PADI v. Diverlink appeal

[DivePartner1]

To the question of ‘what’s up with PADI’s appeal of its loss to Diverlink’, the answer is ‘not much.’ For a controversy that began with a roar, it's dying out with a whimper (and what happened to all of the threads on this?)

PADI file its appellant brief on March 1. In the word’s of the court clerk, several days later PADI re-filed to satisfy a “(major) brief deficiency, corrected appellant's opening brief with correct size footnotes.” (Parenthetical by court.). I guess they don’t do this much. Court’s of Appeal take minutia very seriously.

Diverlink responded on April 12. Although one would expect the appellate briefing to repeat the arguments made to the trial court, PADI asked for an extension of the time within which to respond and was granted an extension to May 27. 2004.

As you might recall, PADI sued Diverlink for libel in early 2002 over a comparison of dive agencies posted on the Diverlink site that PADI alleged was false and damaging to its reputation. The trial court dismissed the suit in August 2003 and awarded Diverlink $196,070.27 in costs and attorneys fees in September 2003. PADI appeals the dismissal and sanctions.

 

[DennisW]

PADI is going to get more court costs sent their way. They should just apologize and get over it.

 

[MikeFerrara]

The trial court dismissed the suit in August 2003 and awarded Diverlink $196,070.27 in costs and attorneys fees in September 2003. PADI appeals the dismissal and sanctions.

Gee, I'd help em fix their standards for half that. LOL

 

[zboss]

PADI is going to get more court costs sent their way. They should just apologize and get over it.

By PADI not appealing they are essentially admitting to what DiverLink published (BTW - I have no idea what the text actually was - I have never read the article) and this sets them up for liability for incidents that may by the result of whatever the arguement was about in the first place.

 

[DennisW]

zboss,

No liability involved, just a frivolous suit. The Judge obviously agreed at that time, because he threw it out of court and ordered PADI to pay the court costs and attorneys fees that Diverlink had expended at that time. Now they will just get more costs added to the bill. PADI should fire the attorney that recommended filing the suit in the first place. Not only was it in bad taste, it has been handled very unprofessionally. PADI's handling of this situation has lowered my opinion of their organization tremendously, such that I would never attend a PADI course nor use a PADI only facility if I can get around it. Other agencies actually used the comparison to make positive changes to their curriculum. PADI chose the low road. One without a base, I might add.

 

[Walter]

Actually, the court never ruled on the accuracy of the document. It basically ruled that Diverlink is an ISP and was therefore exempt from lawsuits of this nature. That made the accuracy of the article moot (with regard to the lawsuit).

By PADI not appealing they are essentially admitting to what DiverLink published (BTW - I have no idea what the text actually was - I have never read the article) and this sets them up for liability for incidents that may by the result of whatever the arguement was about in the first place.

Not at all. Their instructors are required to follow their published standards, not an article about their standards.

Gee, I'd help em fix their standards for half that. LOL

Their standards aren't broken. They accomplish exactly what they are designed to accomplish. IMHO, they just want to accomplish one thing while making us think they are accomplishing something else.

If the article was inaccurate, it would be very easy for PADI to point out in the standards exactly where the errors are found. That hasn't happened.

what happened to all of the threads on this?

I could be mistaken, but I believe it was moved to a back room where we can't see it.

 

[The Chairman]

The Diverlink VS PADI forum outlived it's usefulness. It is still available by request but since it was mostly negative in nature we removed it from greater public access. We were happy when Diverlink prevailed and sincerely hope that the site will make a comeback of some sort. It has to be quite stressful to live under those types of accusations.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Their standards aren't broken. They accomplish exactly what they are designed to accomplish. IMHO, they just want to accomplish one thing while making us think they are accomplishing something else.

Understood.

If the article was inaccurate, it would be very easy for PADI to point out in the standards exactly where the errors are found. That hasn't happened.

I agree. If I remember there were sections of the article that I didn't think were completely accurate but that could have been streightened out with a few simple explainations. That didn't seem to be their goal though.

 

[Bob3]

The Diverlink VS PADI forum outlived it's usefulness.

Well, if PADI is going for another round of BS, can we pull our chairs up & watch them shoot themselves in the foot again?

 

[Drew Sailbum]

Not to try to drag this whole thing up again, but...

1. While many may have been happy with the decisions to date in this case, I think it is probably not universally the case. I think NetDoc certainly can speak for himself on this issue (and as owner of SB, he can speak for "the board"). I don't think the "WE" he referenced could safely be assumed to mean all members of the board.

2. As Walter most assuredly remembers, far too much of the threads previously related to this issue had to do with people (I being first and perhaps foremost) pointing out perceived errors in various material posted on Diverlink. Some of this material was a subject of the legal action with PADI. Some, but apparently not all, of this material was written by Walter.

Over the course of many public and private messages, agreement was reached that changes were appropriate with reference to a few specific points in a comparison of agency standards written by Walter. Changes were in fact made to some of the material in question. Agreement was not reached on other points.

Throughout this exchange, I only spoke for myself. Despite some private suggestions to the contrary, I was not then an agent or employee of PADI, nor have I ever been since. I in no way speak on behalf of PADI.

I can only speculate that Walter may have disagreed with the manner in which PADI sought to handle this issue. I would hope that he still agrees that the changes any he changes he made to the material were made in an effort to more accurately reflect PADI's standards.

Speaking for myself, I found it incredibly frustrating that though apparent errors were corrected, Walter continued to make statments such as

If the article was inaccurate, it would be very easy for PADI to point out in the standards exactly where the errors are found. That hasn't happened.

Getting these few corrections made was by no means an easy affair. Further, I think this quote may give an incorrect impression that the material, as originally written, was completely accurate at the time of publication.