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."

Comments

Oh yeah?

[toleraen]

In a not unexpected move... Well, then I'm not unglad to hear about this. I still can't not unbelieve that their initial lawyer didn't know how to handle the very basics of the case. I wasn't not hoping to hear that this case would just get thrown out completely...how much can't the US government not do about this though? Inquiring minds don't not want to know...

Re:Oh yeah?

[GweeDo]

Could you not un-use more double negatives in that one post?

Re:Oh yeah?

[tinkerghost]

It's probably true that the court initially didn't have jurisdiction, but according to the article, Spamhaus made an initial appearance in the case. Generally, if you make an appearance, you have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.

FWIR, Spamhause showed up in state court & said, 'you have no jurisdiction, the US court system has no jurisdiction & even if it did, it would have to be a Federal court'. The state judge threw it out properly judging that with no presense or assets in his district, he didn't have jurisdiction. 360 then went to a Federal Judge to redo the case & Spamhause's lawyers in the UK rightly asserted that "fuck the US court system, they have no jurisdiction, don't waste your money." or words to that effect. The problem is that the Federal Judge forgot that US law applies in the US not the world and ruled that being in another country doing things that are perfectly legal & not tortable (is that a word?) in that country is no reason that US law shouldn't be applied to them. In accordance with the new ruling on spyware, 360's case isn't actionable in the US anymore either, but that didn't seem to bother the appeals judge at all in denying the appeal of the ruling.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Still don't get it.

[BubbaFett]

Shouldn't I be able to list any domain or IP in any database I please? Isn't it the responsibility of the people using the database to determine whether it's a bad idea? Isn't the real issue between the people blocking email and their customers who are missing email?

Re:Still don't get it.

[SCHecklerX]

Why? The receiving end is the one with the power to use or not use your list, or to whitelist certain entities in that list. On my own mail servers, I reject stuff that is on zen. The sender will get that error, and can talk to their own mail admins, who should see *why* they are on the list and work to get themselves removed. If that is impossible, and this is, indeed, a legitimate company trying to contact one of our employees (this has never happened, if they are legit, getting off the list is trivial), then the receiving end is the one who has the power to make the decision whether those messages should come in or not.

I don't see the problem with keeping a list. If it is a bad list with too many false positives, then nobody would use it. Sheesh.

Re:Still don't get it.

[Phroggy]

If you listed Microsoft, SCO, and Apple all in a database of "douchebag companies", posted that on your site, and then told everyone to block them for being douchebags, I have a feeling you would get sued (and rightfully so). Nope, you're wrong. Since you mentioned Apple...

Carl Sagan once sued Apple for calling him a "butt-head astronomer." Sagan lost the suit, because according to the judge:

There can be no question that the use of the figurative term 'Butt-Head' negates the impression that Defendant was seriously implying an assertion of fact. It strains reason to conclude that Defendant was attempting to criticize Plaintiff's reputation or competency as an astronomer. One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase 'butt-head.'

I'm sure "douchebag companies" would fall into the same category.

Spamhaus' Register Of Known Spam Operations (ROKSO) is a list of "known professional spam operations that have been terminated by a minimum of 3 Internet Service Providers for spam offenses." That's a much more serious accusation than "butt-head" or "douchebag." If it's true, of course, then the plaintiffs can burn in hell... but they claim it's not true, and they've been falsely labeled by Spamhaus, which has damaged their reputation and cost them business.

Re:I don't get it

[DaleGlass]

Why is it so hard to effectively explain to the courts that Spamhaus has nothing to do with whether e360's messages get through or not, other than responding to a query from the receiving end asking if Spamhaus believes they are a spammer?

Because Spamhaus didn't show up in court to explain it. From Wikipedia:

Spamhaus initially succeeded in moving the case from state to federal court, but then stopped defending itself against the lawsuit, because it is based in the United Kingdom and outside the jurisdiction of United States courts. The American court had no choice but to award e360 a default judgment totaling $11,715,000 in damages. Spamhaus subsequently announced that it would ignore the judgment.

Sort of

[www.sorehands.com]

Spamshaus came into Court and filed an answer that in part said, You didn't serve properly and you have no jurisidiction. Then they said, we are not going to play this game, we want to withdraw our answer.

If you don't answer at all, a default is entered. This is what happened.

Linhardt is in trouble now.

[www.sorehands.com]

Though the default judgment still stands, the trial court judge will have to look harder at any injunction and money damages -- not take Linhardt's word for it.

The reason for this is my case against him, at http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam/e360/timeline.htm , because in my case, I argued (and lost) personal juridiction of Linhardt, in part because he said (and the court believed it) that he had no business in California. I pointed out in his affadavit in the Spamhaus where he said "e360 and I lost contracts..." and "e60 and I lost business opportunities.." and that of the 7 companies listed, 4 are in California, he explained it away by saying that he really meant that when he said, e360 and I he meant e360 and I in my role as president. If you don't suffer harm personally, you have no standing to bring a lawsuit. I filed a motion for reconsideration, on Linhardt's personal jurisdiction, in part based on this.

Spamhaus's lawyers are aware of this.