Slashdot Mirror

Why do you have to have the proof in the article? Though it lends credibility to the article, it is not required to be there.

If the statements are true, then it is not libel under US law. And there is the problem. Under UK law, the standard for libel is different than US law, and different under the laws of each country. In the US, you have to prove statements are not true, and even if they are not, that it was not published with malice, recklessness, or negligence. I have the standards in my summary judgment motion brief.

This is a Canadian company filing a complaint in a UK court, which raises the spector of why? Because it is harder to defend. Not only on the libel standard, but the other party would be harmed by going to defend it.

As people who read my website know, I don't like bullies! Groups making empty threats like this, may be subject to consumer protection act violations. Even if a company does not not pay the fees, the expense of checking for compliance might be considered damages.

But the idea that the pickets were prohibited from discussing their grievance struck me as Just Plain Odd.

This strikes me as more disturbing than odd. But, since Mattel attempted to silence me I can understand where they are comming from. The dealership may have got an injunction or threatened a lawsuit to keep them from talking about it. There are statutes to prevent that, but it costs money to protect your own rights until a few large corporations have been required to pay large amounts of money because they used abusive litigation to extort silence.

SLAPP is Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It's a lawsuit not designed to win, but to just shut someone/some-group up. An example is fighting a zoning change for a waste processing plant, and the company files a lawsuit for intentional interference and slander. Another one is is Mattel's libel case against me.

For more information on SLAPP and anti-SLAPP you can go to www.casp.net.

The issue would not be of what you did before you were employed, but only from the point of when you signed the contract.

The real issue, is not the rights, but how much are you willing to spend to enforce those rights.

You can wait for the employer to file suit, and then defend on the basis of prior disclosed work.

Talk with an IP lawyer now. Also, keep version control, or some sort of logs of when you did what.

You might want to license some of what you have done to them, if what you did would help your work. Put it in memos, "I did this X years ago on my own Y, do you me to go and find that code?"

Also, I used that attitude of theirs against MSI when the WC insurer claimed that my tendinitis was from my computing at home, not from my computing at work.

What do you mean imagine? It happens quite often!

It happened to me. It happened to Carla Virga when she said that Terminex sucks, and it happened to Joanne Crossby Tibbets when she complained about Best Foods. It happened to Paul David when he said that a Barbie doll was ugly.

What is wrong with requiring that websites obey the law? Nothing! There is no difference betwwen a website or any other institution - they must all obey the law. I agree! If a website violates the law, then file charges, have a trial, throw the person in jail.

What you are talking about is having someone think that they may violate the law, then just shut it down. In the United States, there is a thinking called due process.

Not, if you don't like it, shut it down. It is legal to publish Penthouse, Playboy. It is legal to publish instructions on how to make a bomb. It is legal to express opinion that is not flattering. Libel is not legal, but you have to prove that the statements aren't true. You are not supposed to use a libel lawsuit to silence critism.

If approve of someone censoring what you don't like, someone may not like censor what you say and censor you.

The Boston globe talked about this back in 1999. There are some reasons for dropping it, but many of the cases are used to get the identity of the user. If you are accusing someone of violating a non-disclosure, but then find out that this person is not covered by it. Or if you accuse someone of employment harassment and find out that they are not an employee of the company.

But in many cases, companies use this to get the identity of the user and then fire them.

This is a thin line. Where do we place it?

People must take responsibility for what they post.

We are all to be barcoded and watched by satellite.

I was in Hong Kong and China in September and October 1996 for medical treatment.

While at the university hospital, I had a chance to talk with the students, and the staff.

In China, the wages are low (head of a networking department at a university gets about $250 USD/month). It makes it hard to penetrate a market when a computer costs more two months salary. The people there are eager to learn and bright.

The issue of not allowing the people from the mainland into Hong Kong was to prevent a rush of people from going into Hong Kong for the higher pay and overtaxing the infrastructure of HK.

Whining does not describe my actions, just the uninformed and ignorant call it whining. Actually, whining is a spin term -- such as calling someone cheap or frugal.

If you had read the site this year you would see it is now with Mattel, not just part of it.

And if Kaplan's decision stands, the First Amendment is dead.

Sums it up quite well.

Most people don't realize that DeCSS is not about piracy. Or CPHack is not about porn. That my case is not aboout whinning or tying injuries.

