Slashdot Mirror

http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html/ explains it a bit.

It seems like Linus (or his lawyers rather) want to protect the Linux trademark. Hypthetically speaking, if I had a product titled Lunix Utilities, I wouldn't seem to fall under that trademark use. However, if my company or product name was MikeRoweSoft or Lindows, Microsoft could and would sue me.

*Shrug* It's a pretty hairy issue. I see where Linus or his lawyers are coming from, but I wonder why the demand in monetary payment in order to ensure their trademark isn't abused.

I am connected with Linux Australia - the community organisation working with LMI - and I do know a bit about what is going on.

You are welcome to read whatever you like into this process, however before you go shooting your mouth off you should read through this.

And regarding your little hobby - can I have a genuine Doc Ruby "fool" label? I promise to do everything possible to prove I'm worthy of such a label, including (but not limited to) making sense and not completely talking out of my arse.

Although the last will be a bit tricky at times, I won't deny it :-).

*takes "fool" label*
*makes paper plane*
*throws paper plane* Wheee!

All this from a face only a mother could love:

http://jmalcolm.ilaw.com.au/

Jeremy Malcom's Website

Look how FUGLY he is! Someone pay him some tradmark fees, heck, lets get him reselling SCO licenses to pay for some surgery/sex!

Poor guy.

Doesn't Linus own the 'Linux' trademark already?

Indeed, his fees are about the same. Indeed, it turns out that Jeremy Malcolm is acting on Linus' behalf. There is even a web site which explains the situation.

Someone didn't read the FAQ. It apparantly doesn't apply to you anyway.

And he's far from being an advocate of free speech. He is always threatening people with SLAP suits.

It's spelled SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). And if he's "always" threatening people with such things, perhaps you'd like to refer to at least two examples? You can't? What a surprise.

I've met Jeremy. His company, Terminus Network Services hosts my flooble.net site. All indications are that he's a decent bloke, even if he is a lawyer :).

And regardless of what Jeremy says about any topic ever, regardless of whether he says the earth is flat or that 2+2=4, you're allowed to say he's full of shit. And the rest of us are allowed to dismiss you as clueless. Nice, isn't it?

For a start, it would have been stylish if you'd specifically pointed to his statement about "Linux violating patents" and especially references to "hundreds" of violations. Because, you see, when I look at the GP's link, the only possible link to your statement is Jeremy's article titled Software Patents, the FTA, and the End of All Things. And in that article he includes a quote from him in a ZDNet interview:

There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there - such as the Linux kernel itself - has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged. There is more danger that those potential violations will be litigated.

Your insinuation (in bold, no less) about "hundreds" of linux patent violations actually comes from a point made by a FSF lawyer (Dan Ravicher), not by Jeremy himself - immediately below the above quote:

The resulting furore on Slashdot was deafening. But my statements aren't actually terribly controversial. Last year, Open Source Risk Management published a paper by Free Software Foundation lawyer Dan Ravicher in which he claimed to have found 283 potential patent violations in the Linux kernel.

If you want to object to the way this trademark licensing thing is being handled, do that. And be specific and refer to your sources. Don't just throw unsupported (and unsupportable) mud (and FUD) on completely unrelated topics. To borrow from one of my favourite sigquotes:

In case you weren't aware, "ad hominem" is not latin for "the user of this technique is a fine debater."

By the way, moderators, I'd suggest you take a look at the grandparent of this post, to which tomhudson was referring. It's had a grossly inappropriate mod to 0, Troll. It'd be nice if you could help to bring it back up to the 2 or 3 that it deserves. Thanks. :)

And he's far from being an advocate of free speech. He is always threatening people with SLAP suits.

It's spelled SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). And if he's "always" threatening people with such things, perhaps you'd like to refer to at least two examples? You can't? What a surprise.

I've met Jeremy. His company, Terminus Network Services hosts my flooble.net site. All indications are that he's a decent bloke, even if he is a lawyer :).

And regardless of what Jeremy says about any topic ever, regardless of whether he says the earth is flat or that 2+2=4, you're allowed to say he's full of shit. And the rest of us are allowed to dismiss you as clueless. Nice, isn't it?

For a start, it would have been stylish if you'd specifically pointed to his statement about "Linux violating patents" and especially references to "hundreds" of violations. Because, you see, when I look at the GP's link, the only possible link to your statement is Jeremy's article titled Software Patents, the FTA, and the End of All Things. And in that article he includes a quote from him in a ZDNet interview:

There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there - such as the Linux kernel itself - has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged. There is more danger that those potential violations will be litigated.

