap that trolls like you write.

anonymous's picture

>> If you know the truth

> No I don't

Then cut out the baseless, completely biased speculation.

anonymous's picture

>> You are a proven, captured and made to pay font thief.
>
>More distortions. Read the archives.

Give the url please or if that is not possible put the messages up on your site where all can see. But can you do it without resorting to the artful use of the ellipsis to hide the parts which would prove you wrong? Can you really say that you were not guilty of font theft and still have faith that there are documents to vindicate you? Will the archives earn you the respect you want?

Jared Benson's picture

Aaah, There's nothing like a little drama and excitement in the world of type.

So if an individual was caught using a font without a license and was made to pay, can they *ever* regain full citizenship in the type community?

What would that individual have to do to regain trust?

anonymous's picture

I've lost you. Who are "the fascists," Hrant?

hoefler's picture

As the only person to post in this thread who was actually a party to this lawsuit, let me set a couple of things straight.

First, the document Ole Sørenson listed does not represent "court findings" in this matter. You'll see from its date that this order significantly predates the settlement of Emigre et al v. Apostrophe, which was closed in March 2002.

Second, neither side "won" or "lost" in this matter. The parties settled the lawsuit; settlements are, by definition, agreeable to both parties. You should not find the words "won" or "lost" in any press release issued by the foundries.

Third, no party to this lawsuit is at liberty to disclose the financial terms of the settlement. Anyone implying otherwise is, to use the legal term, talking out of their •••.

Finally, on a personal note, let me just say that I find these sweeping generalizations about the villainy of the commercial type industry to be not only childish, piteous, bizarre, vindictive, and wholly unproductive, but somewhat insulting as well. Anyone on this board who has a beef with the practices of a particular company is welcome to air their grievances -- professionals consider this a cost of doing business. But as a commercial type foundry, which basically means a type designer with "Inc" for a last name, I really don't appreciate being characterized by any of the foul and slanderous language used above.

I am a type designer, and I work my butt off trying to create an environment in which I and my colleagues can produce the best typefaces we're capable of creating. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't know me. And anyone who thinks that the "Inc" in my name makes me "miserly," "litigious," "misguided," "indecent" or "self-righteous" just doesn't know business.

anonymous's picture

>> Who are "the fascists," Hrant?
>
>I'm about as stupid as you are curious.

Is "curious" curious? Yes, obviously.
Is Hrant therefore being stupid? ;-)

What? No names of facists and no url
to help Hrant save face? Such a pity.

anonymous's picture

Hrant, do you walk as crooked as you talk - it must take you a fcuk of a long time to get home.

What's that thing they say about usenet, everything always boils down to "Nazis"? Hrant's spin on that, the Gestapo.

You are a worm Papazian, no one wants to persue a vendetta against you, but you love to make it out to be so - are there people sitting in big cars outside your home right now, do you get followed home at night, do you hear mysterious noises on the telephone, do things move around your home of their own accord?

If the answer to any of these is yes, then you aren't the victim of a vendetta, or the Typo Gestapo, you just need to see a shrink.

anonymous's picture

You mean poster--it's just me. My vocabulary is limited and I can't articulate myself beyond profanities and playground name calling.

And besides I'm good at it.

anonymous's picture

>Also: It's not just the "financial settlement" that's at issue,
>but certain repercussions from possible subsequent violations of
>various clauses in the whole agreement. You know what I'm talking
>about.

What are you talking about? What subsequent violations? What certain repercussions? Please, share it with the group. You are under no restrictions here.

>That's the type of thing Apostrophe might say - not me.

Then why did you say (post) it?

>Some of the people involved in this mess are basically good
>people,

Do you really know these people? How do you know if they're good or bad?

>anger to be manipulated by the truly nasty fundamentalists.

Who are these "truly nasty fundamentalists"?

>were essentially swindled - and that's not really a crime. Plus
>I'm sure they're smart enough to learn who not to associate with
>from now on. Note, for example, that Adobe and a certain other
>party were previously teamed up in a suit, but in this subsequent
>action Adobe was smart enough to stay away.