It's about large corporations mis-using the laws and the courts to silence complaints, to hide the chinks in their armor, and hide the fact that the emperor wear no clothes.

Coo2 can exist in a liquid state. It's a very small range.

I know this because in 1980 I was tutoring a EE and Chem double major, who told me that she had a friend using it to remove caffeine from coffee.

Here is some links:

CO2 Decaf Sin! Do you drink too much coffee?

Co2 in paintball

Caffiene free coffee -- those words are heresy!

If you don't smell like coffee when you sweat, you don't drink enough.

Decaffeinated coffee is the devil's brew

I am fighting back, and detailing it on my site.

Mattel tried to censor me and my website with frivilous and abusive litigation. I am now fighting back with a $48.5 million dollar lawsuit. If they paid that much money, then they may think about abusing others.

Why $48.5 million? Actually it's $48,595,103.77. Most of that number comes from the survey done on the site last year. Mattel threatened Mattl.com, went after www.barbiebenson.com, the cphack guys. And this little guy is fighting back!

It's not the cafeine that causes your typing problems. If it was the cafeine, you would correct your typos before you make the errors. But if you know the errors before you make them, would you still make them. Hmmm....

You know you drink too much coffeee when...

Your Rights Online: Shawn Fanning Receives Speeding Ticket
Posted by Hemos on Tuesday, Friday 18, @06:38AM
from the damn-those-fascist-capitalist-plutocrat-bastards dept.
Signal 11 writes: "Yahoo! News is reporting that Napster founder Shawn Fanning has been given a speeding ticket. The police claim that Fanning had exceeded the speed limit by over 15 mph, but we all know that he was acting in full compliance of traffic laws.". In a truly free world, there would be no need for speed limits. When will the establishment learn that speeding laws simply can't be enforced? Even if Fanning receives a ticket, thousands of other drivers will continue to speed.

( Read More... | 768 comments | Your Rights Online )

Miniskirt-clad girls save universe
Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday August 18, @08:25AM
from the roketto-ga-sugoi dept.
AnimeNewsNetwork.com is reporting that earlier this morning in Tokyo, five girls in color-coded blouses and miniskirts transformed into scantily-clad superheroes. The five girls then screamed, hurled glowing balls of energy, and screamed some more at a thirty-tentacled monster. Still no word on whether this is connected to the large humanoid robots spotted battling last week in Osaka.

( Read More... | 168 comments )

Slashback: Frisson, Sesquipedalianity, Responsitivitiness
Posted by timothy on Tuesday August 08, @10:45AM
from the beware-the-froomious-bandersnatch dept.
It was a dark and stormy night. In a salutiferous octastyle basement, an ultracrepidarian man was hermtically hunched over a piperaceous desk beneath a ornate mazarine, typing furiously away on an obumbrate keyboard. Meanwhile, in a meandrine corner of the world, several setose seeds were being entrenched in the muculent minds of the hoi polloi.

( Read More... | 9235 bytes in body | 214 comments )

Traffic Cops' "Justice" and Napster
Posted by JonKatz on Friday August 18, @11:30AM
from the post-hellmouth-world dept.
Just as Shadowrun predicted, The Corporate Republic took another step in assailing geeks today by handing Shawn Fanning a $L00 speeding ticket. This narcissism is harmful because it shrinks the creative universe of media workers and disconnects them from the new global conversation taking place online. Hubcaps have sparked a cultural and economic revolution that is just beginning to be understood. Will we see an increase in the number of Chickdrivers receiving "closed" traffic tickets as well, or will the Edge power a paradigm shift to "open" community-based traffic laws?

( Read More... | 598235 bytes in body | 657 flames | Features )

Ask Slashdot: Are Corporations Trying To Make Money?
Posted by Cliff on Friday August 18, @1:25PM
from the yet-another-article-from-the-something-to-think-ab out dept.
www.sorehands.com writes: "Today I visited Yahoo and was shocked to see a banner advertisement - I thought I'd managed to block every form of advertisement possible with Junkbusters. After thinking about it some, I realized Yahoo was probably running advertisement in a crass, commercialized attempt to make money off of my web-surfing habits! Could there be any other corporations out there engaged in similarly devious practices?" An interesting question here: Are some companies attempting to turn a profit, and, if so, what can we do to prevent it?

