I am a lawyer. If you've actually been served with a complaint and have no prior experience with this stuff, I'd advise you to contact a lawyer.
You have a fixed amount of time to file a formal 'Reply' to the complaint you were served with. If you fail to file a Reply within the time limit, a 'default judgment' can be filed against you, basically finding you liable for all the causes of action stated in the complaint. (While 'default judgments' can sometimes be set aside if you appear later and give a good excuse for not having filed a reply, you definitely don't want to have that happen.)
So, first thing, is definitely make sure that you file a Reply within the time limit. The only reason for not doing that would be if you can get the plaintiff to drop the case before then, but even then you're going to have to make sure that they file a dismissal of their case within the time period.
I'd get a lawyer, if I were you. But before doing that, I would give the CEO's lawyer a quick phone call. His or her name and number will be on the Complaint that you were served with. Explain that virus emails almost always have forged emails, and give him some reference to a site on the web or a book that documents that so he or she can look it up. The CEO's lawyer is likely to be more rational about this than the CEO, who may be emotionally upset by the virus attack and looking for someone to blame. If the only evidence thay have against you is the forged email address in the from: line -- and if you can convince the CEO's lawyer that those lines are always forged -- then the CEO's lawyer should recommend to the CEO that the case against you be dropped (probably "dismissed with prejudice" so that it can be refiled in the future if they discover more evidence against you).
In talking to the CEO's lawyer, I wouldn't be very forthcoming with information, if he or she starts asking you lots of questions. The main thing would be to just explain to them that virus emails typically have forged headers, and to point him to some authority to back that up. Also, don't lose your cool. Keep things on a calm and rational level. If the lawyer turns out to be an asshole, you may not make any progress with this step. But still avoid using your cool. You don't want people to get emotionally involved in this thing. Lawyers aren't supposed to get emotionally involved, but some will, so look out and don't let that happen. You don't want to make anybody on the other side mad; it could lead to them doing irrational things (prosecuting a crappy case) and causing you even more trouble.
If you do contact the CEO's lawyer and aren't successful in persuading him or her to get the case dismissed, then you should hire a lawyer to take over and file your Reply. You won't want to wait until the last minute for this; contact a lawyer at least two or three weeks before the Reply is due, if not sooner. Your lawyer could prepare and file your reply, and take over in trying to convince the other side to dismiss the case without going further, after you explain the virus-email-forging thing to him or her.
I should include the usual CYA stuff that lawyers have to do when they say stuff like this in a public forum: the above doesn't constitute legal advice. But it is what I would do if I'd been served with a complaint like that and I didn't know anything about maneuvering within the legal system.
Someone said, "Besides, why would you want to watch television - even if it is HDTV - on you computer? How many people have big huge 27in computer monitors, or have their monitor somewhere where they can sit and watch it in comfort?"
Believe it or not, there are thousands of people who use their PC as the signal processing center of a home theater system. You can check out the bulletin board of a large user community at http://www.avsforum.com
I myself use a PC and its DVD-ROM drive to watch DVD's with stunning results from my Compaq MP1600 projector on a 120 inch diagonal screen. Yes, that's 10 feet. My desire for HDTV on a PC should be obvious.
By the way, you can get an excellent XGA projector for home theater for around $3,000. Front projection isn't ideal for everybody, for example you need to watch it in a darkened room for optimal results. But a 10 foot HDTV image for $3k (projector) + $400 PC-Card sure beats the pants off of most other HDTV solutions.
The only way to find anything distressful about CDNow's patent is by misunderstanding patent law. CDNow doesn't have a patent on "any" method of creating CD's over the internet, only on "its [particular] process of creating custom CDs on the World Wide Web." [quote from linked article]That's the nature of how patents work.
I assume that creating a usable process by which custom CD's can be created over the Web is a fairly difficult accomplishment. CDNow, assuming their process satisfies the requirements (among which I believe is a requirement that it not be trivial), is certainly deserving of a patent. But everyone should note that THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN CREATE CUSTOM CD'S OVER THE WEB WITHOUT INFRINGING CDNOW'S PATENT. All it means is that nobody can use the process that CDNow has developed. There are sure to be lots of different ways to create custom CD's, aren't there?
(I am a laywer, albeit not one well-versed in patent law. It doesn't take much knowledge of the law, though, to realize that if people are getting upset just because CDNow got a patent on creating custom CD's over the web, then they likely don't understand even the basics of how patent law works.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, thanks for the correction. Poor proofreading on my part. (Would have edited it after I read your post, but couldn't figure out how.)
