Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL to Give Away Spammer's Porsche

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the high-volume-email-deployers dept.

introverted writes "CNN is reporting that AOL is giving away a spammer's Porsche. As part of a settlement with a spammer, AOL took the spammer's Porsche Boxster S, and they're running a sweepstakes (already ended) to give the car away."

3 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Speaking of March 30th, let me just say... by chimpo13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does it come with a CD Multiplayer? And any guesses what they'll fill it with?

    mark my words
    Slashdotters are laughing now, but just wait until the RIAA/MPAA take a cue from AOL and start liquidating pirates assets...

    I'd continue the cutting & pasting of +5 mods, but I'm far too lazy. Thanks Claws Of Doom and WormholeFiend for me stealing the first +5 comments.

    --
    riding round the world on an old motorcycle
    1. Re:Speaking of March 30th, let me just say... by Ryosen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fortunately for the rest of us, The **AA is not a legislative body or law enfocement agency.

      The sooner people remember this small fact, the sooner they can stop worrying about their parents' basement.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
  2. Re:Unusual punishment? by leviramsey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ask any plaintiff's attorney. If the case goes to trial, the odds are very much against the plaintiff winning.

    The objective of the plaintiff's attorney is thus not to win at trial but to convince the defendant that pushing the case to trial is not worth it and settle.

    More often than not, the defendant in this case is a corporation. Cf. the breast implant class actions of ten years ago. Dow Corning etc. would have almost certainly won at trial (the evidence demonstrating liability was and is virtually nonexistent). However, they realized that it would cost billions to fight it in court, so paying a settlement would be the better deal.

    What I propose is some form of loser pays. How's this for a novel idea: have each legal team submit a weekly summation of how much they're claiming in legal costs that week. At the end of the trial, the figures are totaled. The percentage of jurors that found for the defendant determines the percentage of the total cost paid by the plaintiff and vice-versa. Thus, if it's 8-4 in favor of the defendant, then the plaintiff has to foot 2/3 of the total legal cost for both sides, with the defendant footing the remainder.