Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
from the the-first-amendment-means-something dept
As you likely know, for most of the past nine months, we've been dealing with a defamation lawsuit from Shiva Ayyadurai, who claims to have invented email. This is a claim that we have disputed at great length and in great detail, showing how email existed long before Ayyadurai wrote his program. We pointed to the well documented public history of email, and how basically all of the components that Ayyadurai now claims credit for preceded his own work. We discussed how his arguments were, at best, misleading, such as arguing that the copyright on his program proved that he was the "inventor of email" -- since patents and copyrights are very different, and just because Microsoft has a copyright on "Windows" it does not mean it "invented" the concept of a windowed graphical user interface (because it did not). As I have said, a case like this is extremely draining -- especially on an emotional level -- and can create massive chilling effects on free speech.
A few hours ago, the judge ruled and we prevailed. The case has been dismissed and the judge rejected Ayyadurai's request to file an amended complaint. We are certainly pleased with the decision and his analysis, which notes over and over again that everything that we stated was clearly protected speech, and the defamation (and other claims) had no merit. This is, clearly, a big win for the First Amendment and free speech -- especially the right to call out and criticize a public figure such as Shiva Ayyadurai, who is now running for the US Senate in Massachusetts. We're further happy to see the judge affirm that CDA Section 230 protects us from being sued over comments made on the blog, which cannot be attributed to us under the law. We talk a lot about the importance of CDA 230, in part because it protects sites like our own from these kinds of lawsuits. This is just one more reason we're so concerned about the latest attempt in Congress to undermine CDA 230. While those supporting the bill may claim that it only targets sites like Backpage, such changes to CDA 230 could have a much bigger impact on smaller sites like our own.
We are disappointed, however, that the judge denied our separate motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law. For years, we've discussed the importance of strong anti-SLAPP laws that protect individuals and sites from going through costly legal battles. Good anti-SLAPP laws do two things: they stop lawsuits early and they make those who bring SLAPP suits -- that is, lawsuits clearly designed to silence protected speech -- pay the legal fees. The question in this case was whether or not California's anti-SLAPP law should apply to a case brought in Massachusetts. While other courts have said that the state of the speaker should determine which anti-SLAPP laws are applied (even in other states' courts), it was an issue that had not yet been ruled upon in the First Circuit where this case was heard. While we're happy with the overall dismissal and the strong language used to support our free speech rights, we're nevertheless disappointed that the judge chose not to apply California's anti-SLAPP law here.
However, that just reinforces the argument we've been making for years: we need stronger anti-SLAPP laws in many states (including Massachusetts) and, even more importantly, we need a strong federal anti-SLAPP law to protect against frivolous lawsuits designed to silence protected speech. The results of this case have only strengthened our resolve to do everything possible to continue to fight hard for protecting freedom of expression and to push for stronger anti-SLAPP laws that make free speech possible, and not burdensome and expensive.
You have not heard the last from us on the issue of the First Amendment, free speech and anti-SLAPP laws -- or how some try to use the court system to silence and bully critics. Step one of this is our new Free Speech edition, which we announced just a few weeks ago, where we are focusing more of our reporting efforts on issues related to free speech and anti-SLAPP. We intend to do a lot more as well. For years, we've talked about these issues from the position of an observer, and now we can talk about them from the perspective of someone who has gone through this process as well.
Of course, if you have to face something like this, it helps to have great lawyers--and we're immensely grateful for the incredible hard-work of Rob Bertsche, Jeff Pyle and Thomas Sutcliffe along with the rest of the team at their firm, Prince Lobel Tye LLP.
Finally, I can't even begin to thank everyone who has supported us over the past nine months -- whether by kind words (you don't know how much that helped!) or through our survival fund at ISupportJournalism.com or by becoming a Techdirt Insider. We just passed Techdirt's 20th anniversary and while it's one thing to think that people like and support you, it's another thing altogether to see how people come out to support you when it matters most. And we were overwhelmed by the support we received over the past nine months, and the kind words and help that many, many people offered. It was beyond heartening, and, once again, it reinforces our resolve to continue to speak up for free speech and to do what we can to protect others' ability to speak out as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, email, first amendment, shiva ayyadurai
Companies: floor64, techdirt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Congratulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only this decision had arrived a couple weeks earlier, it would have made a fine 20th birthday present for Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the victors!
But don't hold your breath..have a glass of bubbly and kick off your shoes. It's been a long fight.
Time to just enjoy the victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb question - how did he get the copyrights?
In addition, as a comp sci student at the time, they claimed copyright for anything created that used their computers. I remember arguing over this (they did not claim ownership for paintings made by art students, etc. even though the art students used university facilities).
Anyway, if this case is appealed, a check on the policy of the University at the time may make difficulties for the the copyright registration.
Sorry if I am repeating things, and congratulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb question - how did he get the copyrights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb question - how did he get the copyrights?
We can each write an email program today and they are all copyrighted. Thus his claim is BS and clearly from someone of a lower caste (snort).
He doesn't understand how copyright works, much like he doesn't understand that the RFC were the basis of the internet and email protocols came from them. In fact, if you wanted to be funny, you could write anything down labeling them all as EMAIL and be perfectly valid even if they are pictures of dicks. Or Shiva.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb question - how did he get the copyrights?