( Read More... | 3082 bytes in body | 345 comments )

Autospy of a Furby
Posted by michael on Friday August 18, @3:43PM
from the deja-vu dept.

Vladinator writes "Ever wonder what it's like to take apart a Furby? I don't, because I saw this on Slashdot two years ago, but I needed some karma so I submitted it anyway. Fawking trolls!" Those of who you started reading Slashdot this week may not have seen this page yet, so I'm re-running this classic for you three newbies.

( Read More... | 1 FIRST POST! )

Interstate Highway Boycott Planned
Posted by emmett on Friday August 18, @6:25PM
from the fight-the-power dept.
Bowie J. Poag writes: "You guys are idiots and VA sucks, but being the nice guy that I am [Update: 08/18 11:11 AM by CT: Further investigation reveals that he isn't ] I thought I'd let you know that know Wired is reporting that a boycott is being proposed against the interstate highway system for its treatment of Shawn Fanning. The interstate highway sucks almost as much as anime! PROPAGANDA RULES!!!!!" It's good to see that some people are taking the battle for free (as in Willy) highways into their own hands.

( Read More... | 218 comments )

Holland Convenience Store Switches To Linux
Posted by Hemos on Friday August 18, @9:33PM
from the key-victory-for-open-source dept.
Today while visiting my local 7-11 in Holland, MI, I noticed that their inventory computer was running Linux! Best of all, a representative from the store assured me, due to complaints from Bruce Perens, that the store may consider GPLing its inventory "sometime in the future." Looks like another business has finally "got it" and adopted the tenets of the free software movement.

( Read More... | 164 comments )

Napster? Napster Napster
Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday August 18, @11:25PM
from the napster dept.
Napster Napster Napster. Napster, Napster Napster Napster! Napster Napster (Napster) Napster Napster Napster, Napster Napster Napster. "Napster Napster Napster," Napster Napster. Napster Napster, Napster Napster Napster.

( Read More... | 304 comments | Napster!! )

Yep. Went once to its web page. Big piece of whinning. Impossible to understand. Useless.

This page on his site is actually kinda funny. Although it's already been circulated in via e-mail.

But overall, it'd be nice if he'd create a new account and STOP WHINING .

By filing a lawsuit or taking legal action, you tend to generate more publicity.

If Mattel didn't file a lawsuit and restraining orders, most people would not have heard of CPHack.

If Mattel didn't file a countsuit for libel against me, most people would not have heard of it, and it would have been over by now. And there would not have been the press coverage (two newspaper artcles, two on-line articles, or any TV appearance.)

The internet has turned the lonely pamphleteer into a publisher with a huge potential audience.

This has both good and bad.

The good -- more information can get out.

The bad -- more information can get out.

Since there is a very low barrier to entry, almost anyone can be a publisher. So, any writer the good, bad, or ugly can "publish" what they want. There are no copy editors, fact checkers, etc.

This has opened up a myriad of legal issues, libel or just plain bitching.

It also scares the likes of RIAA and MPAA where they are losing their control over publishing. Now the small guy for little money, can get their music or short movies out on the net.

Having deep pockets help. Many companies think they can litigate the other party into bankruptcy. Justice can prevail. The little guy can win. Though it is tough. When the little guy wins, the PR machines spin the facts to make it look like the system needs to be reformed, but leaves out how they bankrupted hundreds of others to win.

Remember Stack v. MS? Stack won $130m Microsoft won $30m. But MS bought Stack.

You may not agree with the McDonalds' coffee cup case, but they are a big guy too.

Big tobbacco lost! It took years and years, but they lost. It took hundreds of plaintiff lawyers to coordinate via the internet.

I have been using sharing information on my case with others via the net to help them (and myself) to win against Mattel.

Hold it, I have to brew another pot....Ok, I'm back.

You know, you drink to much coffee when...

You mean that everyone that does not bend over to be screwed by a large corporation is just a loser trying to get attention?

Ever hear of principals?

You lose rights inches at a time. If you don't fight for your rights you lose them?

In my case when a judge asked Mattel what was libelous, Mattel asked to dismiss their countersuit.

The lawsuit is about a an agreement by Yahoo to keep the information about him private.

Their is a number of cases that keep the information about keeping the speakers of certain things private. Revealing this information quell full expression of free speech.

On the other hand, if one publishes truly defamatory information, then there is a responsibility for it. There has been cases for mentioned in the news commpanies filing lawsuits, and once they get the names, they will cease the prosecution of the case.

This type of action is obviously abusive. Now, if Yahoo (or someone else) receives a nasty letter from a lawyer, w/o giving a chance for the individual to oppose(via a motion to quash), it is wrong.

In a lawsuit, if an attorney sends a request for information, it is not required to be provided until the court compels it.

How about a new acronym? YAFAL - Yet Another Friggen Abusive Lawsuit.

The term "Censorship" is over-used these days, especially in Slashdot typeforums. Censorship is something that governments do.

Corporations have been enlisting the government to censor.

In the CPHack case, Microsystems / Mattel got the government to issue a restraining order. In the DeCSS case, TROs were issued, and the police kicked down one person's door. In my case Mattel just used to cost and threat of lititgation to try to shut me up.

It's not just the actual acts that are the censorship. The more insidios part is that others watching will see this and self-censor themselfs.

If you read the libel / SLAPP / first amendment cases, the courts discuss the issue of self censorship.

Of course censorship did not start with websites.

In my case most of the libel issues in the case referred to non-computer related cases.

Censorship has been going on in the United States for over 200 years. That is why we have many first amendment cases. Libel and censorship cases go from old media to new media as the new media matures. Many of the libel cases went towards newspapers, then radio, then TV. Now, it goes to the internet.

Some of the limits of what public officials can say, is just a CYA move. Look at Richard Jewell. High profile cases can be harder to try, look at Louis Woodward.

But on the otherside of the coin, by seeing the accussed, others may come forward with information on the case.

In Boston, there is John TV. It is designed to discourage prostitution in Boston. They put the arrested Johns on the local cable network.

But what about the people who were not convicted?

For those not in the United States, we have laws against prostitution and a stigma attached to most things related to sex.

I'm not running napster. I'm not running illegal MP3s.

When you have stupid laws, you generate contempt for the law. You cause people to break them.

Do you contend that if you ever went over the speed limit, you can't comment when they make the speed limit of a a section of a highway 3.14159 mph?

Tougher laws do not equate to better laws, or better enforcement.

Did you ever think that we do have respect for IP law? The CPHack situation is a good example, it is FAIR USE, but Mattel being a bully stomps on the rights of the authors to make fair comment. DeCSS is another good example, it was not done to make copies, but so that people who have bought DVDs can play it on their own system without being forced to run Windows!

The true power of the net is the accessibility of the net to the masses!

Us geeks could always use a tunneling protocol over the net. Or special pages that require decryption plug-in which will ask for the average flying speed of an unladened European swallow, or for the name of the CPM debugger, before granting access.

The only reason why the CPHack, DeCSS, and my case have been issues is because non-geeks find out and have access to that information.

IANAL (but have learned because of Mattel). You left out what proceeded "sometimes Brown sneakily changes his name", which was "My teacher also pointed out". Now if he lists "Brown" at one point, and at another point "Curzon-Brown" that could be considered sneaky.

If Brown can show this professor did not feel that this was sneaky, then he may have a case.

As for reasonable care, it's an automated process. The site points out that these are the opinions of the authors. This is not a newspaper that takes something that was sent in and via manual process inserts it into the galley sheets.

It has been decided in a case with AOL (ZERAN v AMERICA ONLINE INC) that 230 (from the CDA) immunizes computer service providers. In Zeran, it was being argued that AOL did not remove the defamatory information quick enough. Even if this did not provide protection, Brown would have to show that they had notice of this. It does not look like he is making this argument.

As to the public figure, there is also limited public figure. That is if it is an issue of public concern. The quality of teaching could be considered public concern.

It is clearly marked that the information is opinion. Though you can't say in my opinion, X is a child molester and claim that it's only opinion and not actionable. The statements must be taken in context. Pritsker v. Brudnoy 452 N.E.2d 227 (1983), Cole v. Westinghouse 386 Mass 303 (1982).

I have my summary judgment motion regarding my case available for you to read.

IANAL (but have learned because of Mattel). You left out what proceeded "sometimes Brown sneakily changes his name", which was "My teacher also pointed out". Now if he lists "Brown" at one point, and at another point "Curzon-Brown" that could be considered sneaky.

If Brown can show this professor did not feel that this was sneaky, then he may have a case.

As for reasonable care, it's an automated process. The site points out that these are the opinions of the authors. This is not a newspaper that takes something that was sent in and via manual process inserts it into the galley sheets.

It has been decided in a case with AOL (ZERAN v AMERICA ONLINE INC) that 230 (from the CDA) immunizes computer service providers. In Zeran, it was being argued that AOL did not remove the defamatory information quick enough. Even if this did not provide protection, Brown would have to show that they had notice of this. It does not look like he is making this argument.

As to the public figure, there is also limited public figure. That is if it is an issue of public concern. The quality of teaching could be considered public concern.

It is clearly marked that the information is opinion. Though you can't say in my opinion, X is a child molester and claim that it's only opinion and not actionable. The statements must be taken in context. Pritsker v. Brudnoy 452 N.E.2d 227 (1983), Cole v. Westinghouse 386 Mass 303 (1982).

I have my summary judgment motion regarding my case available for you to read.

The webmaster has immunity from the libel action in this case.

The libel laws are clear. If this person is giving opinion, then it can't be libel. If it is stated as fact, then it may be.

The statment

Hopefully one semester not one single person will sign up for his class. What will he do then? Pick up boys on Polk Street to listen to his inanity?

is clearly not libelous.

Publications on the web should be held to be the same standard as the newspapers.

Inflamatory opions are not libel. Wrong opinios are not libel.

What some companies, such as Mattel , are using the libel laws as a way to quiet dissent or negative publicity.

This guy appears to be trying to do the same.

This is the review, I believe he is suing over.

I have never had a class with this professor, but have heard so much hype about how heinous he is that I had to take a peek at his reviews. My current English 1A teacher (I won't name names) is who first tipped me off about him because I was trying to pick a 1B teacher (luckily I am taking advanced composition instead). In fact, my teacher--a usually gentle and forgiving person--warned our whole class against taking his class. My teacher also pointed out that sometimes Brown sneakily changes his name a little so people won't know that they are signing up for his class, so be careful! My teacher also told us that he/she re-routes his/her walking about campus specifically to not have to run into Brown!! That says a lot right there. I also wanted to add that yes, the A and B reviews are obviously fake as they are all written in exactly the same style (thinly disguised) and say basically the same thing. Thank god for teacher review, which I have heard Brown is trying to shut down. Hopefully one semester not one single person will sign up for his class. What will he do then? Pick up boys on Polk Street to listen to his inanity?

It does not say that he is going to pick up male hustlers on Polk Street. And even if it did, it might be implying that he is picking up this hustlers to listen to his lecture, not to have sex.

I just came back from the a software development conference. Most of the companies had offered free t-shirts (or some other junk) to listen to their lecture. I don't think it's a crime.

Mattel is not used to playing on a level playing field!

In my case Mattel gave in on their saw they were going to lose against me. Not long before trial, they took a rule 68 judgment against them instead of risking a jury. At the summary judgment hearing (after opposing summary judgment) they moved to dismiss, then risk a ruling against them.

Mattel have threatened college students who put up Barbie jokes. Mattel has threatened a stripper named Barbie Benson for her website because she used her name in it.

Most of the losses on this came from Mattel's own actions!

Mattel's actions generated much of this publicity. If they just silently blocked the sites of the blocked lists and updated the softeware, noone would have notices.

There had been (for quite a while) published ways to bypass CyberPatrol. But I had not heard much of it until, they filed a lawsuit over CPHack. Very few people heard about my lawsuit until the counterclaim.

What most people didn't mention is that CyberPatrol can also block programs from being executed (including programs named CPHack.exe).

When dealing with a bully like this, they may try to litigate you into bankruptcy (like Mattel)or into giving up.

BUT, if people always give in, then companies will keep bullying people! Sometimes, you have to fight!

I'm bigger than that little guy with the slingshot..Goliath

The internet makes the average geek (or even non-geek) a publisher.

Slashdot is a good example. There is news of Mattel filing a lawsuit against CPHack (writers and sites), the world is notified in hours.

When the DeCSS suits and arrest happened, the world knew.

