What were we saying about US hosting?
/Web Hosting by DreamHost
"And here it is.. for the big One - Oh, DreamHost is now offering only one plan! It’s called “Happy Hosting” (though it doesn’t really need a name when it’s the only one) and it comes with 500GB of disk, 5TB of bandwidth per month, and unlimited users and mailboxes, etc, etc, etc…
It’s $10.95/month, but if you prepay for 1 year it’s $9.95/month, 2 years it’s $8.95/month, 3 years it’s $7.95/month, 5 years it’s $6.95/month, and 10 years it’s $5.95/month! There may be a crazy 777-ish promo code too (for new customers) if you look around."
So, if you're prepared to stump up about £360 you'll get all your hosting needs met for the next ten years PLUS a webspace increase of 2 gigs every week and a bandwidth increase of 40 gigs every week. By 2017 you'll have 1,540 gigs of space and 25 terabytes of monthly bandwidth. That may seem crazy now but when everyone is hosting their HD videos in a year or two those figures won't look so outlandish.
Will Dreamhost still be around ten years from now? Who knows? Will you? Will I? They've survived for ten years so far in a difficult market and for the sake of £360 (under 10 pence a day) it's worth the risk, especially with a weak dollar at the moment. The three year plan works out at only 15 pence a day and the two year plan about 17 pence a day. It's true that they had a couple of months of stinking service a while back but they seem to have got their act together. I found their uptime and reliability no worse than Media-Temple who are highly regarded in the hosting world (and at least twice the price). And who could resist a company run by a Mike Myers lookalike (right) who also writes the funniest hosting company newsletter and a pretty mean company blog.
And when it comes to legal threats the guys at Dreamhost don't fuck about either. Here is their response to a lawyer's letter from competitor Lunarpages. You can read the whole exchange here but for now, the Dreamhost lawyer's response will do. I'd love to have seen what they'd have done with Usmanov and Shittings.
US hosting, cheaper, bigger, better and with free cojones!
UPDATE: Septicisle, from Obsolete, emailed to say: "I'm hosted with them, and their response to legal threats first from Mazher Mahmood's lawyers, Farrer & Co and then from Schillings was to, err, ignore them completely."
"And here it is.. for the big One - Oh, DreamHost is now offering only one plan! It’s called “Happy Hosting” (though it doesn’t really need a name when it’s the only one) and it comes with 500GB of disk, 5TB of bandwidth per month, and unlimited users and mailboxes, etc, etc, etc…
It’s $10.95/month, but if you prepay for 1 year it’s $9.95/month, 2 years it’s $8.95/month, 3 years it’s $7.95/month, 5 years it’s $6.95/month, and 10 years it’s $5.95/month! There may be a crazy 777-ish promo code too (for new customers) if you look around."
So, if you're prepared to stump up about £360 you'll get all your hosting needs met for the next ten years PLUS a webspace increase of 2 gigs every week and a bandwidth increase of 40 gigs every week. By 2017 you'll have 1,540 gigs of space and 25 terabytes of monthly bandwidth. That may seem crazy now but when everyone is hosting their HD videos in a year or two those figures won't look so outlandish.
Will Dreamhost still be around ten years from now? Who knows? Will you? Will I? They've survived for ten years so far in a difficult market and for the sake of £360 (under 10 pence a day) it's worth the risk, especially with a weak dollar at the moment. The three year plan works out at only 15 pence a day and the two year plan about 17 pence a day. It's true that they had a couple of months of stinking service a while back but they seem to have got their act together. I found their uptime and reliability no worse than Media-Temple who are highly regarded in the hosting world (and at least twice the price). And who could resist a company run by a Mike Myers lookalike (right) who also writes the funniest hosting company newsletter and a pretty mean company blog. And when it comes to legal threats the guys at Dreamhost don't fuck about either. Here is their response to a lawyer's letter from competitor Lunarpages. You can read the whole exchange here but for now, the Dreamhost lawyer's response will do. I'd love to have seen what they'd have done with Usmanov and Shittings.
Re: Mr. H., Add2Net, Inc dba Lunarpages, New Dream Network LLC
Dispute re activities of Mr. H.
Dear Professional Lunarpages Lawyer Guy:
I represent New Dream Network, LLC (“NDN”). This is in response to your letter to NDN, which my client has passed to me for handling. Please address all future communications to me.
