Finally.
But I imagine that any subsequent investigations by IRS/DOJ/Bar Assoc., will take at least a couple years, and then any actual prosecution would take a couple more.
What happened to Steve Gibson and his claim to still control Righthaven, despite the court ordered receivorship?
I seem to recall he filed an objection or something.
What's going on with the real Alan Cooper's lawsuit against Steele and company, or whoever it is? Couldn't he make that a criminal complaint of identity theft, probably with the FBI since the incorporation was based offshore?
..."in his case against Facebook, Zuckerberg looks to be (unsurprisingly) closer to falling apart completely after the court has decided that the extremely damning evidence of fraud can be discussed in the case."
Not to be a nit, and maybe I'm sleepy, but I got so hung up on the last sentence of this article, that I'm stuck in an infinite logical loop, and must retire...
Same here. If only he'd used "and" instead of a comma between Facebook and Zuckerberg.
That was my thought, exactly, when I wrote my comment above, but then I forgot to mention it
MDY Industries LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment
It was actually MDY (maker of Glider) that sued Blizzard, but Blizzard won big on the counterclaims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Indus._LLC_v._Blizzard_Entm%27t,_Inc.
While I can see Masnick's point of view, in that a tool provider shouldn't [normally] be liable for what it's users do with it, does it change the tool provider's liability if/when that tool is designed specifically to do nothing but spam and violate Twitter TOS? especially if they're circumventing the provided API
It's my understanding that CBS didn't block the entire show, but just blocked them from using an official, albeit unused, ST script.
The original author of this unused script liked the project so much, that he was even going to direct it for free. Nothing I read explained how CBS came to own the script he wrote, whether he sold it to them way back in the day or it was a work-for-hire.
ICANN will do things like this, probably because they think they have to if they want to maintain their control. If they don't, that's more ammo for other countries to get the UN to take control.
One article I read, can't find it now, said the guy freely admitted to tethering, clearly against the TOS, and AT&T only said they ~could~ cancel his contract for that.
He keeps digging himself deeper and deeper, and all the while he's dragging the actual controller company he's supposed to be repping down with him.
Has anyone tried to contact them? Who was it, N-Control? To see if they might decide to finally do some of their own damage control.
Randazza isn't arguing that.
The court ordered it.
Since they weren't paying any of the court ordered judgements already outstanding against them, the court ordered them to turn over any and all assets, including any IP, to receivership, to satisfy the outstanding judgements.
Randazza just following along with the continuing court cases, and trying to get the money the court already said it's owed.
Did they "admit defeat"? Or just lie their way out of it, like they tried to lie their way into it? Claim it was a "business decision" to pull out, or due to some vast government conspiracy, everybody's out to get them, or some such crap.
As for the $4 billion they have to pay DT, another article says that will really only cost them about $1.4 billion after a tax write off.
The point is the majority of info came from the original article, meaning that's where NYT got it from.
The point is if the NYT writes an article first, and anyone else then writes an article using much of the same info, NYT screams plagiarism. But let the NYT be the ones writing the article second and using info from another article, like they just did in this case, they don't mention it at all and don't credit anyone else, making them HUGE hypocrites.
On the post: Judge Wright Tells Team Prenda To Pay $80k, Refers Their Activity To State Bars, Feds & IRS
But I imagine that any subsequent investigations by IRS/DOJ/Bar Assoc., will take at least a couple years, and then any actual prosecution would take a couple more.
On the post: Peter Hansmeier Denies Connection To Prenda Cases Via Document That Shows He's Connected To The Cases
fool
"Any lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client and an idiot for an attorney."
On the post: Righthaven Copyrights 'Sold' Back To Stephens Media For $80k To Pay Legal Fees
Steve Gibson?
I seem to recall he filed an objection or something.
On the post: Deep Dive Analysis: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court -- But Prenda Law Is The Star
How long?
On the post: Prenda Lawyer Hires His Own Lawyer, Tries To Tapdance His Way Out Of A Jail Sentence By Throwing Prenda Under The Bus
On the post: Doing Sponsored Content Badly: 'Native Advertising' Isn't Native If It Sucks
the "ad" has been pulled
In their own words, "We screwed up."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/15/the_atlantic_scientology_magazine_yanks_sp onsored_content_after_outcry.html
On the post: Paul Ceglia's Case For 50% Of Facebook Falls Apart Soon After He's Arrested For Fraud
Re: Quoting out of context
On the post: Anti-Islam Movie Actor Sues Producers, YouTube To Have Film Removed
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/09/20/innocence-of-muslims-youtube-lawsuit/
On the post: Antitrust Complaints Against Google Still Don't Make Any Sense
On the post: Twitter's Lawsuits Against Spam Tool Providers Could Easily Backfire
Re: Blizzard
MDY Industries LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment
It was actually MDY (maker of Glider) that sued Blizzard, but Blizzard won big on the counterclaims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Indus._LLC_v._Blizzard_Entm%27t,_Inc.
On the post: Twitter's Lawsuits Against Spam Tool Providers Could Easily Backfire
On the post: Captain's Prerogative: CBS Suddenly Decides To Block Fan-Created Star Trek Show Despite Past Support
The original author of this unused script liked the project so much, that he was even going to direct it for free. Nothing I read explained how CBS came to own the script he wrote, whether he sold it to them way back in the day or it was a work-for-hire.
On the post: ICANN Confirms That It's Going To Make It Easier For Governments To Seize Domains Around The Globe
On the post: AT&T Threatens To Cut Off Phone Service For Guy Who Beat Them In Small Claims Court Over Throttling
Re:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-offers-quiet-settlement-iphone-193059176.html
here's an article on Consumerist:
http://consumerist.com/2012/03/att-threatens-to-cancel-service-for-man-who-won-throttl ing-lawsuit-if-he-wont-discuss-settlement.html
that says:
"AT&T has reached out to Consumerist to clarify that the letter only threatens to terminate the customer's service only if he signed the nondisclosure agreement and then violated the terms of that agreement. We have subsequently confirmed this with a source who has seen a copy of the letter."
On the post: AT&T Threatens To Cut Off Phone Service For Guy Who Beat Them In Small Claims Court Over Throttling
On the post: The Latest Entrant In 'How Not To Do Marketing' In An Online World: Ocean Marketing Fail
Has anyone tried to contact them? Who was it, N-Control? To see if they might decide to finally do some of their own damage control.
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re:
The court ordered it.
Since they weren't paying any of the court ordered judgements already outstanding against them, the court ordered them to turn over any and all assets, including any IP, to receivership, to satisfy the outstanding judgements.
Randazza just following along with the continuing court cases, and trying to get the money the court already said it's owed.
On the post: Surprise! AT&T Admits Defeat, Withdraws T-Mobile Takeover Attempt, Pays $4 Billion Breakup Fee
As for the $4 billion they have to pay DT, another article says that will really only cost them about $1.4 billion after a tax write off.
On the post: When The NY Times Builds On Other's Work, I Guess That's Journalism [Updated]
Re:
The point is if the NYT writes an article first, and anyone else then writes an article using much of the same info, NYT screams plagiarism. But let the NYT be the ones writing the article second and using info from another article, like they just did in this case, they don't mention it at all and don't credit anyone else, making them HUGE hypocrites.
On the post: When The NY Times Builds On Other's Work, I Guess That's Journalism [Updated]
Re:
Next >>