-- Herb
I am a lawyer. If you've actually been served with a complaint and have no prior experience with this stuff, I'd advise you to contact a lawyer.
You have a fixed amount of time to file a formal 'Reply' to the complaint you were served with. If you fail to file a Reply within the time limit, a 'default judgment' can be filed against you, basically finding you liable for all the causes of action stated in the complaint. (While 'default judgments' can sometimes be set aside if you appear later and give a good excuse for not having filed a reply, you definitely don't want to have that happen.)
So, first thing, is definitely make sure that you file a Reply within the time limit. The only reason for not doing that would be if you can get the plaintiff to drop the case before then, but even then you're going to have to make sure that they file a dismissal of their case within the time period.
I'd get a lawyer, if I were you. But before doing that, I would give the CEO's lawyer a quick phone call. His or her name and number will be on the Complaint that you were served with. Explain that virus emails almost always have forged emails, and give him some reference to a site on the web or a book that documents that so he or she can look it up. The CEO's lawyer is likely to be more rational about this than the CEO, who may be emotionally upset by the virus attack and looking for someone to blame. If the only evidence thay have against you is the forged email address in the from: line -- and if you can convince the CEO's lawyer that those lines are always forged -- then the CEO's lawyer should recommend to the CEO that the case against you be dropped (probably "dismissed with prejudice" so that it can be refiled in the future if they discover more evidence against you).
In talking to the CEO's lawyer, I wouldn't be very forthcoming with information, if he or she starts asking you lots of questions. The main thing would be to just explain to them that virus emails typically have forged headers, and to point him to some authority to back that up. Also, don't lose your cool. Keep things on a calm and rational level. If the lawyer turns out to be an asshole, you may not make any progress with this step. But still avoid using your cool. You don't want people to get emotionally involved in this thing. Lawyers aren't supposed to get emotionally involved, but some will, so look out and don't let that happen. You don't want to make anybody on the other side mad; it could lead to them doing irrational things (prosecuting a crappy case) and causing you even more trouble.
If you do contact the CEO's lawyer and aren't successful in persuading him or her to get the case dismissed, then you should hire a lawyer to take over and file your Reply. You won't want to wait until the last minute for this; contact a lawyer at least two or three weeks before the Reply is due, if not sooner. Your lawyer could prepare and file your reply, and take over in trying to convince the other side to dismiss the case without going further, after you explain the virus-email-forging thing to him or her.
I should include the usual CYA stuff that lawyers have to do when they say stuff like this in a public forum: the above doesn't constitute legal advice. But it is what I would do if I'd been served with a complaint like that and I didn't know anything about maneuvering within the legal system.
Someone said, "Besides, why would you want to watch television - even if it is HDTV - on you computer? How many people have big huge 27in computer monitors, or have their monitor somewhere where they can sit and watch it in comfort?" Believe it or not, there are thousands of people who use their PC as the signal processing center of a home theater system. You can check out the bulletin board of a large user community at http://www.avsforum.com I myself use a PC and its DVD-ROM drive to watch DVD's with stunning results from my Compaq MP1600 projector on a 120 inch diagonal screen. Yes, that's 10 feet. My desire for HDTV on a PC should be obvious. By the way, you can get an excellent XGA projector for home theater for around $3,000. Front projection isn't ideal for everybody, for example you need to watch it in a darkened room for optimal results. But a 10 foot HDTV image for $3k (projector) + $400 PC-Card sure beats the pants off of most other HDTV solutions.
The only way to find anything distressful about CDNow's patent is by misunderstanding patent law. CDNow doesn't have a patent on "any" method of creating CD's over the internet, only on "its [particular] process of creating custom CDs on the World Wide Web." [quote from linked article]That's the nature of how patents work.
I assume that creating a usable process by which custom CD's can be created over the Web is a fairly difficult accomplishment. CDNow, assuming their process satisfies the requirements (among which I believe is a requirement that it not be trivial), is certainly deserving of a patent. But everyone should note that THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN CREATE CUSTOM CD'S OVER THE WEB WITHOUT INFRINGING CDNOW'S PATENT. All it means is that nobody can use the process that CDNow has developed. There are sure to be lots of different ways to create custom CD's, aren't there?
(I am a laywer, albeit not one well-versed in patent law. It doesn't take much knowledge of the law, though, to realize that if people are getting upset just because CDNow got a patent on creating custom CD's over the web, then they likely don't understand even the basics of how patent law works.)