Re: Habeas: One for the good guys

[Matthew Cline <ma...@nightrealms.com>]

On Tuesday 06 April 2004 12:03 am, Bob George wrote:
> I know a lot on this list have been dismayed by lack of news. Des Cahill
> (CEO) sent me a quick note today to let everyone know that they've just
> won one:

> http://www.habeas.com/pr15.html

> > "//Company awarded $104,103 in court victory over Habeas infringer;
> > Habeas donates monies to SpamCon.org to provide legal assistance to
> > those sued by spammers"//

Whoa!  When have people been sued *by* a spammer, except in Monsterhut vs. 
PaeTec, when Monsterhut got an injunction to prevent PaeTec from booting 
them?

-- 
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Re: Habeas: One for the good guys

[Kenneth Porter <sh...@sewingwitch.com>]

--On Tuesday, April 06, 2004 1:52 AM -0500 David B Funk 
<db...@engineering.uiowa.edu> wrote:

> It's a well known legal phenominon that you can win a suit but feel
> like you lost due to the cost of defending yourself.

Yep, a fundamental problem with the civil court system in the US. Loser 
doesn't pay, so it's advantageous to sue or threaten to sue and "shotgun" 
the system. There are people who make a living just randomly suing 
everything in sight. Check out Stossels's recent book "Give Me a Break" for 
more on this and other perverse incentives in the American political system.

Re: Habeas: One for the good guys

[David B Funk <db...@engineering.uiowa.edu>]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Matthew Cline wrote:

> > > "//Company awarded $104,103 in court victory over Habeas infringer;
> > > Habeas donates monies to SpamCon.org to provide legal assistance to
> > > those sued by spammers"//
>
> Whoa!  When have people been sued *by* a spammer, except in Monsterhut vs.
> PaeTec, when Monsterhut got an injunction to prevent PaeTec from booting
> them?

Not trying to state the obvious, but did you bother to go look at
the SpamCon.org site? Right on their home page they talk about:

14 October, 2003: U.S. District Court Judge Donald M.
            Middlebrooks has dismissed the suit brought by
            eMarketersAmerica.org against nine antispam activists. However,
            the judge also denied a request that the plaintiffs pay all attorneys'
            fees. That means the defendants--the antispam activists--are
            stuck with a sizable legal bill. The SCF Legal Fund, which helped
            fund the defense, needs your donation!

It's a well known legal phenominon that you can win a suit but feel
like you lost due to the cost of defending yourself.

Did you know that various RBLs have been shot down by legal action?
(orbz.org, orbs.org).
Other anit-spam resources have had to defend themselves against
legal suits. (There's money in the spammer biz and that attracts
legal sharks ;(

-- 
Dave Funk                                  University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu>        College of Engineering
319/335-5751   FAX: 319/384-0549           1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin            Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{