Look at my boyfriends Shiva
It does sound better!
I assume Shivan is groomed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb question - how did he get the copyrights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb question - how did he get the copyrights?
And then somebody from China or India claims they had it 2000 years earlier anyway. Apropos India.
Probably Email was mentioned in the Upanishads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb question - how did he get the copyrights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb question - how did he get the copyrights?
Alternatively, if they had the same policy, it perhaps says a lot that they didn't feel the need to claim copyright on his 'invention'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb question - how did he get the copyrights?
Yeah it depends on the institution. Lots of public sector IP and even companies spring right out of uni woodwork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean Ayyadurai v Gawker? No it didn't.
Gawker went bankrupt following Bollea v Gawker, then sold its assets to Univision. A condition of the sale was that Gawker settle all the outstanding lawsuits against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My original comment was considering a "win" to be the lawsuit succeeding on its "merits."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was for Thiel, anyway. Ayyadurai mostly just got lucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excellent news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excellent news!
I don't know that I'd call polling at second-place in a primary for a nomination against an incumbent polling at 60% "a good chance of winning."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Excellent news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Excellent news!
Might I suggest another rule of thumb: Republicans don't win Senate seats in Massachusetts. The last time one did, it was because a long-serving senator died of a brain tumor, the Democratic nominee to replace him ran a truly terrible campaign, and it was at the outset of a year that would prove to be massively Republican-leaning -- and even then, the Republican victor in question won by less than five points and was voted out in less than two years. (The last time before that that a Republican won one of Massachusetts' Senate seats was 1972.)
Even assuming Ayyadurai wins the primary, he'll be going up against one of the most popular Democratic senators in the country, in one of the most Democratic states in the country, in a midterm election where the President is an extremely unpopular Republican.
There is a chance he'll win -- never say never, 2016 proved that -- but I'm not going to call it a good chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excellent news!
Elizabeth Warren destroyed Brown a couple of years later with her earnest progressive stance. People all over the country adore her, but esp. Massachusetts voters. Republicans try hard to insult her mostly they just call her "Pocahontas" and try to get her to shut up.
Then, not learning a thing, the Democrats ran Coakley for governor and she ran the same stiff, fake-smile race as before, and lost to Mitt Romney of all people, who would not have won if she'd been just a slightly better candidate.
When HRC ran, as I watched, I kept thinking, "OMG! Less Coakley!!! More Warren!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Excellent news!
"He'll never be nominated"
And then he was.
"He'll never be president"
And then the world weeped.
The moment you underestimate the power of a sociopathic imbecile to get himself elected is the moment you open the door for allowing sociopathic imbeciles to be elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excellent news!
A very good chance? Realistically, this doofus is running as an R, is endorsed by Curt Schilling in a state that, despite its governor, is still very much blue against a highly popular incumbent. He makes about as much noise in the election as a mouse's fart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excellent news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excellent news!
Nah, the pool of people who would be his supporters against Elizabeth Warren is not going to be favorable to candidates who (if they aren't white) complain about racism. Nor does Shiva sound like somebody anyone would want to have a beer with, he sounds like a spoiled brat with a sense of entitlement. And the saner ones are going to be saying "what does that have to do with cutting taxes and getting the government off my back?", unless Boston gets clobbered by a Force 5 hurricane (in which case, they'll be standing in line for govt aid).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Excellent news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excellent news!
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/08/14/senate-candidate-plans-address-free-speech-rally -common/CzFnJ4c4u1wOjojtdeLUzM/story.html
You may wonder, "why would the organizers of a free speech rally invite someone who is so clearly anti-free speech?" Well, because it was pretty transparently using "free speech" as a cover for another alt-right rally, and Ayyadurai is quickly becoming the alt-right's token minority representative.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2017/07/09/shiva-ayyadurai/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excellent news!
A banner beaming “Shiva 4 Senate: Be the Light,” complete with a torch, is plastered on the side of his vehicle. Neatly dressed in a white shirt with French cuffs and a gold-colored tie, Ayyadurai presses play, flings open the doors, and—to an audience consisting of myself and his three assistants—pumps his fist to the music in the otherwise quiet lot.
Oh yeah, that is exactly the sort of person who should be in government... I'm not sure if I should be laughing or feeling sad that he was apparently so eager to give a good 'first impression' that he went through that song and (almost literal) dance for four people.
At the front of the room, the de facto emcee asks Ayyadurai how to pronounce his last name. “Like, ‘I adore you,’” he replies. Then the former MIT lecturer begins his stump speech like a classroom lecture. “I want to start off by asking everyone, how many of us really want to beat Elizabeth Warren?” Every hand in the room shoots up. “Can we use weapons?” shouts the woman sitting next to me, both arms high above her head. “You said beat her.”
Ayyadurai doesn’t flinch—probably because his candidacy is rooted in the same right-wing bluster that’s made Breitbart News a household name and catapulted Donald Trump to the White House.
And that is just all sorts of disturbing. If that's the kind of person he's trying to garner support from I dearly hope they are in the minority in that state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Excellent news!
> The Establishment creates and funds groups like Antifa, KKK and Black Lives Matter with the aim of dividing everyday poor black and white Americans.
