NationStates Jolt Archive

Or any individual country
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1925075,00.html

So a known spammer sues a spam blocking service with over 700 million users. The spam blocking service is NOT EVEN A US COMPANY!

The company gave a big FU to a court that holds no jurisdiction over it.

So guess what they are trying to get ICANN to remove their website

SO far ICANN have done the good thing and said they do not have the authority to revoke domain names. But in the end if the issue is pressed they may be forced to comply with a court order (at least according to a Harvard law professor quoted in the article)

I don't see how anyone thinks that a court can have the power to tell a foreign company what to do. The spammer has no case.

My heart really bleeds for that spammer. Really it is. :rolleyes:

ahh capitalism at it's best, those damn semi-socialist brits, i always suspected they were commies in desguise

I'm trying to figure out how this is in any way at all related to "capitalism". Must be some heretofore unused definition with which I am unfamiliar.

I for one am of mixed feelings about the internet anyway.
I had alot more free time pre-net and probably more fun. I say let one country (North Korea or Saudi Arabia are my 1st two choices) have full control of it so it can become so screwed up it fails. It would be better for me personally.

Well, in all fairness, the internet was invented by the US.

I wonder if we could create companies that send TONS of mail to spammers?

Well, in all fairness, the internet was invented by the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet

Switzerland and France had some participation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation_of_the_Internet

Switzerland and France had some participation...

Some. Still a DARPA creation really.

Some. Still a DARPA creation really.

True. The world wide web however was a CERN invention.
So.. the US can be held responsible for e-mailspam and the Swiss (or the league of nations financing CERN) for popups and pornsites.

who gets spyware?

True. The world wide web however was a CERN invention.
So.. the US can be held responsible for e-mailspam and the Swiss (or the league of nations financing CERN) for popups and pornsites.

God bless the swiss for bringing us free porn!

intranet

The judge should have had the sense to throw out the case before the defendant even had to come to court. The company is based in Britain and is not breaking any laws, so it cannot ("should not" at the very least) be affected by any US court decision. If there were an actual crime, that might make things a little different. Since there wasn't I have to say that the case is fundamentally flawed. Also, the company admitted to being a "bulk e-mail" company. I don't know of any instance of a "bulk e-mail" company that is not a spammer. Afterall that's what bulk e-mail is: spam. The judge should have seen that and thrown out the case. I hate stupid people.

a judge taking a case doesnt mean that the plaintiff is assumed to be right.

it means that the legal arguments presented had ENOUGH merit to be considered. have any of you read the briefs? do you know what statutes the company is using?

No obviously I have not read the briefs. However, just taking the case at face value, it appears rather stupid. I still think that it should have been thrown out because of the court's lack of authority over a British company regardless of what statutes or precedents the plaintiff was using.

if that company sells a service to americans, the court has jurisdiction.

it would be like saying we couldnt go after british companies that sell mail order cocaine.

that being said, i hope the bastards lose.

if that company sells a service to americans, the court has jurisdiction.

it would be like saying we couldnt go after british companies that sell mail order cocaine.

that being said, i hope the bastards lose.

Um that’s not stupid at all a court in the US does not have jurisdiction over a UK company whatsoever. Even if they were sending mail order cocaine.

it does insofar as the scope of their operations in the united states.

they certainly have the right to place an injuction on the sale of the product to americans.

it does insofar as the scope of their operations in the united states.

they certainly have the right to place an injuction on the sale of the product to americans.

True ... thats not what they did apparently they fined the company, for a stupid reason.

Um that’s not stupid at all a court in the US does not have jurisdiction over a UK company whatsoever. Even if they were sending mail order cocaine.


From the article: "A lawyer representing Spamhaus in the US at first began defending the case, but the company then effectively thumbed its nose at Judge Kocoras, saying that an Illinois court had no jurisdiction over a British company."

This is where the corporation conceded the court's jurisdiction. They needed to deny jurisdiction with their very first motion...and win. It appears that they did not.

Too bad.

From the article: "A lawyer representing Spamhaus in the US at first began defending the case, but the company then effectively thumbed its nose at Judge Kocoras, saying that an Illinois court had no jurisdiction over a British company."