Bold statements...but why do you feel the need to be so obtuse? Let's name some names here. If you are going to throw out insults and acusations like that, at least have the courtesy to be specific. Who are the good people? Who are the bad? Do you know these people well enough to make these judgements? Do you know the whole situation on which you are commenting? Are you sure your "sources" have given you all of the facts? All I'm saying is that you are throwing around some pretty heavy insults about people about whom you know very little.

anonymous's picture

>I think some people have a serious problem with me for a very simple reason: I am bad for business.

Every thief is. Big or small, major or minor.

John D. Berry concludes his recent piece on the legal case by saying,
"And pay for the fonts you use. For type designers, that's the bottom line."

hoefler's picture

Hrant, you haven't really answered any of Rich's questions.

This cloak-and-dagger business of "certain parties" is making the rest of us feel bad; this whole thread smacks of McCarthyism. Why don't you just speak your mind?

anonymous's picture

David, there's more than one anonymous poster here, and the "anonbackagain" wasn't me.

Papazian wants to think he is the victim of a vendetta, that the Gestapo are out to get him. I think it's clear that these are the ravings of a lunatic - there's no name-calling any more so than there is in Papazian's use of such terms in the first place.

He wants to disperse the specific accusations against him by making ever grander and non-specific accusations against unnamed others. I think you can perfectly well understand Jonathan's statements, Papazian wants to splash mud everywhere, and some people are going to rightly ask "why are you splashing me?"

anonymous's picture

Jonathan:
> the only person to post in this thread who
> was actually a party to this lawsuit

Papazian:
>Correction: The only non-anonymous person.
>Which is highly commendable.

Hrant, this is just wishful thinking on your part, you have no evidence of this either way, you're just trying to pad out your conspiracy theory. At best you have speculation that there were other poster involved in this lawsuit and this thread, you have no evidence to back it up at all.

As one of the anonymous posters, and knowing who one of the others is, my *knowledge* says you're wrong (and no, that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy of anonymous posters either, though you can make it out that way if you like).

anonymous's picture

The thing from another planet:
>I think some people have a serious problem with
>me for a very simple reason: I am bad for
>business. Suffice it to say that I'm not
>exactly the biggest fan of capitalism...
>But in the end I am not the problem. Just
>like you, I am part of the solution.

And Hrant came down from the mountain with the word of god, thou shalt listen to me, in my gobbledegook speak, as no one can disclaim what I say.

Ask yourselves some questions:

Who really cares about Hrant Papazian's rantings to fear for their own businesses?

Who is Hrant Papazian in the grand scheme of things anyway?

Who outside of a few lists and boards like this (which are of little consequence outside their instant in time) knows or cares what he has to say?

Who appointed him as our all-knowing saviour?

Why does he speak in riddles, never saying anything straight out, but at the same time claiming to be a straight shooter?

Ask yourself, if you had a secret, that couldn't be said, would you choose Hrant Papazian as the guardian of that secret (which is what he appears to be claiming)?

All I see here is huff and puff trying to cover his own failings and shift the focus/blame onto someone else.

Papazian: font thief.

Papazian: dared the designer of that font to do something about it.

Papazian: ignored invoices and letters from that foundry asking him to pay for that font.

Papazian: had to have debt collectors sent out after him to collect the money he owed, and had to pay the fees of the debt collectors.

Papazian: bitter and twisted egomaniac who is now embarking on a vendetta against that same foundry.

Jared Benson's picture

Can we boil this issue down for a second? Perhaps I need some clarification, or there's something I'm missing.

A group of type foundries sought to prosecute an individual who was stealing their work and illegally distributing it, thereby damaging the foundries' livelihoods.

How could anyone who frequents this board possibly object to this?

Dare I say that anyone who would take the side of the defendant (') in this case is not welcome here.

Jared Benson's picture

Hrant, your accusations are offensive to us all, involved in the case or not.

If you aren't willing to back up your generalizations and broad-sweeping accusations with tangible facts and details, perhaps you should save your breath until you are able to do so.