I'm not sure which is more laughable, the false equivalency of comparing Antifa or BLM with the KKK, or the notion that he thinks they're *created and funded* by the people in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Victory Haiku - True Confession
Hey! Something worked as it should!
This is a good day.
***
Congrats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also vaguely surprised the Shiva trolls haven't already posted here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G'day, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was having a bad day till I read this ..
Fuck you Shiva.
Can't wait till I can say a legit "Fuck you Bob Murray".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I was having a bad day till I read this ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I was having a bad day till I read this ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any chance of him appealing, though? I know some things can be appealed and some can't, but I'm not too clear on the specifics...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From the Ars article:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So ego wins and he doubles down after all. I'd say I was surprised, but that would be a total lie.
Yeah, just read the entire ruling, and he's going to have a fun time with that appeal given how totally the judge dismantled him here.
As noted in the ruling, 'On a motion to dismiss, the Court “must assume the truth of all well-plead[ed] facts and give plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom.”
That even under that standard it was still tossed at this stage says a lot, with the ruling basically going through all the claims and dismissing them as based upon protected speech or merely defamation claims under another name(with regards to claims two and three).
As for why the judge refused to allow him to amend the complaint, I imagine that might impact any appeal he might make, as it doesn't look very good for him and/or his lawyer.
A request for leave to amend requires a plaintiff to “set forth the factual and legal predicate for the remedy sought.” Silverstrand Investments, 707 F.3d at 107. Here, however, plaintiff’s opposition fails to set forth a single additional fact that would be included in the amended complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to “do[] the necessary leg work,” id., and the request to amend will be denied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, it looks like billable hours to his legal firm, so, no problem there.
Anyway, congrats on the win. Just wondering how this never got to the part where it became relevant to the case that he IS delusional, IS a liar and IS a race-baiting reprobate. That should all be put on public record somewhere, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"False speech is not protected by the Constitution, and TechDirt’s false and malicious speech about Dr. Ayyadurai should receive no legal protection," Ayyadurai said in the statement. "False speech does harm to readers, who are misled by it; it does harm to journalism, which is weakened by it; and it does harm to the subjects of the speech, whose reputations and careers are damaged by it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So says Ayyadurai's lawyer, which he is paid to do. Nothing says he believes what his case said.
If lawyers needed to believe what their clients tell them, no one would ever get a defense lawyer, guilty or not.
This being a civil case, the lawyer only needs to know that he won't be instantly laughed out of court (which is close to what happened here) because there might be something there, and can the client pay. The lawyer does not need to believe in the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A argument that is nicely undercut by the judge not buying any of it, and when assertions of 'false speech'(is that the new 'fake news'?) and malice doesn't even survive a motion to dismiss, where the plaintiff has all the advantages, you know it's laughably weak at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We can then apply that to politicians in general, but more specifically the current POTUS administration! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So says every scam artists when their scam is revealed, because it damages their ability to continue the scam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wonder if Techdirt could sue Ayyadurai now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"False speech is not protected by the Constitution..."
Actually in some cases it is, as any competent lawyer should know.
"False speech does harm to readers, who are misled by it; it does harm to journalism, which is weakened by it; and it does harm to the subjects of the speech, whose reputations and careers are damaged by it."
On this I think we all totally agree. I think we can probably also agree that knowingly making false accusations can also do a lot of damage to journalism, reputations and careers, and anybody who makes them should be firmly slapped down both legally and financially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It takes mere dishonesty to claim other peoples' inventions as your own. But it takes a special blend of stupidity, self-denial, dishonesty and arrogance to do it for an invention whose real development is well documented, AND to keep doing it for years after your lies are publicly shot down.
That special blend makes for lucrative clients for dishonest attorneys to loot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shiva Files Notice of Appeal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
With your promises last week to allow free speech here, we're all set for some exercise, huh?
And yes, this is ME, the person who's had thousand of comments here "hidden", not to stint you on the win. Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
I do not believe that you are you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
Well, I'd try to convince you, but I'm certain that you are not YOU.
What do you want of me beyond RATS? -- I'm devastated. I'm over-wrought. I'm a wreck. I am drenched with, er, anti-schadenfreude. -- Actually I didn't invest much hope, such cases rarely go far and I've no actual stake, just enjoyed while could.
I do bet that Masnick will be more careful in future with his insulting, though, eh? It's even likely this bit of adversity will actually improve him! -- Yes, that's the line I'll take: Hey, Masnick, remember how you felt when looked like would be silenced? -- Thanks, AC, for prompting me to work through this to a useful tack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
Eat all of the shit, Shiva.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
How does your brain operate after so many logic bombs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, rats! -- Er, I mean, congRATSulation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have been reading and commenting on techdirt articles for almost 10 years now (under one name or another). I am also looking forward to you continuing for the foreseeable future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better late than never
Now the only question is whether Shiva will have the good sense to slink away after being slapped down, or if his ego will cause him to double-down and try to appeal. Hopefully it'll be the first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better late than never
If only Ayyadurai had been Anti-SLAPPed down as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder what all those who claimed so confidently and gleefully that he would win have to say now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know exactly what they're going to say: "He'll win on appeal!"
And then when he loses on appeal, they'll change the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woo hoo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very well done to Prince Lobel Tye LLP - and my congratulations to everyone at Techdirt.
