Verisign only complains if anything takes money from them. If they don't lose money, they don't care.
I spoke with a person at Verisign about an obvously false whois registration, that belongs to a spammer. This clearly violates ICANN rules, but Verisign does not want to hear it.
Even if the ISO turns JPG into a non-standard, it is in too much use to make a difference. The idea of a standard is to establish the common use and give people safety in having a known way to implement/work with this "standard." This is already done. Forgent has already stole this benefit!
I want this patent invalidated, then the companies that paid money to go after them for fraud.
That is because the software on Voyager was written by a real programmer when 64k was considered a huge amount of memory. Not by these people who think that they are real cool because they only need 64mb of ram and 12 Active X objects print "Hello World."
. Or that it is real stable because the OS crashes only once a day.
Legal challengers such as yourself are hardly even
an annoyance to these companies and they'll slowly drain your blood with court stalling actions (if they don't just outright pass bribes against you).
That is why one must not surrender. That is why I am asking for $48M in damages, mostly in punitive damages. That should be enough for a sting for them to feel it and for other companies to take note.
The only way is to have people fight back and fight back hard.
As I am doing with Mattel, fighting back to make sure they are stung enough that they won't try with others. I hope that other companies that think about the same and realize that no matter how big they are, they cannot step on the rights of individuals.
You set up a couple of dummy addresses. When they get spammed, you track it to the spammer. You find their source. They will cooperate, if it comes out of their pocket. Or, you see about criminal charges for illegally accessing your computer under the federal computer and tresspass law.
They will provide 15 days notice to the user. If the user does not files a motion to quash during that period, Yahoo will provide the information. Of course, in that way, Yahoo usually does not have appear. This way, you don't need to file an emergency motion as Yahoo will await the outcome of the outstanding order.
But, with the data Yahoo, you will have to locate the ISP and subpeona them in many cases as Yahoo may not have valid information.
Actually most of the decision, that I read, was based on the evidence that was provided, not relating to the issue on the website.
Even though the single publication rule applies, it is not clear as to the scope of the change as it applies to the website. It your website if broken into distinct articles. But what about a log on a site that is related to the defamatory article?
Make a false statement, either recklessly, with malice, or negligenly (in the case of a private figure).
Publish it to a 3rd party. If I send you a letter, saying that YOU are are a convicted child molester, it does not count because it is not to a 3rd party.
If there are commercial libraries, then release the source, with the caveat that to build it you need that/those library. They could also release the binaries.
If a company is going to dump a product, they should open source it.
If they can't make money with it, and they don't plan on it, it could be used to build will and advertising. Part of the requirement would be to leave in the advertsing banners. Or require some form of license for inclusion into other commercial software.
Note that they have not conceeded that PGP cannot be sold off, yet.
Make false statements of fact (or opinions that imply false statements of fact).
Make those statements with negligence, recklessness, or with malice as to the truthfulness of the statements. Negligence does not apply to public figures.
The statements must be published to a 3rd party.
There must be damages. Damages are implied if criminal acts are stated.
Under the TCPA, if they send SPAM to your computer and your computer has a modem and printer, then it falls under the definition of fax machne.
Though there has been appeals court cases on the issue of state court jurisdiction (on SPAM,, via email), no appeals court has been asked to rule that SPAM email to a computer is not covered under the TCPA.
I looked at the Taubman decision. The decision does not refer to 2600 case. I belive that Hank's brief referred to 2600 case, but the decision never referenced the 2600 case.
I was thinking that it might apply to the appeal. I would think that being dismissed on a failure to state a claim might be lame enough to claim rule 11. I know rule 11 isn't ruled against some attorneys enough.
A party pointing to a a case, where the appeals court decides the case without making reference to the case mentioned in the brief does not grant it precidential value. If the court mentioned the case in the decision, then it would have some derivitive precidential value.
The article say there is precidential value to this case, there is not (unfortunately). Courts can look at this case, but the courts are free to ignore this since this is trial court level decisions, not appeals court level.
They claim it is improbable to get attorney fees. If they look at some of the cases on Rule 68 and cases that provide for attorney fees, there is precident that says when there is a fee shifting provision with a requirement for the other side to pay costs, the costs do include fees.