Your insinuation (in bold, no less) about "hundreds" of linux patent violations actually comes from a point made by a FSF lawyer (Dan Ravicher), not by Jeremy himself - immediately below the above quote:

The resulting furore on Slashdot was deafening. But my statements aren't actually terribly controversial. Last year, Open Source Risk Management published a paper by Free Software Foundation lawyer Dan Ravicher in which he claimed to have found 283 potential patent violations in the Linux kernel.

If you want to object to the way this trademark licensing thing is being handled, do that. And be specific and refer to your sources. Don't just throw unsupported (and unsupportable) mud (and FUD) on completely unrelated topics. To borrow from one of my favourite sigquotes:

In case you weren't aware, "ad hominem" is not latin for "the user of this technique is a fine debater."

By the way, moderators, I'd suggest you take a look at the grandparent of this post, to which tomhudson was referring. It's had a grossly inappropriate mod to 0, Troll. It'd be nice if you could help to bring it back up to the 2 or 3 that it deserves. Thanks. :)

There'll be a bit of an update about this soon by someone more knowledgeable than myself, but in the meantime the important thing to know is that the email is part of the process that LMI (Linux Mark Institute) has been undertaking to secure the trademark to the word "Linux". LMI is acting on behalf of Linus Torvalds to establish and protect the Linux trademark in various jurisdictions around the world, and has enlisted the assistance of local organisations within those jurisdictions to act as local representatives. Linux Australia has been cooperating with LMI to assist with securing the trademark in Australia.

Jeremy Malcolm has also published a FAQ, including the following:

What was the purpose of your letter?
There are many businesses in Australia that are using the word "Linux" as part of their operations. IP Australia, our trade mark registrar, knows this, and considers it an obstacle for the success of Linus Torvalds' application to register "Linux" as a trade mark here. We need to show IP Australia that although a lot of people may be using "Linux" in a trade mark context, they are doing so under licence of Linus (or strictly, under sub-licence from LMI).

Why was I sent the letter?
The letter was sent to anyone whom it appeared might have been using the word "Linux", or some derivative of that word, in a trade mark context.

But I'm not using it in a trade mark context!
That's good to know. Thanks, and sorry for any inconvenience.

But you're asking me for money!
No I'm not. You might be required to licence the mark in the future if you are using the Linux mark in a trade mark context for your business, but I have no instructions, and don't anticipate receiving any, to pursue you to take out such a licence.

agggh! my eyes! my eyes!

Check out http://jmalcolm.ilaw.com.au/ -- maybe he's trying to make up for being beaten with an ugly stick as a child.

Take a chill pill. He is legit. He's a lawyer. He's representing Linux Australia who are operating under instructions from the Linux Mark Institute who represent Linus. It's all perfectly above board. Lawyers will represent anyone who can pay. To form an opinion of a lawyer based on one case they did is naive to the extreme. If you want to see what Jeremy Malcolm is all about, go read what he has written or look at the other cases he has been involved in. He introduced the first anti-SPAM act in Australia. He actively opposed the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. He's an advocate for privacy and common carrier protections.

On the other hand, your actions are bordering on libel and have already violated anti-vilification laws in this country.

Take a chill pill. He is legit. He's a lawyer. He's representing Linux Australia who are operating under instructions from the Linux Mark Institute who represent Linus. It's all perfectly above board. Lawyers will represent anyone who can pay. To form an opinion of a lawyer based on one case they did is naive to the extreme. If you want to see what Jeremy Malcolm is all about, go read what he has written or look at the other cases he has been involved in. He introduced the first anti-SPAM act in Australia. He actively opposed the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. He's an advocate for privacy and common carrier protections.

On the other hand, your actions are bordering on libel and have already violated anti-vilification laws in this country.

There is a letter from the lawyer at http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html. It spells out the intent of the letter a bit better than the articles.

Evidently it was a poorly written letter in the 1st place. Some lawyer.

and guess who the lawyers are representing. This article is the biggest troll ever to get posted on Slashdot. There's a FAQ for anyone who actually cares to learn what Linus is trying to acheive in Australia.

every single word of it.

Read the FAQ and educate yourself.