:D:D:D:D:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep up the good work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess Ayyadurai needs to go find something new to claim invention of, then. Good riddance to bad rubbish!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's so awesome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome!!!
Good for you Mike etal.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Victory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect he spends a lot of time looking in mirrors and other reflective surfaces, with a big grin on his face. In my opinion, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People were assholes long before Ayyadurai was born.
Sort of: people have behaved in an asshole-like manner for a long time, but it wasn't until 1980 that Siva came along and developed the feature-set that, when taken as a whole, define a true asshole as one would be recognized in modern society. Furthermore, he copyrighted his bulleted list of these specific, personally assembled and implemented features under the title ASS-HOLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whew...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shiva Will Appeal
It's a win for the First Amendment now but this is not the last we've heard of it. Good luck, Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shiva Will Appeal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal
more like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shiva Will Appeal
I don't think the case is any likelier to succeed on appeal, but winning in court was never the goal; this was always a nuisance suit to retaliate against a critic. Sorry, but not surprised, to hear that Techdirt will have to spend more time and money dealing with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shiva Will Appeal
He can appeal; that doesn’t mean he stands a chance in hell of winning, though. The judge in this case seems to have dismantled both his original suit and the attempt to amend it, so an appeal at this point seems like an attempt to further drain Techdirt of resources and win by attrition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal
Sure. The normal vehicle would be that Techdirt files a cross-appeal, raising the issue of whether the Cali anti-SLAPP statute should apply. While it might not, initially, have been worth an appeal to decide the issue, you are already in for an appeal since Mr Email has filed his notice. Someone will have to write a brief anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal
The judge in this case seems to have dismantled both his original suit and the attempt to amend it, so an appeal at this point seems like an attempt to further drain Techdirt of resources and win by attrition.
He was never winning on the merits, so it's hardly a surprise that he would continue with the attrition tactic. One would hope that any judge that might be presented with his appeal will take a good look at this current ruling and see his attempt to silence/punish TD as just that, and act accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal
Also, fingers crossed that he ends up paying the TD legal fees. That would be a wonderful reward for his persistence, aight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal
Unless someone is funding him to try and do a Gawker on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://rtb.techdirt.com/products/silence-techdirt/
There's already an option if they just want to shut TechDirt up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shiva Will Appeal
This is from his senate web site (https://shiva4senate.com/) for 06 September 2017 -
"Groton Republican Town Committee Meeting
This month marks the 35th anniversary of the invention of email by Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai. To commemorate this, following the event and separate from the event, he will be offering signed copies of his book, The Future of Email, for those who want to help support his campaign on the campaign bus."
Strange there's no mention of his court case being thrown out...must have forgotten to mention it. Can't have inconvenient facts and truth cluttering up a confection of fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does that mean it was dismissed with prejudice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't believe so, I think all that means is that the judge ruled on the current case presented and dismissed it, rather than allowing Shiva's team to amend the complaint and requiring the judge to decide whether or not the amended complaint was also justified in being dismissed.
Funny thing though, reading the ruling it sounds like the 'amended' complaint was completely lacking in substance, making it basically the same filing, just slightly changed, such that dismissing this one is dismissing both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any amended complaint would have to provide facts that could counter the assertions made by the Techdirt articles. Since Shiva and Harder could not do that, the judge did not allow them to amend the claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pages 19-21 seem to contain, in my not-a-lawyer opinion, the most important part of the judge's reasoning:
"The articles at issue provide all of the relevant fact on which defendants rely in reaching the conclusion that plaintiff's claim is false."
[...]
"Not every article at issue fully explains the factual basis for the conclusion that plaintiff's claim is false. However, the articles that do not provide a full explanation refer to, and often provide hyperlinks to, the articles that do. Furthermore, as plaintiff has recognized, the articles should be viewed together and are each relevant context for the others."
[...]
"By providing the full factual basis for his opinion, the articles cannot reasonably be interpreted to suggest that the author had information about plaintiff's claim that was not accessible to others."
[...]
"Furthermore, and significantly, it appears that the core underlying facts are not disputed."
[...]
"In addition, plaintiff has not challenged the accuracy of the factual statements relied upon in reaching the conclusion that his claim is false.
[...]
"Thus, while the complaint challenges the conclusions drawn from the available facts, it does not challenge the underlying facts themselves."
[...]
"In short, the articles disclose the non-defamatory facts on which they rely; make clear that the conclusions drawn from those facts are simply an interpretation of them; and do not rely on other, undisclosed and potentially defamatory facts that are not available to others."
[...]
"Furthermore, by providing hyperlinks to the relevant information, the articles enable readers to review the underlying information for themselves and reach their own conclusions. See Riley, 292 F.3d at 289. Accordingly, the statements are not actionable. [bold added]
[end of quotations]
That part, I think, establishes that nothing published on Techdirt was defamatory in the first place.