A note to the lurkers of this thread, of which I know there are many:
Although he is the most prolific poster as of date, the viewpoints that Hrant presents are not necessarily shared by Typophile, especially in regard to this thread. It is in the spirit of open conversation that we have chosen to let users post freely and when desired, anonymously.

Typophile is a product of the community that it serves, and your feedback is always welcome. Email me directly at: benson@typophile.com

anonymous's picture

Jared, I think you hit the nail on the head, Papazian does seem to be proposing that the foundries concerned should not have persued this case through legal means. What does he want them to do instead?

He also seems to want to drag other type vendors into this, as weight behind his claims, stating that they did not take part in the suit - specifically Adobe.

His point here seems to be that because Adobe did not take part then the suit was without merit.

Is there any logic to this claim? It doesn't appear so, without knowing why Adobe didn't take part.

One thing is fairly evident though. My experience of Adobe's legal efforts is that they have always been pursued against commercial piracy. I don't know of any instances where they have pursued cases against individuals distributing their intellectual property for no (direct) financial gain.

Perhaps this is corporate policy at Adobe, and would explain why they took no part in this case.

In any event, I believe it's true to say that this case united a greater number of foundries in one case than has ever been the case before - we should take that as testimony as to the integrity with which that case was pursued.

Papazian's mud slinging sticks to all the plaintiffs in this case (see the list of designers cited at the URL given at the top of this page) - yet he offers no evidence to back up his accusations, and no remedy to what he (alone) sees as wrong-doing.

anonymous's picture

> You are under no restrictions here.
>
>Yes I am.

Uhh...what restrictions?

>complaint is with a certain minority, people who are
>poisoning and polarizing the field.

Okay. I'll ask again. Who are these people that are poisoning and polarizing the field. Please share with us...I am sure we would all like to know so we can all benefit from your vast wisdom and steer clear of their poisonous and polarizing ways.
>
>> How do you know if they're good or bad?
>
>I don't "know" it, I feel it. Just like you do!

How do you presume to know how I make judgements about people? I certainly don't make these bold pronouncements about people I've never met.

>But I'd be an idiot to claim that I'm clairvoyant - I make
>judgment mistakes all the time - every human does.

I think you are making judgement mistakes here. You are using this soapbox to drag the names of some really good people through the mud. I think you really need to stop and think about what you are saying.

>I know *enough* of it, about certain entities - which I
>cannot allow myself to name - but is it really necessary
>anyway?

Yeah...it really is necessary if you are going to continue to make your disparaging statements.

>Sources? My best source is myself - other sources I always
>trust less than 50%. But I'm really not extrapolating very
>much. Trust me, I don't enjoy knowing what I know - but I'm
>very bad at looking the other way.

Did anybody ask you to look the other way? We want more! What specifically do you know? Who are these miserable people to whom you keep referring? You are not backing up your statements with specifics. When it comes to that, your conversations degrade into philosophical discussions

>> you are throwing around some pretty heavy insults
>
>The insults are commensurate with their actions. When people
>make mistakes, they suffer the consequences.

What mistakes. What people made these mistakes? What are the consequences?

>But in
>the end I am not the problem. Just like you, I am part of
>the solution.

Who is the problem? Why are you part of the solution? Please tell me so I can bask in the glory of being part of the solution to this problem.

How do you know I'm part of the solution? Do you know me? Do you know my business? I might be a complete SOB. The folks you are criticizing might be perfectly wonderful, honest and upstanding people. You just don't know.

Do you see what you are doing? You are making uneducated and unsubstantiated judgements of people about whom you know very little. You might know actions, but you do not know the context in which they were taken.

anonymous's picture

Hrant, what is this great "wrong"? Just spell it out!

>Just because -as an example- I don't share
>some people's deluded dependence on the letter
>of the law doesn't mean we can't work together
>for a more harmonious co-existence.

What can we do except rely on the law?

What are you doing to expediate "harmonious co-existence"?

Don't keep pointing the finger at others, if you have some input, then give it. All the spin here is your's there's no facts to back it up.

You want to complain about people's attacks on your personal morals as being unjustified, and with no evidence given - but you already admitted that these allegations of your piracy were true!?

Syndicate content Syndicate content