Initially, it is not clear from your letter whether we are discussing a “Mr. H.” or a “Mr. H.-ings.” You have used both spellings repeatedly in your letter.
Additionally, it is unclear to me what you are requesting. Your demand that NDN “immediately Cease and Desist from any further activity contrary to the provisions of Mr. H���s agreement or that would cause a violation of statute or common law” is too vague to convey any idea what you are requesting. Are you demanding that NDN fire Mr. H? If so, please state so clearly. Exactly what do you believe NDN has done that is in violation of what particular law? State specifically what evidence or information you are relying upon.
Furthermore, I do hope you understand and appreciate that the non-compete clause in Mr. H’s employment agreement is hopelessly unenforceable in California, at least to the extent that it purports to restrict Mr. H’s ability to pursue his chosen career with competitors of Lunarpages after his employment there has ended, except to the extent necessary to protect legitimate trade secrets. See California Business & Professions Code §16600 et seq. and the numerous cases applying that statute.
With respect to any non-solicitation clause, at least one court has held that such clauses are unenforceable under §16600. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gallagher & Co., No C94-3384 MHP, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18412 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 1994) (unpublished). In any event, applying basic First Amendment principles, no court would enjoin Mr. H from, for example, telling a few of his friends who continue to work at Lunarpages that he is happier at NDN and that NDN is a better place to work than Lunarpages and that they may wish to consider applying for employment at NDN, regardless of what his previous employment agreement with Lunarpages provided. If you are claiming that such isolated conversations would violate some provision of law in California, or that the employment agreement at issue validly prohibits such isolated conversations, please state so clearly so that we will all be on the same page, and provide any authority you have to support your position.
With respect to any alleged trade secrets, please specify what specific information you believe is at issue here that qualifies for trade secret protection under Cal. Civil Code §3426.1 which is the applicable law, and state the measures which your client took to maintain the confidentiality of that information per §3426.1(d)(2). As you probably know, merely reciting within an employment agreement that something is a trade secret hardly makes it so. See Thompson v. Impaxx, Inc., 113 Cal. App. 4th 1425, 1430, — Cal. Rptr. 3d — (2003) (“The recitals alone do not establish anything. Labeling information as a trade secret or as confidential information does not conclusively establish that the information fits this description.”) Once you have identified with particularity the supposed trade secrets at issue, then we can have an informed discussion regarding whether that information qualifies as protectable trade secrets under §3426.1, and whether Mr. H has attempted to give any such information to NDN.
In any event, NDN has not received any list of Lunarpages’ employees. If Mr. H has told one or more friends who continue to work at Lunarpages that NDN is a better place to work, he has done so without any encouragement or participation from NDN.
The portion of your letter that concerns me the most is the portion in which you state, “We have contacted Mr. H recently to remind him of his ongoing contractual obligations under his Employment Agreement . . . ” Because you seem to be laboring under the false belief that a non-compete agreement with an employee is enforceable in California, and you seem to have taken that position in your letter, I presume that you have attempted to persuade Mr. H into believing that working for NDN constitutes a violation of an enforceable non-compete clause. If that is correct, then Lunarpages has, through you its counsel, attempted to intimidate NDN’s lawful employee Mr. H, and have wrongfully interfered with NDN’s relationship with its employee, and have thereby engaged in unfair competition under Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq. Please provide Lunarpages’ assurances that it will cease and desist its attempts to intimidate and to interfere with NDN����s employees in the future, and that it will send a letter to Mr. H advising him that under California Business & Professions Code §16600, non-compete agreements that purport to restrict post-employment competition are invalid. Such a letter will be necessary to undo the damage that apparently has already been done by Lunarpages’ deceitful and wrongful conduct. Please send the required corrective letter to Mr. H, and provide those assurances to me, by May 7 at the latest.
I look forward to receiving your clarifications and your assurances. In the meantime, please call me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Awesome DreamHost Lawyer Guy
US hosting, cheaper, bigger, better and with free cojones!
UPDATE: Septicisle, from Obsolete, emailed to say: "I'm hosted with them, and their response to legal threats first from Mazher Mahmood's lawyers, Farrer & Co and then from Schillings was to, err, ignore them completely."