And even if Ayyadurai were to try to prop up his proposed appeal by shoveling in lies about the factual sources Mike's articles were based on, it would do nothing to change the situation. This ruling clearly reiterates that merely providing one's conclusions based off of disclosed facts regardless of how much hyperbolic language is used to do so, is not defamation. Ayyadurai would have to attempt to argue that not only are a few decades of factual record from multiple independent and unbiased sources false, but he would also have to prove that Mike knew his sources were false when he wrote the articles and decided to use them anyway. While Ayyadurai may believe any history of email he hasn't wormed his way into is false, a reasonable and knowledgeable person would not, and I don't see one scintilla of evidence that Mike was thinking "well these guys are total liars but I'll quote them in my articles because fuck Shiva." And no, Shiva, your hallucinations about Mike's motivations don't count as evidence.
On a final note, the judge's statement that "a settlement is not a direct reflection of the merits of a claim" is something that bears repeating often, not just in this case, or even just for defamation cases, but also in copyright/patent/porn trolling cases as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Turns out he's full of shit in alternate/virtual reality too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just heard the news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WooT!
Congratulations!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inc New T-Shirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inc New T-Shirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also I hope that the cost(not just monetary) of this litigation will not have a lasting negative impact on Techdirt's ability to operate (and provide another small corner of sanity :p ).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats, best investment I ever made
I pray I never have to come to you for help....
Bless you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things.
One: Congratu-fucking-lations on winning this.
Two: SUCK IT, SHIVA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations! Woot!
Other new T-shirt:
"I invented Shiva Ayyadurai, someone please shoot me"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope you bought your lawyers a nice congratulatory dinner...
Keep up the good work, both in the courtroom and on the website!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Happy day for free speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Hamilton - did Melania Trump tell you this would happen in a dream?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't know this guys was running for senate, so I go to his campaign page and find this: "Defeat #FakeIndian Elizabeth Warren." Unbelievable. He'll fit right in with the rest of the nut cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ayyadurai’s lawyer said they will appeal the ruling. I imagine that if the appeal fails, said failure will be the end of the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You'd like to think so, but I'm honestly not sure if his ego and the self-image he seems to have built up would allow him to drop it.
I imagine the 'best case scenario' will have him drop the legal angle as not getting him anywhere and moving back to 'just' whining about that pesky 'history' and how clearly anyone who disagrees with him is doing so because they're racists who just can't stand the idea of a 'darkie' having 'invented' email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll bet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll bet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please write another article about how Shiva didn't invent email
In fact, you should write one every week. Just like Bruce Schneier has his Friday squid blog post, you should have a weekly "Shiva STILL didn't invent email" post. You could crowdfund some of the writing. I'd pay $20 to get a particularly purple descriptor published:
Shiva—who even narcissists refer to as a completely delusional, self-absorbed waste of his constituent atomic elements…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please write another article about how Shiva didn't invent email
I would go one better, every friday write a new post, about something else that Shiva didn't invent, something like this:
How Shiva didn't invent Microsoft
How Shiva didn't invent Outloook
How Shiva didn't invent Cars
How Shiva didn't invent Water
How Shiva didn't invent IBM
Something like that would be much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Appeals
He has to come up with another set of lies to set it up with. I'm sure he'll be creative.
Judges don't usually like to go against one another, and if he keeps this kind of thing up, he can get cited for wasting the court's time with a 'frivolous and unmerited' appeal based on a case that the previous judge had patiently and carefully explained was a total waste of his time, too.
The only people getting anything out of this will be the lawyers. Their fees will depend on churning out the paperwork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Appeals
Nah. He's been at this a year and a half and still hasn't come up with anything better than "false speech is not protected."
It's not about winning the case on its merits. It's about doing financial harm to his critics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Appeals
If this does go to appeal, I hope the next judge settles the matter and dismisses the case with prejudice so Shiva can't keep dragging Mike back into court to demand that Techdirt upholds his fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Appeals
That's because, legally, it is; that was Techdirt's own legal argument, in fact. Here's from one of their legal filings (pardon the formatting on the copy-paste job):
The legal system has no business weighing in on the definition of "e-mail" and determining the moment it was invented; allowing judges to define computer terms is a legitimately terrible idea. The question of who invented e-mail is not one for the law to decide, it's a matter for the court of public opinion.
What the judge decided is that we can look at Ayyadurai's arguments for why he should be considered the inventor of e-mail, and we can look at Techdirt's arguments for why he shouldn't be, and we can draw our own conclusions; that the question of whether or not Shiva truly invented e-mail is up to our personal judgement, not his legal judgement. That is the correct decision.
The definition of "e-mail" is subjective; who invented it is therefore a matter of opinion. Techdirt's opinion, based on cited public facts, is that he is not. I agree with Techdirt, and I daresay everybody else in the comments here does too, except the trolls who still insist that Prenda didn't break any laws.
And the more sites report on this, the more people are going to agree with Techdirt's conclusions, because they cite facts and argue persuasively. That's the marketplace of ideas working the way it's supposed to. It's also what Shiva is most afraid of, and the reason he's trying to intimidate news sites into not criticizing him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Appeals
Has anybody been able to examine at his program to see if it qualifies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations!
You are probably and understandably out to celebrate, but it is still kind of sad that you are. It means that this great burden has been lifted that threatened to destroy your life and work, but in a case like this, it never should have become such a burden in the first place.
It should have been something for you to tell your pals to have a laugh - "You know what this guy tried to do?" and not feel like "Holy cow... we just dodged a bullet here".