A fork doesn't help. Forked code bases still need to honour the parent license. At issue is the fact that no-where in the GPL does it state that the license is perpetual. This is a well known hole. This is why it is encouraged that copyright holders assign their rights to the FSF. It is assumed that the FSF will never revoke your rights to distribute and modify software under the terms of the GPL.

The reason you don't see this happening often, is that in order for a project to go proprietary, ALL copyright holders must agree to the new license. Usually this doesn't happen. But if there is only one contributor, the project absolutely can be taken private, distributed under a different license, and all existing license holders can have their rights to copy and distribute the original code under the terms of the GPL terminated.

For an eye opener, consider reading Problems in Oopen Source Licensing (Australian perspective, but interesting issues none-the-less).

cut-n-paste job for the lazy:

Church of Scientology Legal threats against this web page

Scientology have a well deserved reputation of being a very aggressive organisation, accepting no criticism of their organisation or of their dead creator, L Ron Hubbard. They are legendary on the Internet with their attacks on freedom of speech, with legal action on almost every cotenant to force critics to take down web sites.
Well, my humble offering is no exception. Scientology in Perth, Western Australia has started legal action to force me to remove this site. When it became obvious that I was not going to do so, they threatened my ISP with legal action, asking him to remove my site. They even went so far as to offer him immunity from the upcoming lawsuit.

This page will be updated as the situation progresses.

The Players.

Jeremy Malcolm

The lawyer for Scientology is a local man called Jeremy Malcolm. JM used to be on the board of an organisation called Electronic Fronters Australia . EFA is "is a non-profit national organisation formed to protect and promote the civil liberties of users and operators of computer based communications systems."
From his position of fighting for freedom of speech, he is now fighting to stifle it. But that's life. I suppose a man has to do what a man feels he has to do. You can visit Jeremy Malcolm's web sites at the following locations.

• iLaw - JM's online legal website
• JM's personal website

Disney also suggests copyright be extended to an indefinite amount of time.

It's this kind of stuff that should make all of us look up and see what's going on. We are facing a serious cultural dilemma, as a people. Our "intellectual property" system is creating a climate that allows works to disappear forever, and creates no legal alternative.

Corporations "own" the works, and the works remain "protected" by copyright. Meanwhile, works that are not economically viable to be "sold" by the "owners" simply become unavailable, however the "protection" of copyright makes it illegal for individuals to simply reproduce these works themselves. Today it's acetate films rotting in vaults, and books that have "fallen out of print" on acidic paper. Tomorrow it will be video and audio "locked up" in encryption algorithms that may well be trivilly easy to break, but are legally protected.

Corporations are doing what corporations are supposed to do-- returning value for shareholders. We can debate globaliation and corporatization and the like all day long-- but not here. The change needs to come by way of changes to "intellectual property" law. Laws are made for the good of society, not for the good of corporations, per se. As a society, we all need to become informed about these issues and work to address them. It may not be glamorous, but it's necessary.

I know there are people who agree with me, but I have no idea how to get the idea out to the public, where the real changes can happen.

Licensing your own work with trendy licenses like Creative Commons or GPL isn't the answer. Violating current "intellectual property" law to show "civil disobedience" isn't the answer. Doing nothing most certainly isn't the answer. The answer is to get the average person involved.

I fear that most people are already too far gone. Most poor bastards don't have enough independent thought left to even think that it's possible to question a notion like "A creator should receive economic compensation every time their work is copied". People simply think that the current system is "just the way it is", and their hobbled minds aren't flexible enough to even comprehend that things could be different.

The message I'd love to get out to the street is this: When you download an MP3 or a movie, you're not hurting the artists or creators-- you're hurting their PUBLISHER. When you buy a CD or software, you're not helping the artists or creators, you're helping the PUBLISHER. Publishers are a scourge upon us-- a plague of leeches. If we can get the public behind new models of economic compensation (or old ones-- live music has been around for millenia), we can break the publisher's grip on our "intellectual property" system, and start to have a reasonable hope of preserving a record of our culture.

Here you go......11 April 2005 to pull a date out of my scox....
ilaw.com.au

... but it might be. See my previous comment for more details.

IANAL but I am not sure that a license has any binding nature on the copyright holder. The "You may not impose any further restrictions ..." bit is clearly aimed at the licensee when they pass the software onto other people not the copyright holder.

I can invite my neighbour to use my pool anytime she likes under certain conditions and that is a license. But the person doesn't have to break any of those conditions for me to be able to revoke the license whenever I like. If we had a contract that would be different but for a contract you need "consideration", the other party has to give me something in return, and in the case of the GPL that isn't true.