This is where the corporation conceded the court's jurisdiction. They needed to deny jurisdiction with their very first motion...and win. It appears that they did not.

Too bad.

And how exactly are they going to force the payment of the fine?

True ... thats not what they did apparently they fined the company, for a stupid reason.

Same paragrah: "Because Spamhaus had initially shown up as a defendant, but then did not defend its case, the judge of course ruled in Linhardt's favour, awarding $11.7m (£6.25m) in damages for lost business, and $1.97m in legal costs. Spamhaus has not paid it."

The court didn't fine the company. Since the corporation refused to continue to defend itself, the judge had little choice other than to rule in favor of the plaintiff. Once you concede jurisdiction you have to finish the fight or pay the price.

And how exactly are they going to force the payment of the fine?

That's the point behind ICANN removing them from the net.

That's the point behind ICANN removing them from the net.

Which in the end does nothing of they register under a .uk domain in the end … and sets a horrid precedent to the world

It will show that the United States court system can essentially blackmail a multi billion dollar company on whim.

Which is why I started the whole topic

I don't think that is a way for them to force payment of the fine. By the way, no the courts cannot stop the sale of mail order cocaine. That is stopped by importation laws. Laws are passed by Congress, which is the legislative branch not the judicial branch. You are getting a little confused.

i suppose laws also stop killings.

if you want to say who really stops the importation of cocaine, then its the executive branch if you follow your logic.

The executive branch would also have to enforce whatever the court's decision was. I was sort of talking about who made the decision. While we're at it, yes the court is supposed to uphold and interperet the laws made Congress. That wasn't exactly my point, my point (which I admit I did not make clear) was that one is a civil matter and the other is a criminal matter. The spam case being civil and the cocaine being criminal.

I don't think that is a way for them to force payment of the fine. By the way, no the courts cannot stop the sale of mail order cocaine. That is stopped by importation laws. Laws are passed by Congress, which is the legislative branch not the judicial branch. You are getting a little confused.

:-)

I'm a lawyer and the administrator of a district court. I don't think I'm confused on the topic of judicial vs legislative vs executive responsibilities.

What it all comes down to is that the plaintiff wants to hurt the defendant in order to force them to pay up. Changing to a .uk site would work for spamhaus in the long term, but it's going to cost them alot of business in the short term.

As to precedent: It was set years ago and the court is merely following it. It's only a big deal in this thread and the media because you're just now hearing about it being applied to a case where the plaintiff isn't very sympathetic.

I'm sorry, but my post about the cocaine was not aimed at you. Also, nothing you said disproves what I said. I'm sort of confused over why I was even quoted. Was it just a clever way of mentioning that you have law experience?

I'm sorry, but my post about the cocaine was not aimed at you. Also, nothing you said disproves what I said. I'm sort of confused over why I was even quoted. Was it just a clever way of mentioning that you have law experience?

Or maybe it's because you didn't quote who you were responding to and I just "assumed".

No big deal:-)

You're right, sorry. Also, I realized after re-reading my post that I left out a few words in the first sentence that does make it seem like it was aimed at you. it should have said, "I don't think that there is a way . . ." Sorry about that.

Um that’s not stupid at all a court in the US does not have jurisdiction over a UK company whatsoever. Even if they were sending mail order cocaine.

Would you agree then that Apple and Microsoft, both American companies, should go ahead and tell the EU and France to go screw themselves?

Would you agree then that Apple and Microsoft, both American companies, should go ahead and tell the EU and France to go screw themselves?

Microsoft and Apple are both international companies with offices and whatever the equivelant of business licences are in both the EU and France. It's not quite the same. Also, isn't France in the EU? I could be wrong, but I swore it was.

Microsoft and Apple are both international companies with offices and whatever the equivelant of business licences are in both the EU and France. It's not quite the same. Also, isn't France in the EU? I could be wrong, but I swore it was.

Hmmm, hadn't thought of that. thanks.

Oh I mentioned France because I understood it was only France that Apple was fighting with. Not the entire EU.

I cant believe that any judge here in the US would in favor of a fucking spammer company.....

Oh, good. I thought I was going crazy. I mean, all those memories of being told about the change from the Franc to the Euro in French class, if those weren't real I would have to check into the funny farm.