Despite the negativity in this post, my day got better as well from this news. So may you celebrate into the morning and suffer no hangovers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shiva
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great News!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good show old Techdirt chaps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HOORAY!
Now to shit on that fraud's senate run...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank You!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Celebrate
https://giphy.com/gifs/e1BxgoFxAOmbK/html5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a win for free speech
Anti-SLAPP laws are really only a fig leaf (not that they would be a bad idea): "loser pays" should become the rule at least for cases that are so clear that they should not even have required a court, and of course with limits in billable costs either way, like it is done in civilized countries with "loser pays" rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well done!
I come here because you report based on verifiable information, and provide considered opinions.
Keep doing that.
s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats Etc
That said, perhaps some lessons could be learned from all of this. The most important one is that mockery and taunting is not the best way to get things done. You can take the time to figure out the billable hours on one of these things, and consider it carefully before you go down the same road again. Even if you keep winning, it can get very expensive to get there.
As for the mythical question for anti-SLAPP, I wish you luck. The power of anti-SLAPP is perhaps a little too strong at times, and I would not be shocked to see it challenged as a legal concept at some point in the future. You may think of it as a free speech utopia, but it may not work out quite that way.
So keep up the good work, cut out the pointless nastiness, and FFS fix the flagging system, it sucks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congrats Etc
Do you... read the things you post? Anyone can look up your post history. It's not particularly flattering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congrats Etc
Go look at my post history - and look at why I posted. You might see what taunting and mockery looks like (and good job yourself on that!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
What was the phrase? Physician heal thyself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
I love people like you. Poor readers, and even poorer at snark. You make Leigh look like a pro!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170830/12084138115/al-jazeera-gives-voice-to-voiceless-killi ng-news-comments.shtml#c1700
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
Perhaps you might consider that what you are doing right now is trolling as well, and certainly and totally 100% off topic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
Give him credit: He's an ISO 9000 Certified bully. His fallacies and false accusations are entirely consistent in every post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
Maybe you should write him a few more fantasies of masturbating to Donald Trump. That would cheer him up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
You’re a bit late for that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congrats Etc
When a person has proven themselves worthy of mockery, letting them go unscathed seems like dereliction of duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congrats Etc
In every conversation, there are always guys who blame Techdirt for being so mean, as if being mean were illegal, and if they'd only been nicer in their totally accurate criticism of Shiva Ayyadurai, he wouldn't have brought a frivolous, meritless suit against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats Etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congrats Etc
You think that if the Techdirt articles on Ayyadurai had left out all the mockery, that while he still would have been pissed off at Techdirt he wouldn't have been pissed off enough to file the lawsuit? If so, what do you base that on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
moderation of black indian slave liars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: moderation of black indian slave liars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats!
A world without Techdirt would be a bleaker place so I'm happy we're not venturing into that alternative timeline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations!
Great to see the lying fuckweasel Shiva Ayyadurai get the slapping down he deserved for his egregious bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is a douchebag...
Is he still a douchebag and a charlatan and a liar now that everyone with access to Google knows to avoid him either for employment or business dealings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You win some, you lose some but if you had to choose which one of those to win, I think you got the good end of the stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Costs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish you could recover your costs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well that is probably partly why he did it. He was running for office. My hope is that a counter suite for damages is in the works, and that other SLAPP victems of this guy will now pile on.
It is my belief that he was probably acting as proxy for other interests in this matter. It would be nice to make him squeal and find out who was actually backing this litigation. My guess is it is some kind of quid pro quo for political donations. Probably a telecom.
The cats paw parable comes to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Important Victory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better way...
The winners and losers in lawsuits do not matter, as long as the lawyers get their payola.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope the appeal gets tossed quickly so you can put this all behind you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep fighting the good fight guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Race is Everything
This appears to be a forum of all white people. I can tell by the tone. What you fail to understand is that despite the workings of Babylon to rebuild that race is everything. The DNA that makes up a person closely resonates with the others of the tribe and that's why voter blocks exist. So other Indians will vote for the "Email Inventor" based on the fact that they can relate to many things about him. They won't listen or care about the email case. After race then ideals comes next and the white Trumpsters & Repubs will then vote for him. The other peoples of color will not vote for him. As usual the real issues (dishonesty / megalomania) don't matter nearly as much as the public hope / perception of the person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Race is Everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Race is Everything
Hi, Shiva.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Race is Everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Race is Everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations! I'm posting here, because
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smackdown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
strong anti-SLAPP laws
But anti-SLAPP laws that only include legal fees are WEAK, not strong or effective deterrents against deep-pocketed SLAPP suit filers.
To be truly strong and effective deterrents, anti-SLAPP laws must also include significant punitive damages, including against the attorneys who filed the SLAPP suit.
The only ones who really benefit from weak anti-SLAPP laws that only include legal fees, are the attorneys on BOTH sides.
If anti-SLAPP laws include legal fees, plus significant punitive damages against the SLAPP suit filer and their unethical attorneys, SLAPP suits would likely drop by well over 90%.
But that may never happen since attorneys and judges are so resistant to supporting laws that penalize bad attorneys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
Are you also on the side of a soda tax or tobacco tax to make it painfully expensive for people to enjoy a drink or a smoke?
Monetary deterrents should not be used for things that some people have decided are bad.