Since the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim and they appealed it, but dropped it, I would argue that ford's lawyers should be sanctioned under rule 11 (filing a frivilous action).
Slashdot Mirror
Verisign only complains if anything takes money from them. If they don't lose money, they don't care.
I spoke with a person at Verisign about an obvously false whois registration, that belongs to a spammer. This clearly violates ICANN rules, but Verisign does not want to hear it.
Now, don't spam them. :)
I want this patent invalidated, then the companies that paid money to go after them for fraud.
. Or that it is real stable because the OS crashes only once a day.
As I am doing with Mattel, fighting back to make sure they are stung enough that they won't try with others. I hope that other companies that think about the same and realize that no matter how big they are, they cannot step on the rights of individuals.
Which DOS did Microsoft make Win3.1 incompatible with?
Didn't Microsoft spread FUD claiming GPL is viral?
The real question to ask is, "how many of these attacks are successful as compare to attacks on Windows?"
If they have to pay out money, they may clean up their act.
They will provide 15 days notice to the user. If the user does not files a motion to quash during that period, Yahoo will provide the information. Of course, in that way, Yahoo usually does not have appear. This way, you don't need to file an emergency motion as Yahoo will await the outcome of the outstanding order.
But, with the data Yahoo, you will have to locate the ISP and subpeona them in many cases as Yahoo may not have valid information.
Is it an aimless vendetta to prosecute thieves? A spammer is a thief, nothing better.
Spammers should be bankrupted and jailed.
It is also a violation of California law.
Even though the single publication rule applies, it is not clear as to the scope of the change as it applies to the website. It your website if broken into distinct articles. But what about a log on a site that is related to the defamatory article?
- Make a false statement, either recklessly, with malice, or negligenly (in the case of a private figure).
- Publish it to a 3rd party. If I send you a letter, saying that YOU are are a convicted child molester, it does not count because it is not to a 3rd party.
- And it must cause harm.
My summary judgment motion details the requirements of libel, under Mass law.Anyways, for most torts, the statute of limitations runs when the plaintiff knew, or should have known of the act/harm.
Which spammer is this? I'd love to track them down and let a class action lawyer take them out.
Please contact me, I'd like that list too. Not to spam, but to take out another spammer.
I can be reached by the forms on my website. That way, spammers can't scrape for email addresses.
If there are commercial libraries, then release the source, with the caveat that to build it you need that/those library. They could also release the binaries.
If they can't make money with it, and they don't plan on it, it could be used to build will and advertising. Part of the requirement would be to leave in the advertsing banners. Or require some form of license for inclusion into other commercial software.
Note that they have not conceeded that PGP cannot be sold off, yet.
- Make false statements of fact (or opinions that imply false statements of fact).
- Make those statements with negligence, recklessness, or with malice as to the truthfulness of the statements. Negligence does not apply to public figures.
- The statements must be published to a 3rd party.
- There must be damages. Damages are implied if criminal acts are stated.
I have detailed the requirements for libel (under Mass. law) in a motion for summary judgment.People back then called it lup syncing.
Though there has been appeals court cases on the issue of state court jurisdiction (on SPAM,, via email), no appeals court has been asked to rule that SPAM email to a computer is not covered under the TCPA.
I looked at the Taubman decision. The decision does not refer to 2600 case. I belive that Hank's brief referred to 2600 case, but the decision never referenced the 2600 case.
I was thinking that it might apply to the appeal. I would think that being dismissed on a failure to state a claim might be lame enough to claim rule 11. I know rule 11 isn't ruled against some attorneys enough.
A party pointing to a a case, where the appeals court decides the case without making reference to the case mentioned in the brief does not grant it precidential value. If the court mentioned the case in the decision, then it would have some derivitive precidential value.
They claim it is improbable to get attorney fees. If they look at some of the cases on Rule 68 and cases that provide for attorney fees, there is precident that says when there is a fee shifting provision with a requirement for the other side to pay costs, the costs do include fees.
Since the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim and they appealed it, but dropped it, I would argue that ford's lawyers should be sanctioned under rule 11 (filing a frivilous action).