This issue has been brought up before and discussed on the other site, but I have never seen a really convincing arguement for why it is wrong. If it is correct then it has troubling implications, especially as copyrights can be transfered between people, not always volentarily.

Imagine as an extreme example Linus being sued into bankrupcy by a large corporation and the corporation getting all his assets, which would include not just his house and car, but all the copyrights to software that he has written. If the GPL can be revoked then that corporation could bring Linux development and distribution to a crashing halt until such time as all Linus's code could be removed and reimplemented.

As the GPL is a copyright license it is enforced through copyright law and there wont be any case ever about a 'GPL violation'. Any such 'violation' is simply copyright infringement and any court case about it would be a civil or criminal copyright violation case, not a civil contract case.

But ok, I'll do some research for you.

License, not contract

Moglen.

Australian perspective

Wikipedia

Those are just a few starters from any number of articles you wish written by lawyers, legal experts, or laymen.

If you're interested in the concepts of open source licenses I'd also reccomend gmane OSS license mail list and debian-legal.

And, no, I'm not a lawyer. Altho I've been researching copyright law (US and various european versions) and the GPL and other OSS licenses for a decade by now out of interest. If you want a legal opinion I suggest you consult one of the many lawyers you'll find while researching these issues.

Mistaking the GPL for a contract is easy tho, and the reason for most misconceptions about it.

Yes, they are in breach of contract. Licenses are contracts.

The FSF, and Eben Moglen (chief counsel of the FSF), who wrote the GNU GPL and deal with GPL cases all the time disagree with you.

And "IP infringment (copyright)" is wrong--the phrase "intellectual property" doesn't just refer to copyright. It's a mish-mash of copyright, patent, trademark, and a host of other areas of law that aren't always compatible. Again, the FSF disagrees with you here.

You see the common thread there, "contract" -- in the terms of "Licensing Contract".

The GNU GPL does not use the word "contract". There is another lawyer's analysis of this which illustrates the logic the FSF uses to show why they don't need a contract (and often don't have one anyhow) to accomplish what the GPL sets out to accomplish. The paper has some problems, but it is quite interesting as well. It also suggests a reason why it is valuable to purchase Free Software rather than getting it at no charge.

It would be interesting to know Prof. Moglen's views on the main point in this article in the unlikely event that he is reading this. Namely that while the GPL and most other Free/Open software licenses are perfectly enforcable, there exists a weak point with the copyright holder themselves. If the copyright holder of a peice of free software decided to they could change, or totally revoke the license of the software, and that change would apply to all copies of the software not just future versions. If this is indeed true it is certainly not the way most users of free software believe things work.

I don't think most users believe that Linus could wake up one morning and decide he is going to revoke the license to all the code he has contributed to the Linux kernel and bring linux development to a crashing halt until all that code could be reimplemented by other people. While this is an unlikely senario there are plenty of companies that contribute to free software which might be bought out, go bankrupt or simply have a change of heart.

What about the case of an individual free software developer going bankrupt? Couldn't the copyright of some free software be considered an asset that could be seized to pay their debts? Would the FSF even be a safe copyright holder? Wouldn't it be possible for the FSF to be forced into bankruptcy? Would it be any different from a company or an individual going bankrupt?

My limited usderstanding of this is that the GPL only really applies at the point where a copy is made of the work, although our friends at the RIAA/MPAA are doing their best to make copyright property, rather than a limited monoply on copying. If this is the case then revoking a free software license would seem to only directly affect the distribution and development of the software and current users would be free to continue using it. Although I know there have been attempts to argue that using software involves copying it into memory and so is covered by copyright. What is the status of that?

Of course provided most copyright holders don't do this, free software as a whole can advance but it would be preferable if you could rely on a piece of software staying free after it has been released under the GPL. But in the end I think free software licenses are just a necessarily imperfect attempt to mitigate some of the evils of copyright and that it is suprising that it does as well as it does.

http://www.antispews.org/ the SPEWS fansite (not!)

Heh, this antispews.org money-making scam is a rather funny one. Strangely enough the Hostway Corporation started hosting the site three days after t3marketing lost their lawsuit against Joe McNicol. The Hostway Corporation is behind the t3marketing and many other "direct marketing" buggers. So it's no wonder that they are listed in SPEWS and using every possible way - sue spamfighters, spread FUD, etc. - to help them to continue poison our mailboxes.