There is always a group of people out there who are looking to be offended by things that are really non of their business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
Anti-SLAPP laws do not affect good-faith lawsuits, only lawsuits that are self-evidently brought to chill free speech. Anti-SLAPP laws do not infringe the constitutional rights of plaintiffs, they protect the constitutional rights of defendants.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
That's...an interesting legal theory. So do you think the penalty for parking in a loading zone should be jail time, or should they go straight to execution?
Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
May I suggest a video game chat room might be more to your liking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
Blocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
He's actually done a lot of good for his clients. But let's not forget Randazza and every other attorney are just following the rules that are in place. You seem to want to play both sides of the fence Scott. You personally filed two anti-SLAPP lawsuits against the same company. I don't know the specifics of those lawsuits but you lost them both. Using your way you would be on the hook for 10's of thousands of dollars if not more. As I said I don't know the specifics of your suits but I'm sure it is something you truly believed in. Would you want to be punished just for trying and losing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
Besides we all know who "Thad"is !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
Of course everybody knows who I am. I post under my real name. With a link to my blog at the top of each post. If I were trying to hide my identity, that'd be a pretty dumb way of doing it.
Speaking of dumb ways of trying to hide your identity, I'm guessing you didn't know that we can tell when two posts are written by the same guy because of the icon up above them, huh, "Dave"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
I can't seem to find Thad's website that he speaks of.
Maybe it was taken from him Scott or maybe it's just a big coincidence.
I guess you "guys" can sit around and praise each other if nothing good is on TV.
Take care,
Entrepreneurmen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
Heights area of Sacramento. Also the house address does not have your name on it. So stop trying to be sly and change your underwear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
Right Thad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
I can't seem to find Thad's website that he speaks of.
Click his name, genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
Well, we can’t all be like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws
Stick to the child porn sites. They are more your speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The intent was to make the case so long and drawn out that Techdirt would run out of money before a verdict was reached. This, as with Gawker, would have a chilling effect on others, especially those without a billionaire benefactor, lest they too see their organisation go down the tubes.
That's why lawyers were needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if most readers don't do anything except possible respond to the trolls, then nothing is likely to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now to get the appeal tossed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I only wish Shiva had been forced to foot the bill for your legal defense.
We need more and stronger SLAPP laws, as Shiva was caught on tape during the Boston rally giving tips to Nazis about how to go about suing news outlets that dare to call them "Nazis".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Turns out his hero supports them. Maybe that's why he hasn't showed his face around - either he's too ashamed or his brain overheated from the logic bomb. Probably the latter. Hamilton, by all appearances, seems to be utterly shameless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was using email since 1972
Now I see that the "doctor" asshole has continued to lie about "inventing email" in 1978 which is pure bullshit.
I was wire-wrapping my own computers when I was 12 years old, using 4 bit CPUs and television screens for output, back when the DARPANet was not yet opened up for public access. That was before the MSI8080, the Ohio Scientific, Prolog, Datalog, Xerox 820, TRS-80, and everything else in the 6800 / 6802 / Z80 arena started.
I have been in computer hardware and software -- toggled in using assembly op codes! using toggle switches -- and myself and my fellow Heath kit users sent and received email back in the early 1970s.
We stored our data on 8 inch floppies and before that on rotating drums -- literally Quaker Oats cardboard plated with magnetizing materials which separate data read and data write heads accessed.
The ass clown's lies are outrageous, he did not invent email, people like me -- old assholes in our own rights -- were sending emails among ourselves long before that asshole got a commercially-available computer. We made our own, we created our own software.
By the way, that was before the first "killer application" was ever created, a decade before the first "killer app" -- which was a spreadsheet.
I'm glad to see that the courts recognize the fact that the lying sack of shit is a lying sack of shit.
Also by the way: The guy who created the first BBS could not be identified, either, because the dial-up BBS was a world wide effort, it developed over the course of years through several hundred people's work. Email was the same thing, many people developed email which has undergone change over time.
That was before Planet Connect came on board, LONG before AOL opened up things, long before DARPANet opened up public access.
My opinions only, and only my opinions, as always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep rocking TD. If he actually appeals we will keep supporting you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honestly, it would explain a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Certain quirks in the writing voice of “Hamilton” seem familiar to quirks in Ayyadurai’s writing on social media—notably the emphasis on the adjective “American” and the capitalization of almost any noun following it (e.g., “American Inventors”). The attempts to gaslight people here with constant “so [x], right?” questions also mirrors Shiva’s practice of moving the goalposts on his claims during interviews.
Given how “Hamilton” has not shown up in the comments as of late, I suspect that he was Ayyadurai. I also suspect that he planned to submit all the “mean” replies to him as evidence of further “defamation”. That he could do so—which the judge pointed out in the dismissal ruling—appears to have deterred him from further trolling here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For the great lawyer that Charles Harder supposedly is, if he didn't stop Shiva (or possibly encouraged him) from posting that garbage to use as evidence, he's even dumber than I'd thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shiva Ayyadurai has clearly stated in many places what he means by email when he says he invented email.
