RSS
Wall Street Journal Blacks Out Line In Vonage Ad
from the advertising-abridged dept
As the Vonage-Verizon patent spat winds its way through the courts, Vonage has decide to plead its case in a different court -- the court of public opinion. The company has been taking out ads explaining its position, and basically making the case that Verizon is simply trying to use its patents to stifle competition. Apparently, the Wall Street Journal didn't like a line in one of Vonage's ads, so readers were greeted to a full page ad with one sentence blacked out. It's not clear why the sentence, which read "Now, Verizon has chosen to attack Vonage in the courts. Why? Could it be all about the money?", set off the alarm bells, although presumably it was under some sort of pressure from Verizon. This doesn't really constitute censorship on the Journal's part, since it's a private company and can do whatever it wants, but it is odd that the company would make an editorial decision in this way, and just black out one line, rather than refuse the ad outright. What makes this story particularly odd is that the Journal ran its own article about Vonage's ad campaign, in which it specifically referenced the offending line, as though it were somehow explosive. Assuming that it did face some sort of (presumably legal) pressure from Verizon over the line, the episode is indicative of how high the stakes are for both companies.
22 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- DailyDirt: Live Performances Get Attention, Sometimes For Being Kinda Bad...
- Redbox Follows Netflix's Lead, Delays Fox and Universal DVD Releases by 28 Days
- Post TSA's New Security Rules And Get A Visit And Subpoena From Homeland Security
- Getting People To Pay For Investigative Reporting Directly
- Not All Newspaper Chains Are Facing Doom And Gloom Scenarios
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Vonage was told that the wording was not acceptable, so they decided to black it out. Smart move, as that gets even more publicity.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, this is censorship. It just happens to be legal censorship by a private entity.
You have a narrow understanding of the word "censorship." Censorship does not have to be state-sponsored nor does it have to violate ones First Amendment rights to be called "censorship."
BTW, the Journal cannot always "do whatever it wants." It can only do whatever it wants that is legal. However, one may assume that by "do whatever [the Journal] wants" you meant decline to print text in a company's ads I think you are right. But, a newspaper couldn't, say, refuse to run someone's housing ad just because they were black. There are restrictions on what private companies can do.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I hope Comcast is watching
Verizon
Vonage
Skype
Comcast
If Verizon wins this legal battle it will probably aim at Skype next (maybe, but it seems as if they're infringing on the patent as well) and then comcast (since they provide the same exact service as Vonage)
Just wanted to throw that out there.
You have to go see the free to compete web site. Its a good laugh and reminds me why I like Vonage over Verizon. Not just because there cheaper, but because there adds and site always seem to have actual people behind them not just one big corporation that's just trying to get your money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Uh... yes, yes they can. There is NOBODY that is allowed to tell them they MUST carry an ad they find offensive (if that be the case).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Do you have a source for this?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Sorry, AC, but you are wrong on the law. I specifically contrived to create an example that is covered by Federal Law, in this case, the Fair Housing act. Note that my example specifically was a housing ad and that the refusal was specifically, and only, racially motivated. Your substitution of a different example that you could knock down is a specious argument. The Journal cannot be required to carry housing ads, but if they do they cannot discriminate on the basis of race.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Wrong again.
The Journal can discriminate all they want.
What they cannot do, is carry an ad that states discrimation as a requirement to obtain said housing.
My original comment still stands.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Blacked out line
This is why I'd believe that the ad was printed as is.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Shape Up Or Ship Out...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Random Thoughts x2
It only means that Vonage knew and accepted the censoring.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What About Prior Art?
see: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070423/094554.shtml
These VZW VoIP patents may well be proven invalid someday because of the prior art, but that doesn't mean they can't be used to kill Vonage now.
Capitalism is about free markets. Patents are about government-granted monopolies. Free markets and patents are diametrically opposed, and don't let anyone get away with making them seem synonymous. There is a time and a place for patents, but these are compromises capitalist societies make for the singular goal of bringing new inventions to market.
Many patent positions today are more anti-competitive than they are innovation-based. This is the norm, not the exception. Verizon's suit against Vonage is more about stopping competition than about inventing things at Verizon. That shouldn't be OK in American law.
Verizon doesn't need changing, the law does.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Random Thoughts x2
It only means that Vonage knew and accepted the censoring.
No. It means Vonage knew it had to change the ad and did so in a way that would give it maximum PR. Smart on their part. Others might have pulled the ad entirely and bitched about the censorship, while the rest of the world ignored them. This way, people who probably don't care have their curiosity piqued and will hear what Vonage wants to tell them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Indeed, you may be right on that point. But you have just disproved your own point. The Journal cannot do "whatever it wants to do." There are restrictions.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I never said such thing.
The only point I made was that noone could force the paper to carry an ad it didn't like.
Perhaps you were replying to some other entity too lazy to type in a name? Yes, that is probably the case. Sorry for the confusion my laziness has caused.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I am not saying this is wrong, but don't believe that Vonage is out there fighting for the little guy, they are fighting for themselves.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh yes, we definitely still disagree.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I hope Comcast is watching
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Analogies again...
If I want to buy some ad space to sell a house in the WSJ and they:
1. Deny me because they don't run housing ads. Fine
2. Deny me because there no more room in that issue. Fine
3. Deny me because I am black. Problem.
The trick is I have to prove they denied me soley based on my race. They could discriminate against my race and then some up with some bullshit answer later to cover their butts.
Back to the topic at hand. I agree with comment #8. WSJ would told them in advance if the ad was unacceptable or else the WSJ would have been in trouble for altering the ad after approving it. Looks to me like Vonage tried to run the ad and WSJ gave them the choices of blacking out that one line, removing that one line, or not get the adspace in that issue. And Vonage knowing with would generate more attention knew just what to do...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
There's a sensible explanation -- thanks to Techdi
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment