weil.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Legal Threats by Sheepy · 2012-03-08 01:37 · Score: 4, Interesting · on Ask Slashdot: Who Has Been Sued By the RIAA?

I was John Doe #34.

I was quite worried when we received the email from Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP but they had put all recipients in the CC field so someone quickly set up a mailing list.

I was in the UK and at that time, had never been to the US, so I figured the Californian court wouldn't have jurisdiction.

They have to by law by esocid · 2008-02-27 03:24 · Score: 4, Informative · on Microsoft Trying To Appeal to the Unix Crowd?

This is just a conference to make it look like this interoperability was all their idea. From this quote:

This covenant will use the exact same terms created in October for the protocols covered by the CFI decision. This means that open source developers will be able to use the documentation to develop implementations of these protocols without paying for a patent license. Companies that subsequently engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft, as will enterprises that obtain these implementations from a distributor that does not have such a patent license. So that's how we're addressing the intellectual property rights

you can see that all they are doing is simply complying with the CFI's decision about how the

Commission found that Microsoft had abused its monopoly in the market for client PC operating systems by (i) refusing to supply its competitors in the market for work group server operating systems with "interoperability information," i.e., documentation allowing server products of Microsoft's competitors to freely interoperate with the Windows environment, and (ii) tying the Windows client PC operating system and Windows Media Player.

Re:Possible to legally restrict access to a site? by cyberdonny · 2001-08-23 21:45 · Score: 2 · on Convicted by the Movie Cops

> How did you come to be in the posession of such a list of MPAA IP's? That would have come in handy to me a few months ago when I got my 'letter' ...

Easy. Whenever somebody posted a "letter" to Slashdot, I looked up the IP address of the shark that send it (many times, a website URL, or an e-mail address of sender was helpfully included), and added the relevant IP's to the list. Same thing with the "obvious" domainnames such as mpaa.org, etc. Then I verified in the website log whether I already had a visit from the address. And indeed, more often than not, I had. Most activity came from Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

In addition to this, I found somewhere a rather exhaustive listing of whois records, and grepped that one for obvious keywords such as "law", "avocat", "kanzlei", "advocatie", etc. I had even a regexp to match companies with 4 partners and more in their name (most of those are sharktanks...). Yes, there was some collateral damage (stuff with deLAWare in its name, engineering cabinets (which often also have lots of partners too), or sharks unrelated to MPAA... etc.), but these false positives were pretty much negligible (less than 0.5%).

Annoyed by DVD-CCA Lawyers? Write & tell em by tagishsimon · 2000-08-26 08:24 · Score: 3 · on Hollywood Says If You Support Open Source, You're ...

AFAIK, and IANAL, but what the hey: the emails of the authors of the Open Source insult appear to be:

Jared Bobrow
Robert G. Sugarman
Jeffrey L. Kessler (there are a couple of others whose emails are not listed - I'd guess they are:
Christopher Cox
Edward Burke
Jonathan Shapiro