Techdirt will need to show the jury, by a preponderance of evidence, that Ayyadurai was lying when he said that he invented email as he (Ayyadurai) defines email. This is going to be hard. Ayyadurai has made a good case that he did invent what he calls "email".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right about one thing, though: that will be very hard. For Shiva, that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In United States defamation cases, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. If Shiva wins his appeal and the suit is reinstated, he would still need to prove that Techdirt defamed him. To prove that, he would have to prove that Techdirt made knowingly false statements with reckless disregard for Ayyadurai’s reputation.
An offer of any such proof would require Ayyadurai to admit facts. Not facts that fit his worldview or facts that fit the claims he made, but facts that impartial observers can look at and agree on being objective facts. (As objective as we can be sure of, anyway.) His claims twist definitions and facts in an attempt to gaslight the ignorant and the foolish. But when he cannot move the goalposts, he cannot win the argument; the dismissal of this case proves as much.
The historical record of ARPANET and the development of the three major backbone protocols—none of which Ayyadurai was involved or influenced in any way—says he did not invent email as we know it today. Even if he wins a new trial, Shiva Ayyadurai would still need to overcome the best defense to a charge of defamation: the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SLAPP policy
I’ve lived the consumer side of this SLAPP topic.
Minnesota First Amendment lawyer Marshall Tanick was earlier quoted in a Star Tribune newspaper article August 27, 2001. It said in part: “If a company sues, alleging simple business disparagement or perhaps defamation, its goal isn’t necessarily to win,” said Marshall Tanick, a First Amendment expert . . . “The strategy is to force the other person to incur huge legal expenses that will deter them and others from making such statements,” he said . . . “yet very few (cases) go all the way to trial and verdict,” Tanick said.
I suspect that if Minnesota had a stronger SLAPP statute, more readily known by lawyers in 2010, I might not have been sued from 2010 through 2013 for criticizing the bedside manner of a Duluth doctor.
Unlike other SLAPP statutes that protect any public interest speech, Minnesota's only protect(ed) speech aimed at government processes. I think opposing counsel was mindful of that when his suit on behalf of his plaintiff addressed only my Internet comments and not my letters to government bodies.
A good SLAPP statute does not prevent an insulted doctor or plumber from getting his jury trial, but it does make his suit get scrutinized for validity more quickly - particularly in Minnesota, which maintains the quaint custom of hip pocket law suits. During four years of depositions, discovery, hearings, and motions, I never once spoke to a judge.
My four years of association with the defamation process was a distressing war of financial attrition for my family. The plaintiff’s first contact with me was a letter that said in part that he had the means and motivation to pursue me. The suit cost me the equivalent of two year’s net income – the same as 48 of my car payments plus 48 of my house payments. My family members had to dip into retirement funds to help me.
We were overwhelmed by my being sued after posting a consumer opinion, and we were shocked by the rapidity with which it happened. My mother and wife preferred no discussion, because they didn’t want to think about it. Conversation with my father only reminded him of his anger over this situation. My siblings and children didn’t often bring it up, because they didn’t know how to say anything helpful. I was demoralized by four calendar years of being called “Defendant Laurion” in public documents.
While being sued for defamation I was called a passive aggressive, an oddball, a liar, a coward, a bully, a malicious person, a Boy Scout who did no good deed, and a zealot family member. I was said to have run a cottage industry vendetta, writing 19 letters, and posting 108 adverse Internet postings in person or through proxies.
After receipt of a threat letter from opposing counsel on behalf of his client, I deleted my rate-your-doctor site postings and sent confirmation emails to opposing counsel. Not only was I sued, but I was denigrated as a liar in a demand letter to my insurance provider of 25 years, in spite of the fact that I didn't carry liability insurance.
Since May of 2010, postings on the Internet by others included newspaper accounts of the lawsuit; readers’ remarks about the newspaper accounts; and blog opinion pieces written by doctors, lawyers, public relations professionals, patient advocates, and information technology experts. Dozens of websites by doctors, lawyers, patient advocates, medical students, law schools, consumer advocates, and free speech monitors posted opinions that a doctor or plumber shouldn’t sue the family of a customer for a bad rating. These authors never said they saw my deleted ratings – only the news coverage.
Medical peer newsletters or magazines that interviewed the plaintiff did not approach me. Websites maintained by doctors for doctors or lawyers for lawyers often caused an inference that I was a zealot family member or somebody who had asked about my dad’s chances and then shot the messenger. Generally, however, those websites echoed other websites in advising public relations responses other than a lawsuit – for fear of creating the “Streisand Effect.” As a retired layman, I brought far less resources to the battle of financial attrition.
I’ve learned that laws about slander and libel do not conform to one’s expectations. I’ve read that online complaints are safe “if you stick to the facts.” That’s exactly the wrong advice. I did not want to merely post my conclusions. I wanted to stick to my recollection of what I’d heard. I don’t like to read generalities like "I am upset," "I think the doctor did not treat my father well," "I think he was insensitive," "he did not spend enough time in my opinion." However, such generalities are excused as opinion, hyperbole, or angry utterances. I heard opposing counsel tell the Minnesota Supreme Court that if I had stuck to such generalities, they'd not have been considered defamatory. If one purports to say what happened, factual recitations can be litigated. The plaintiff must prove the facts are willfully misstated, but the defendant can go broke while waiting through the effort - they can "incur huge legal expenses that will deter them and others from making such statements.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]