Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Tosses $11M Spamhaus Judgement
Panaqqa writes "In a not unexpected move, the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the $11 million awarded to e360 Insight and vacated a permanent injunction against Spamhaus requiring them to stop listing e360 Insight as a spammer. However, the ruling (PDF) does not set aside the default judgement, meaning that Spamhaus has still lost its opportunity to argue the case. The original judge could still impose a monetary judgement, after taking evidence from the spammer as to how much Spamhaus's block had cost them. This is unfortunate considering the legal leverage the recent ruling concerning spyware might have provided for Spamhaus."
It's nice to know that there are so many things wrong with my statement that you can't name any of them. You must have been overwhelmed, I suppose.
Your last reply? That was your first reply. I don't understand what you mean by my "replies" and "statements". There has been one. Which you have picked apart cleverly by calling it pathetic and calling me a spammer. I just don't know what to say... I'm going to have to think hard to come up with a reply to that logic!
Now I know you said you wouldn't reply again, but in the interests of rational debate - which was what I was aiming for - I have some questions and some comments on your reply.
- You say I used 'WAAAY to [sic] many "what if's"[sic]' to make my point. I don't quite understand. Taking that literally, I didn't use the a single "what if" - that is, the phrase doesn't appear in my reply. Taking it less literally, my reply contained three different analogous situations, and three "what if" ideas. Since an analogy is, unavoidably, going to need you to imagine a different set of circumstances I don't really think that was avoidable. If you could explain what you meant I'll try to remedy it, but I don't really understand your objection here.
- When you speak of the situations I'm "trying to use as examples", I think you've confusing me with someone else - two other people in fact. This seems to be the case again later when you refer to my "replies". I don't see where this misconception comes from. That was my first reply, and I was using the examples you mentioned in your post.
- You say there are laws to protect you from the situation I describe. I'm not a lawyer, so I need a little more information than that. What laws exactly would protect you while leaving e360 high and dry? You've both been alleged to have committed a crime, in both cases the publishing entity has claimed their information may not be accurate. What's the important difference? Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious.
- Which part of my post suggested I was a spammer? Can people not disagree with you without some financial incentive? Or did I trigger some long-lost bit of Slashcode that sent my reply to hundreds of people?
If you reply, I hope we can return this discussion to a more civil level. If not, well, that rather speaks for itself.