That being said, I'm not sure if the SPEWS way of doing things is such a good idea but the antispews.org site is still run by spammers and should be treated as such.

http://www.antispews.org/ the SPEWS fansite (not!)

Heh, this antispews.org money-making scam is a rather funny one. Strangely enough the Hostway Corporation started hosting the site three days after t3marketing lost their lawsuit against Joe McNicol. The Hostway Corporation is behind the t3marketing and many other "direct marketing" buggers. So it's no wonder that they are listed in SPEWS and using every possible way - sue spamfighters, spread FUD, etc. - to help them to continue poison our mailboxes.

That being said, I'm not sure if the SPEWS way of doing things is such a good idea but the antispews.org site is still run by spammers and should be treated as such.

Do you believe this claim is correct in all US jurisdictions, or do some state laws allow licenses like the GPL to be revoked by the copyright holder?

The company I work for was affected by the infinite wisdom of Spews. Apparently a spammer once sent email from an address that happens to share the same leading 16-bits of address space with us.

So you were paying money (whether directly or indirectly) to the same ISP that was hosting a spammer. And that ISP had ignored abuse reports about that spammer for a significant period of time.

Because of their escalation procedures, a full 8192 sites have been placed on their "spam" list because of a single incident.

Ah yes, the "escalation" procedures... those would be the things they do when a spam-supporting ISP ignores abuse reports and refuses to terminate spamming clients.

Generally SPEWS will list a single IP address first. Then, over a period of time, as long as the spammer stays up at that ISP, they'll gradually increase the range of IPs listed. If in your case they listed a /16 - well, some ISPs can be very hard of hearing. Or perhaps I should say that some ISPs are very reluctant to terminate their lucrative spamming clients, and so will refuse to terminate them until said clients are costing them more than they're making (eg. by having to deal with complaints from non-spammer customers and/or having non-spammer customers leave).

I don't think [...]

Obviously.

[...] Spews provides any useful service.

Gee, this is easy. Don't use them then. *roll of eyes*

I think what you meant to say is "SPEWS accurately listed (part of?) my ISP for spam support. I refuse to accept any responsibility for my part in paying money to keep that rogue ISP in business, and I also refuse to complain to my ISP about their spam support. I, in fact, do not acknowledge any problem other than me (or my company) having some email rejected, and I'm quite happy to blame SPEWS for this problem rather than correctly assign blame a little closer to home."

Substitute "the company I work for" for "I" where appropriate in the above.

They are a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Now I think you might have clued into the reason why they're anonymous and not directly contactable. Idiot spammers all over the USA and the world (and, embarassingly, one in my home city) will (ab)use the law as a tool to harass antispammers. Even though such a lawsuit would have little or no legal merit, they can be used as a very effective harassment tool, taking a disproportionate amount of time and money to defend.

SPEWS avoids this problem entirely by remaining anonymous. They don't need to be identified - the administrators who use SPEWS judge them by the quality of the information they provide.

IANAL, [...]

Obviously.

[...] but I'd be looking at Spews with $$'s in my eyes.

See above re: anonymity. It's a little tricky to file a frivolous (SLAPP) lawsuit when you don't know who you're trying to harass.

Pete.

I agree with NDPTAL85 on the musicians (let natural selection deal with those) but otherwise the idea is interesting... `I've got a little list - they'll none of them be missed.'

I'd put some restrictions on lawyers, too. We had a local one just hammer a spammer into the ground recently (and the spammer bailed out of the appeal, too - go, Jeremy!). Hey - let's send the spammers! Tell them they get great bandwidth up there and can downlink to anywhere on Earth.

I agree with NDPTAL85 on the musicians (let natural selection deal with those) but otherwise the idea is interesting... `I've got a little list - they'll none of them be missed.'

I'd put some restrictions on lawyers, too. We had a local one just hammer a spammer into the ground recently (and the spammer bailed out of the appeal, too - go, Jeremy!). Hey - let's send the spammers! Tell them they get great bandwidth up there and can downlink to anywhere on Earth.

Here's a website for this case:

http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/

And another:

http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/

Hey! Are you trying to /. our poor server TWICE??

Unless you got to the two different sites via our mirrored DNS setup, but then messed up the links...

/me watches the MRTG output :)

Here's a website for this case:

http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/

And another:

http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/

Hey! Are you trying to /. our poor server TWICE??

