While William Beaty has been busy attacking the ZapNo product and my
reputation, it has come to my attention that ZapNo has a competitor at the
following link.
This competitor has obviously invested venture capital into their version
of the ZapNo because they too believe there is likely to be a demand for
it. You can even discover that they are charging US$2.20 each for
quantities of not less than 500 units ... these prices are commercially
aligned with the ZapNo pricing structure. My competitor falsely claims to
have a patent on their product, therefore this claim is illegal.
When I first invented the original ZapNo I was aware a patent could not
eventuate because the underlying technology is obvious to a person skilled
in the art.
Considering the fact that there are two companies now offering similar
products, I find it unconscionable that I be disadvantaged by William
Beaty's postings. The facts are, using a key to stop being zapped simply
does not work reliably and is therefore an unacceptable alternative. The
manufacturing cost of a ZapNo is in line with very ordinary commercial
ventures. Our clients are happy with the 100% reliability of their ZapNo
and they show this by recommending the products to others. Nobody is
likely to become wealthy selling the ZapNo products. The ZapNo product
should survive or crash due to market demand ... this is only logical.
In light of the above information, I believe there is now a new issue which
should be considered carefully. If the ZapNo product and myself are
singled out for William Beaty's damaging accusations and my competitor is
not, I believe this can only add credibility to a legal case.
I therefore extend my previous deadline to the 15th August 2002 to allow
time for all parties to re-evaluate their exposure to risk. I still intend
pursuing legal action if the offensive material is not removed and if
William Beaty has not removed the keyword "ZapNo" from his web content.
By not removing the offensive material by the due date, William Beaty
considers himself not accountable for his actions. I am disappointed in
both William Beaty's attitude and the education institution for continuing
to host the offensive material for so long. The postings are not about
education, freedom of speech or freedom of expression etc.. they are simply
malicious and are obviously annoying to other subscribers.
I once again respectfully ask that Dan MacIsaac, Assistant Professor of
Physics, SUNY-Buffalo State College danmac@att.net http://purcell.phy.nau.edu PHYS-L list owner remove the offensive
material as requested earlier and now more particularly in light of the new
information above. I believe have been more than reasonable in my handling
of this issue and do not wish to engage in a legal battle.