Before the internet, it might have made a an underground radio broadcast.

My lawsuit against Mattel would not have seen the light of day without the internet. It might of went to trial and Mattel written a check. The internet has allowed me to warn others of the issues in the case. Not to embarass Mattel. Many people (including myself) did not know about the FMLA), but the internet allow me to learn most about the issues more than most lawyers.

Employers have informed me that they would make accomodations for their employees. People have learned of their rights, pointed out the site to their employers who gave them the leave that they requested.

What Mattel is doing by suing me and suing to block the CPHack information is censorship.

They are using lawsuits to silence comments about their wrongdoings!

To see what is needed for libel read my summary judgment motion.

It's interesting that Mattel is stating that these site have nudity, profanity, etc.

To see what is needed for a finding of libel, it is well detailed in my summary judgment motion.

Mattel has encrypted the list, so it is not being "published" and do not say why a site is blocked. It could be deduced by a user by playing with the settings. BUT now that Mattel knows that the list is easily decrypted and publishes the list with these statements, does it make the publication libelous. Now that everyone has the secret decoder ring

Anyone who have recevied the email from Mattel, please contact me through my site, so I may get some of the copies. It may have something I can use against Mattel to defend against them, and to take a new lawsuit against Mattel.

It's interesting that Mattel is stating that these site have nudity, profanity, etc.

To see what is needed for a finding of libel, it is well detailed in my summary judgment motion.

Mattel has encrypted the list, so it is not being "published" and do not say why a site is blocked. It could be deduced by a user by playing with the settings. BUT now that Mattel knows that the list is easily decrypted and publishes the list with these statements, does it make the publication libelous. Now that everyone has the secret decoder ring

Anyone who have recevied the email from Mattel, please contact me through my site, so I may get some of the copies. It may have something I can use against Mattel to defend against them, and to take a new lawsuit against Mattel.

From a brief posted at sorehands.com.

A claim for libel requires proof of the following elements:
1. A defamatory communication about the complainant,
2. Which was untrue,
3. With respect to which the party complained of was either:
(a) in the case of a complainant that is not a public figure: negligent in ascertaining its truth or
(b)in the case of a public figure: acting with actual malice, in the sense of knowledge that the communication was false or having reckless disregard of its truth or falsity,
4. Which was published;
5. Causing actual damage to the complainant.

Lets see; 1- Yes, "this site is blocked..." is a defamatory communication. 2- Yes, untrue in many cases. 3- 'a' is true in most incorrectly blocked sites and 'b' is especialy true in the blocking of sites critical to blocking software. 4- Yes, the blocking software is published. 5- A case can be made that any lost hits are damaging to a website.

While IANSL, it seems pretty clear cut to me. Of course it's clarity to me does not mean it is legaly clear at all, but I really want someone to find out.

-=RR=-

From a brief posted at sorehands.com.

A claim for libel requires proof of the following elements:
1. A defamatory communication about the complainant,
2. Which was untrue,
3. With respect to which the party complained of was either:
(a) in the case of a complainant that is not a public figure: negligent in ascertaining its truth or
(b)in the case of a public figure: acting with actual malice, in the sense of knowledge that the communication was false or having reckless disregard of its truth or falsity,
4. Which was published;
5. Causing actual damage to the complainant.

Lets see; 1- Yes, "this site is blocked..." is a defamatory communication. 2- Yes, untrue in many cases. 3- 'a' is true in most incorrectly blocked sites and 'b' is especialy true in the blocking of sites critical to blocking software. 4- Yes, the blocking software is published. 5- A case can be made that any lost hits are damaging to a website.

While IANSL, it seems pretty clear cut to me. Of course it's clarity to me does not mean it is legaly clear at all, but I really want someone to find out.

-=RR=-

"There was an unknown error in the submission" and my comment didn't show up on the page after a reload, so let's see if it works this time...

The following is a rant I wrote on Saturday, when I first found out about Mattel being awarded the injunction. Anybody may feel free to copy or reproduce parts of it.

My mirror does not include any of the program files, but only the published analysis, Mattel's complaint, and an English translation of the Swedish copyright law 1960:729. I have no relation to the defendants in this case, and am only an interested third party.

- David Michael Turover(Perpetual Newbie)

(begin rant)

I am not in a good mood right now.

