Slashdot Mirror


Judges Berate Spammer For 'Incompetent' Litigation

An anonymous reader writes "Joseph Kish, attorney for alleged serial spamming firm e360, must have known he was in trouble when Judge Richard A. Posner interrupted him seconds into his opening statement to berate both Kish and his client. Kish was appearing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to explain why his client was entitled to $27,000 from Spamhaus, a British anti-spam nonprofit. None of the judges on the appeals court panel seemed sympathetic to e360's argument, but Judge Posner did most of the talking. He spent fully two-thirds of Kish's 15-minute presentation demanding that Kish explain his client's methodology and lecturing him on its inadequacy. 'This is just totally irresponsible litigation,' he said. 'You can't just come into a court with a fly-by-night, nothing company and say "I've lost $130 million."'"

8 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. $27,000 is not that small by cats-paw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The judges expressed surprise that a defendant would even bother to appeal a judgment as small as $27,000."

    What exactly does that mean ? Litigation is so expensive that you should just pay up when somebody sues you
    for thousands of dollars ? Is the court encouraging blackmail by lawsuit ??

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
    1. Re:$27,000 is not that small by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spamhaus is fighting this judgment for some of the same reasons IBM fought SCO -- if Spamhaus showed that it wouldn't defend itself against one spammer, them they'd be inundated by other spammers looking to kill Spamhaus through a thousand paper cuts (lawsuits.) Even if Spamhaus spent ten times the amount of the judgment on the appeal, if they win and it prevents a hundred other similar lawsuits it would be worth it.

    2. Re:$27,000 is not that small by sangreal66 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spamhaus did in fact, not defend themselves. That is how the judgment was rendered in the first place.

  2. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't just come into a court with a fly-by-night, nothing company and say "I've lost $130 million."'

    Yeah, this would be like the music industry claiming to have lost many times their actual revenue due to filesharing - they'd be laughed out of court. Or their victim would be bankrupted. Something like that anyway.

  3. This is the sign things are not going your way. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I listened to the oral arguments with joy, The oral arguments reminded me of the ruling in e360 v. Comcast, where it started with, "Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority of people in this country, would call it a spammer. "

    But, what is interesting is the e360Insight, LLC, v. ChoicePoint Precision Marketing, LLC case. He sued them for providing them e-mail addresses for Ferguson, Ferron , and myself. Linhardt claimed he "licensed" our e-mail addresses from Choicepoint. However, Linhardt swore under oath (claimed in the case of Ferguson) with that Ferguson, Ferron, and I signed up with their partner. I am thinking that might apply in any further proceedings, if there are any.

  4. Re:Peers by AlecC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    SCO was /at one time/ a legitimate company. But it sold its major asset, and the shell was taken over by patent trolls. Since a company is nothing but a piece of paper, unlike humans, they can be converted from one use to a totally different one. WPP, the world largest advertising agency, descends from "Wire and Plastic Packging", a company which manufactured supermarket trollies. Nokia was once a forest products company, then sold rubber boots. 3M started out mining.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  5. Re:Alas, by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hmm I think Judge Posner has a much deeper knowledge than you of what one can and cannot do in a court of law.

    From Wikipedia:

    Posner has been called "the worldâ(TM)s most distinguished legal scholar." He is the author of nearly 40 books on jurisprudence, legal philosophy, and several other topics, including The Problems of Jurisprudence, Sex and Reason, Overcoming Law, Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, and The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. The Journal of Legal Studies has identified Posner as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century, and a 1999 New York Times article identified Posner as one of the most respected judges in the United States.

  6. 27,345,357 unique messages from E360 blocked by shoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The most astounding thing:

    In his original complaint http://www.spamsuite.com/webfm_send/357 the guy running E360 presented as fact, that Spamhaus had blocked at least 27,345,357 unique messages from E360.

    This is like saying, oh, I killed 37 people (and here's a list of who I killed) and that's why the cops are ganging up on me so I'm suing them.