IMAL, and I don't see a lot to sweat here. All I see is a blowhard who's upset that the world isn't perfect. He even knew it wasn't much of a case when he threatened both criminal and civil actions: (which is a distinct no-no in many jurisdictions - it's considered to unfairly use the threat of criminal prosecution to influence civil litigation).
Second, what are the level of his damages, i.e. what's he going to collect? lost time? nope, not here. An injunction to stop you from issuing more viruses? nope. his expenses? nope: that's one nice aspect of the 'American' system: the winner has to pay his own expenses. That places a distinct transaction cost on the plaintiff and stops a lot of small-dollar suits in its tracks. I hear a lot of "It's not the money, it's the principle of the matter," until they find out they have to pay something to defend their principles.
As for the general question of when you need a lawyer, the first question in my mind is: are you planning on doing something e.g. talk, write, do, or are you planning to react to someone else? If you're the actor, then consult counsel before you act. If you're the reactor, then it's probably best is simply wait until they act.
There's more, but it's hard to give a set of rules until we know the facts of the situation. As for this case, you needn't give it another thought until the blowhard actually gets off his duff and pays someone. And given the paucity of damages here, that someone will in all liklihood tell him to forget it.
Why not try making the staff's compliance public?
Test the staff's own backups to the server periodically / randomly. Then fire off a memo to the boss stating the results of the test; who complied, who failed to backup as of the night before. Post a copy of the memo on the frig.
The staff knows they've been ID'd, and in the event of a true failure; the results can be trotted out who does and does not try....
Slashdot Mirror
IMAL, and I don't see a lot to sweat here. All I see is a blowhard who's upset that the world isn't perfect. He even knew it wasn't much of a case when he threatened both criminal and civil actions: (which is a distinct no-no in many jurisdictions - it's considered to unfairly use the threat of criminal prosecution to influence civil litigation). Second, what are the level of his damages, i.e. what's he going to collect? lost time? nope, not here. An injunction to stop you from issuing more viruses? nope. his expenses? nope: that's one nice aspect of the 'American' system: the winner has to pay his own expenses. That places a distinct transaction cost on the plaintiff and stops a lot of small-dollar suits in its tracks. I hear a lot of "It's not the money, it's the principle of the matter," until they find out they have to pay something to defend their principles. As for the general question of when you need a lawyer, the first question in my mind is: are you planning on doing something e.g. talk, write, do, or are you planning to react to someone else? If you're the actor, then consult counsel before you act. If you're the reactor, then it's probably best is simply wait until they act. There's more, but it's hard to give a set of rules until we know the facts of the situation. As for this case, you needn't give it another thought until the blowhard actually gets off his duff and pays someone. And given the paucity of damages here, that someone will in all liklihood tell him to forget it.
Frankly, I don't think they care whether or not this is yet another scheme that's doomed to oblivion.
All they care about is whether anyone will PAY them to use it.
As PT Barnum said....
Why not try making the staff's compliance public? Test the staff's own backups to the server periodically / randomly. Then fire off a memo to the boss stating the results of the test; who complied, who failed to backup as of the night before. Post a copy of the memo on the frig. The staff knows they've been ID'd, and in the event of a true failure; the results can be trotted out who does and does not try....