I've just had to troubleshoot NT's braindead permissions scheme, I've taken a test where several of the "correct answers" are wrong, my right wrist is aching(not good for a CS student), and it's barely noon. On my lunch break I crack open Netscape to read the news, and find that a United States federal judge has ordered two cryptology researchers to remove an essay that they had published on a Swedish website.

The two researchers in question are Matthew Skala, a Canadian, and Eddy L. O. Jansson, a Swede. They have reverse-engineered a program called Cyber Patrol, and described in detail the cryptography and computer file formats used by the program.

Cyber Patrol is a product made by Microsystems Software, which is a subsidiary of Mattel. The purpose of the product is to prevent any user of a computer where it is installed from accessing any of a list of several Internet web sites, ostensibly to prevent children from viewing pornography. As part of their report, Skala and Jansson offered a Win32 binary named cphack.exe, a utility which decodes Cyber Patrol's list of blocked URLs(website addresses).

Mattel promptly sued the authors of the report, charging them with copyright violations and ordering them to remove their program, report, and all supporting and related documents and materiel, claiming that the report and software will cost them over $75,000 in lost sales. On Friday March 17th, two days after Mattel's complaint was registered, Judge Edward F. Harrington awarded Mattel a preliminary injunction against the two. Jansson's internet service provider, though in Sweden and not subject to U.S. law, has removed his account and deleted the documents.

Reverse-engineering is the process of examining a product to see how it works. In almost every industry it is not only expected to occur but considered an integral part of the free market. In the software industry, however, products are often sold with "shrinkwrap licenses" that restrict reverse-engineering. A shrinkwrap license is a contract describing terms of use for a product, in which these terms cannot be read until after the product has been purchased, can not be disputed, and must be agreed to for the consumer to use the product which they have already paid for and in most cases cannot return. In most Western countries these shrinkwrap contracts are unenforcable, and in the U.S. their legality is disputed, although the upcoming UCITA bill will make them law.

In most Western countries, including Sweden, reverse-engineering of software is a right explicitly allowed by law that cannot be taken away by a contract(1960:729 26 g). Legal protections against reverse engineering can be obtained; they are called "Patents". Furthermore, an action undertaken in Canada and Sweden should be out of the United States' jurisdiction; However, the U.S. court did not refuse to hear the case as it should have done, and instead granted the injunction by weighing the action under U.S. law.

To make the situation more repugnant, Cyber Patrol doesn't work. And not just Cyber Patrol. It is well known that all content-blocking programs such as Cyber Patrol have a high rate of failure, and a high rate of erroneously blocking acceptable content despite any claims by their marketing departments of being 100% accurate.

This is not the first time Microsystems/Mattel's lawyers have been aggressive. A Microsystems software engineer who was fired from his job for seeking medical attention for his sore wrists has since been sued by Mattel for documenting his experiences. Outrageous lawsuits such as this have been happening often lately, and what is frightening is that in the United States' court culture, they have a good chance of succcess.

"There was an unknown error in the submission" and my comment didn't show up on the page after a reload, so let's see if it works this time...

The following is a rant I wrote on Saturday, when I first found out about Mattel being awarded the injunction. Anybody may feel free to copy or reproduce parts of it.

My mirror does not include any of the program files, but only the published analysis, Mattel's complaint, and an English translation of the Swedish copyright law 1960:729. I have no relation to the defendants in this case, and am only an interested third party.

- David Michael Turover(Perpetual Newbie)

(begin rant)

I am not in a good mood right now.

I've just had to troubleshoot NT's braindead permissions scheme, I've taken a test where several of the "correct answers" are wrong, my right wrist is aching(not good for a CS student), and it's barely noon. On my lunch break I crack open Netscape to read the news, and find that a United States federal judge has ordered two cryptology researchers to remove an essay that they had published on a Swedish website.

The two researchers in question are Matthew Skala, a Canadian, and Eddy L. O. Jansson, a Swede. They have reverse-engineered a program called Cyber Patrol, and described in detail the cryptography and computer file formats used by the program.

Cyber Patrol is a product made by Microsystems Software, which is a subsidiary of Mattel. The purpose of the product is to prevent any user of a computer where it is installed from accessing any of a list of several Internet web sites, ostensibly to prevent children from viewing pornography. As part of their report, Skala and Jansson offered a Win32 binary named cphack.exe, a utility which decodes Cyber Patrol's list of blocked URLs(website addresses).

