PADI v Diverlink

Walter · Jul 18, 2005

On July 13, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against PADI in it's appeal of the United States District Court for Central District of California's ruling in PADI's suit against Diverlink. It looks like this is finally over, PADI should now be paying Diverlink's legal expenses as ordered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California which were approximately $197,000 prior to the appeal. I have no idea how much they are at this point.

The suit was filed as a result of PADI's displeasure with an article published on the Diverlink website comparing the Open Water training standards of three certification agencies.

Azza · Jul 18, 2005

Walter:
On July 13, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against PADI in it's appeal of the United States District Court for Central District of California's ruling in PADI's suit against Diverlink. It looks like this is finally over, PADI should now be paying Diverlink's legal expenses as ordered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California which were approximately $197,000 prior to the appeal. I have no idea how much they are at this point.

The suit was filed as a result of PADI's displeasure with an article published on the Diverlink website comparing the Open Water training standards of three certification agencies.

Do you know if there is a link to the actual article anywhere? I would be keen to read it.

JeffG · Jul 18, 2005

Azza:
Do you know if there is a link to the actual article anywhere? I would be keen to read it.

IIRC... it was this one

www.diverlink.com/wrap.php?file=newdiver/agencycomparison.htm

pants! · Jul 18, 2005

Cool.

RIDIVER501 · Jul 18, 2005

Walter:
On July 13, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against PADI in it's appeal of the United States District Court for Central District of California's ruling in PADI's suit against Diverlink. It looks like this is finally over, PADI should now be paying Diverlink's legal expenses as ordered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California which were approximately $197,000 prior to the appeal. I have no idea how much they are at this point.

The suit was filed as a result of PADI's displeasure with an article published on the Diverlink website comparing the Open Water training standards of three certification agencies.

Kind of odd that you would post this Walt and the name of the guy who is quote in the descision as the responsible party's name is Walt.

your last name is Wilt is it?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was

Firefyter · Jul 18, 2005

RIDIVER501:
Kind of odd that you would post this Walt and the name of the guy who is quote in the descision as the responsible party's name is Walt.

your last name is Wilt is it?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was

What difference does that make? He puts the truth out there for the world to see, Padi does the typical corporate thing by suing to shut him up, he fights back and wins...sounds like David and Goliath all over again to me. Good job, Walter. If the truth hurts so bad that Padi can't stand it, maybe they need to change their ways. It seems to me that this would be a more positive approach instead of suing people who point out discrepancies...

StSomewhere · Jul 18, 2005

The original suit was over whether PADI could prevent Diverlink from posting a factual based comparison of agency requirements (regardless of who authored it). Basically, PADI sued and lost. Then they appealled to the Ninth Circuit and lost that (see above). This is just the legal fallout from the previous decision and means PADI will have to pay the legal costs their failed lawsuit forced Diverlink to incur to defend themselves. It sounds like its time for PADI to pay up.

Don't be so eager to rip on Walter. PADI's suit had nothing to do with whether the information was factual (which you can verify for yourself), just whether PADI could prevent Diverlink from posting that information comparitively to other agencies.

Firefyter · Jul 18, 2005

StSomewhere:
Don't be so eager to rip on Walter. PADI's suit had nothing to do with whether the information was factual (which you can verify for yourself), just whether PADI could prevent Diverlink from posting that information comparitively to other agencies.

You're right, but you can bet that if it WASN'T factual, they would have sued for that as well.

Uncle Pug · Jul 18, 2005

StSomewhere:
time for PADI to pay up.

That would be nice.

**********************
Congratulations Walter... this is continued vindication for your report as well.

JeffG · Jul 18, 2005

RIDIVER501:
Kind of odd that you would post this Walt and the name of the guy who is quote in the descision as the responsible party's name is Walt.

your last name is Wilt is it?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was

Walter is the author of the article and its good to see that this legal issue is done for him.

PADI v Diverlink

Please register or login

Walter

Contributor

Azza

Contributor

JeffG

Contributor

pants!

Contributor

RIDIVER501

Contributor

Firefyter

Contributor

StSomewhere

Contributor

Firefyter

Contributor

Uncle Pug

Swims with Orca

JeffG

Contributor

Similar threads