by E-ZLegalsSucks,
September 14, 2000
Wah ha ha! Boy, is E-ZLegal mad at me -- even the "office
of the president" got into the act!
See, E-ZLegal puts out
do-it-yourself books, a la "Dummies." In fact, they're
so close to Dummies, it's a wonder that Dummies hasn't sued them
for trademark infringement. Doubt it? Then compare, mon frere:
Dummies suck
but copying Dummies is
not an improvement.
Note the similarities:
Colors, fonts, idiotic cartoon mascot -- even the freakin' angle
that both mascots are pointing at. I mean, c'mon already!
Continuing on... I let
E-ZLegal know my mind, sending a one-liner to their customer-service
people announcing that they suck and that they're ripping Dummies
off and they really should know better. (I wish I'd saved it.)
And then, the "office
of the president" weighs in. The complete and unabridged
text of that communication follows:
From: "Amy
Adams" (custsvc@e-zlegal.com)
To: "ME"
Subject: Made E-Z Products
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:23:01 -0400
Sir:
While your e-mail,
under most circumstances would not warrant a reply, it has reached
me on a day when I feel that a lesson in business is in order.
Your right to dislike our product offering is unquestioned. However,
your expression to us, in a manner that suggests less than a
thorough understanding of our presentation, would lead one to
question the depth of your thought process.
Did you consider
that we might be telling the enduser that our's is an easy product
to use and that we do not infer one needs to be dumb to understand
our presentation?
I learned long
ago to accept constructive critism. In fact, the ability to analyze
well thought out suggestions and act (rather than react) has
allowed our company to continually forge ahead.
I'm sure the
success you acheive in life would increase immeasurably if you,
when choosing to be critical, coupled that with well though out
suggestions.
Signed,
Office of the President
Well, I must say, the "office
of the president" certainly put me in my place. Because,
in fact, it hadn't occurred to me that E-ZLegal was "telling
the enduser that our's is an easy product to use and that we
do not infer one needs to be dumb to understand our presentation."
No indeed.
I, peasant that I am, thought
E-ZLegal was riding the coat tails of a publisher which had identified
and propagated a successful combination of trademarks that make
their products instantly identifiable as Dummies books. In fact,
E-ZLegal's look is so close to that of Dummies that a casual
reader could easily misidentify one publisher for another --
which, my all-too-legal-savvy friend, is grounds for trademark
infringement.
But, you know, that could
just be me. My thought processes often splash about in the shallow
end of the pool -- although I do know how to spell (or even spellcheck),
I know the difference between "infer" and "imply"
as well as when to use them (which "the office of the president"
of E-ZLegal does not), and I know how to see through a line of
crap offered up as a defense for ripping off a competitor's intellectual
property.
Oh well. I'd send "the
office of the president" a little note, informing him or
her that he or she should read their Everyday
Law Made E-Z, but
having firsthand knowledge of the quality of E-ZLegal's work,
that might not be fair.