Mattel promptly sued the authors of the report, charging them with copyright violations and ordering them to remove their program, report, and all supporting and related documents and materiel, claiming that the report and software will cost them over $75,000 in lost sales. On Friday March 17th, two days after Mattel's complaint was registered, Judge Edward F. Harrington awarded Mattel a preliminary injunction against the two. Jansson's internet service provider, though in Sweden and not subject to U.S. law, has removed his account and deleted the documents.

Reverse-engineering is the process of examining a product to see how it works. In almost every industry it is not only expected to occur but considered an integral part of the free market. In the software industry, however, products are often sold with "shrinkwrap licenses" that restrict reverse-engineering. A shrinkwrap license is a contract describing terms of use for a product, in which these terms cannot be read until after the product has been purchased, can not be disputed, and must be agreed to for the consumer to use the product which they have already paid for and in most cases cannot return. In most Western countries these shrinkwrap contracts are unenforcable, and in the U.S. their legality is disputed, although the upcoming UCITA bill will make them law.

In most Western countries, including Sweden, reverse-engineering of software is a right explicitly allowed by law that cannot be taken away by a contract(1960:729 26 g). Legal protections against reverse engineering can be obtained; they are called "Patents". Furthermore, an action undertaken in Canada and Sweden should be out of the United States' jurisdiction; However, the U.S. court did not refuse to hear the case as it should have done, and instead granted the injunction by weighing the action under U.S. law.

To make the situation more repugnant, Cyber Patrol doesn't work. And not just Cyber Patrol. It is well known that all content-blocking programs such as Cyber Patrol have a high rate of failure, and a high rate of erroneously blocking acceptable content despite any claims by their marketing departments of being 100% accurate.

This is not the first time Microsystems/Mattel's lawyers have been aggressive. A Microsystems software engineer who was fired from his job for seeking medical attention for his sore wrists has since been sued by Mattel for documenting his experiences. Outrageous lawsuits such as this have been happening often lately, and what is frightening is that in the United States' court culture, they have a good chance of succcess.

If you have/know of anyone with information on Mattel's frivolous law suit budget, have them contact me through my website.

I don't doubt it, but that can't be used as evidence for a judge.

That is why I don't shut up about my lawsuit!

Mattel thinks that they can shut me up by bring a frivilous claim against me, then litigate me into silence. It won't work, I'm too stubborn! If I give in, it is letting Mattel to be rewarded for this practice.

Free speech is not free! It has to be worked for.

Mattel has sued me for libel because of my website.They complain that my complaints of their violation of law is libel. I asked them what is factually incorrect, they still have not answered.

Mattel does not like my site so they file suit against me.

Someone shows the dirty laundry of their cybernot list, so the file suit against them.

Barbie Benson uses her name on her site, they don't like it, so they file suit.

A pattern perhaps?

Mattel is trying to silence me.

In their opposition to summary judgment, I have caught many misrepresentations that they have made.

Back in 1994 Philip Kahn said that DOS was dead. In 1989 Bill Gates said OS/2 was the operating system of the future.

Unix will evolve. Linux is a flavor of Unix. Many people use QNX on the Iopener internet device. Many people run OS/2 on their ATMs without realizing it. Many companies use cash registers based on DOS or OS/2.

You may not see lots of articles or advertising on Unix, DOS, or OS/2. That's not because it's not being used. It's that it is 'stable' and you don't have many new things comming out for it.

With the proliferation of the internet in a country, the control of the government will weaken.

In 1996 I was at the Jinan University getting accupuncture at the hospital (details). The head of the accupuncture department (married to one of the doctors) explained to me that all of their internet access went through a a filtering center. This would keep people from some of the subversive sites.

As we all know, filtering is not totally effective.

In a country where the news media is controlled by the government, the internet will people to access non-government approved information.

Those government will lose control, and it will have to adapt to that.

Some people will stand up behind free speech.

Companies will spend large amounts of money to try to eek out an advantage, if they see an issue as an advantage. A large corporation will spend money to keep out competition, or even negative comments (like Mattel).

They will do this by either spending money on getting the laws passed, or just trying to litigate oposition into oblivion.