Unless you got to the two different sites via our mirrored DNS setup, but then messed up the links...

/me watches the MRTG output :)

http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/

And another:

http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/

http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/

And another:

http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/

Really? I was aware that the criminal law of WA, as well as that of Queensland (my home state) and Tasmania, was codified, but that the rest of the common law has been either left intact or modified, not extinguished or supplanted, by statute.

I just had a quick flick through the judgment as kindly linked to in Eggplant's post. The case was decided on common law grounds, the registrar considering the two torts of interference with business or trade interests (which isn't yet recognized in Australia) and interference with contractual relations. Defamation was knocked out by reference to a provision in the WA Criminal Code that bars accurate statements from being defamatory.

So the case was decided on the common law after all. That's a relief, if WA was entirely code-based, I should have known about it. Western Australia may have been nearly colonized by the French, but that doesn't mean it has to adopt their heathen legal system :-P.

The website that has been following this issue from the start, http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au, has finally published the decision in pdf format (see it here). On pages 6 & 7, Deputy Registrar Hewitt, in paragraphs 15 & 16, says the following:

"15 Counsel for the plaintiff suggests that it would be unfair to end this action at this stage without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to further explore this case using the interlocutory processes now available to it in these proceedings.

16 I do not agree. The plaintiff has commenced an action which appears to me to be speculative and based on propositions which it knew to be incorrect (see my earlier discussion regarding unfounded). If not an abuse, the action is akin to one."

In other words, the Deputy Registrar feels that T3 and Mansfield's bringing this suit forward was as close to abuse as they could get without the action being prosecuted as being frivolous and without just cause! What a maroon!

I read NANAE regularly; this whole T3 Direct saga has been nothing but the highest entertainment to me. It's even better than watching circus clowns!

Rich

The website that has been following this issue from the start, http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au, has finally published the decision in pdf format (see it here). On pages 6 & 7, Deputy Registrar Hewitt, in paragraphs 15 & 16, says the following:

"15 Counsel for the plaintiff suggests that it would be unfair to end this action at this stage without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to further explore this case using the interlocutory processes now available to it in these proceedings.

16 I do not agree. The plaintiff has commenced an action which appears to me to be speculative and based on propositions which it knew to be incorrect (see my earlier discussion regarding unfounded). If not an abuse, the action is akin to one."

In other words, the Deputy Registrar feels that T3 and Mansfield's bringing this suit forward was as close to abuse as they could get without the action being prosecuted as being frivolous and without just cause! What a maroon!

I read NANAE regularly; this whole T3 Direct saga has been nothing but the highest entertainment to me. It's even better than watching circus clowns!

Rich

This is a notorious Australian spammer, they are even suing people who complain about them. Don't bother complaining to the company, complain to the ISP that they are using. So far this spammer has been thrown off uu.net, iprimus.net.au and a couple of .es ISPs.

I've spoken to Mr. McNicol this afternoon, he is a great bloke and he deserves all the help he can get fighting off this spammer.

I've gone through all the sites I maintain and put a little link encouraging net users to find out about this and see how they can help. A sample of this is located at http://dvdstore.ii.net/ and http://winchester.ii.net/. This links ppl to their case website located at http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au.

I would encourage anyone who would love to see justice brought down upon this Spammer donate to Mr McNicol's legal fund.

They are currently accepting Fax donations (Print off the form at http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/donate/fax/index.h tml), or wait a few days and he should be accepting PayPal donations.

Please, Please everyone get on board - this could set a dangerous international legal precident if it goes the way of the spammer. Make sure that this helps on the path to putting the breaks on spam!

I've spoken to Mr. McNicol this afternoon, he is a great bloke and he deserves all the help he can get fighting off this spammer.

I've gone through all the sites I maintain and put a little link encouraging net users to find out about this and see how they can help. A sample of this is located at http://dvdstore.ii.net/ and http://winchester.ii.net/. This links ppl to their case website located at http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au.

I would encourage anyone who would love to see justice brought down upon this Spammer donate to Mr McNicol's legal fund.

They are currently accepting Fax donations (Print off the form at http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/donate/fax/index.h tml), or wait a few days and he should be accepting PayPal donations.

Please, Please everyone get on board - this could set a dangerous international legal precident if it goes the way of the spammer. Make sure that this helps on the path to putting the breaks on spam!

The official web site of the defence is at http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/ (Mirror). There are also plans to set up a defence fund.