First Hearing In The Lawsuit Against Us, Along With Even More Filings

from the and-on-it-goes dept

As you hopefully know by now, we're currently facing a major lawsuit, brought against us in Boston, that we consider to be an attack on our First Amendment right to report on matters of public concern. If you support journalism and support the First Amendment, please consider donating to our survival fund, which is helping us to continue reporting on a variety of important matters, including new battles over net neutrality and encryption, not to mention many other battles over freedom of expression.

As we've noted, repeatedly, this case has been a huge distraction and has made it difficult for us to do the kind of work we've done for almost twenty years. If you wish to catch up, you can read about our initial filings in the case, including our motion to dismiss and our motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law. We also made additional filings concerning Section 230 problems with some of the claims against us. In addition, in early April we filed a reply to the opposition to our filings.

On April 20th, there was a hearing in federal court on our motions. If you're interested, a reporter from Law360, Brian Amaral, was in court and covered the hearing (possible paywall):

Following the hearing, the lawyers for the Plaintiff filed a sur-reply. We have now filed our own response to that sur-reply. As always, I encourage everyone to read all of the documents in the case, most of which are available via RECAP at the Internet Archive.

And, again, if you'd like to support us, please check out ISupportJournalism.com. Thank you.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 11:37am

    Heh, when faced with facts Mr EMAIL decided to act as a petulant kid. Amusing. It's sad that it's costing you guys so much.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 3:23pm

      Re:

      That is the whole point, though. Ayyadurai wants to win a war of attrition; since his claims of defamation have no credibility, he can win only by bankrupting the other side (i.e., Techdirt). Anti-SLAPP laws were made to help prevent bullshit like this, and I sincerely hope Shiva gets first-hand experience with of one of those laws sooner rather than later.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 10 May 2017 @ 7:15am

        Re: Re:

        I challenged him on Twitter to provide evidence of other adopters of EMAIL besides his college when he was fourteen. He blocked me. No other adopters? He didn't invent Jack.

        Shut up and go away, Shiva.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 12:10pm

    Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

    If you're so sure of your position, college boy,
    quit wasting time and money, just go to trial!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 2:29pm

      Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

      If you're so sure of your position, college boy, quit wasting time and money, just go to trial!

       

      Attempting to get a frivolous lawsuit dismissed in the early stages is now "wasting time and money"?

      I see you still haven't improved on your logic or cognitive thinking skills yet. Keep trying Blue, someday you might actually pull two brain cells together and be able to articulate a reasonable thought.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 7:29pm

        Re: Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

        It's the same logic out_of_the_blue uses for the Megaupload trial. What did you expect?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 3:19pm

      Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

      Three things.

      1. Insults and the reporting of facts are not defamation, no matter how much they may offend you.
      2. Techdirt should not need a trial to prove that proving someone a liar is not defamation.
      3. Since when did “college boy” become an insult?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 7:44pm

        Re: Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

        I think the "college boy" references goes to the very shallow depth of the legal opinions given by Mike and others on this forum. That is, they run no deeper than a student early in their college career, who may have heard the words, but does not yet understand pretty much anything about the legal system. Many of the posts about legal issues read that way on this forum, don't you think? People throw out terms like "baseless" without understanding the first thing about what is baseless from a legal perspective and what is not.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 10:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

          Hi mister.. Not the inventor of email

          Why do you bother trolling in here?

          Invent something real, do something real instead of trying to fake it till you make it

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 1:02am

          Re: Re: Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

          So, this would be where you present your legal credentials and why your legal opinion should be believed over and above those presented here (which, you'll notice, in this case is often the opinion of Techdirt's legal counsel, not Techdirt themselves).

          Oh? You prefer to remain anonymous and throw out weak insults rather than and honest discussion of the facts? What a surprise...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 6:12pm

      Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

      Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting"...

      1. Nobody said this was "reporting", it's an opinion blog.
      2. Insults are perfectly legal.
      3. If it's true (and you know it is) it's not defamation.

      Three mistakes in only six words. Amazing.

      If you're so sure of your position... just go to trial!

      It's almost like you're deliberately trying to demonstrate your complete ignorance of the legal trial system. Nobody 'just goes to trail' if there's a chance of dismissal. Clown.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 12:57am

      Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

      "quit wasting time and money, just go to trial!"

      You think a full trial is wasting time and money compared to getting a suit dismissed before it reaches that stage?

      Reality is your enemy as always, it appears.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 12:57am

        Re: Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

        *not* wasting time and money, of course.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 7:20am

      Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".

      Why waste money and time going to trial, when a pre-trial motion can get the lawsuit tossed in the trash?

      After all, the court has time and money that can be wasted too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 12:29pm

    Step 1: Publicly take credit for things you didn't do.
    Step 2: Attempt to sue the pants off of anyone who dares question you.
    Step 3: Run for office as an "anti-establishment" Republican.

    This guy has taken a page right out of the Donald J. Trump playbook, though I suspect he will take credit for coming up with this idea himself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 9 May 2017 @ 1:06pm

      Re: ArsTechica has a non paywalled summary

      It's a good article but it's from February; it doesn't cover the April hearing because it was written two months before it happened.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Thad, 9 May 2017 @ 1:05pm

    There seems to be a pretty clear pattern here: Harder cites previous rulings selectively, and claims they say things that they don't actually say.

    It's exactly what you'd expect of a vexatious litigant: he's going through the motions to keep the proceedings going. It's the tactic of a lawyer whose goal is to delay, not to win the case on the merits.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 1:13pm

      Re:

      Or to be more precise: The tactic is to keep racking up the other party's court costs to win on finances, not merit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 1:19pm

        Re: Re:

        Keep in mind, that Shiva only received about $750k from is Gawker lawsuit that was settled, and I can't imagine that Harder would take a case this flimsy on contingency, so at some point, this will start to hut Shiva in the finance department as well, as I doubt he has unlimited funds to keep it going.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Thad, 9 May 2017 @ 2:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Maybe he really believes Shiva's going to be a Senator.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Christenson, 9 May 2017 @ 2:21pm

          Citation needed

          Shiva getting 750K from the Gawker lawsuit doesn't pass the smell test...please correct or cite!

          Remember, there's a billionaire, Peter Thiel behind this...the undisclosed real party in interest. [Factual basis: Charles Harder effectively worked for Thiel on Gawker, see various Techdirt posts on the subject]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Thad, 9 May 2017 @ 2:48pm

            Re: Citation needed

            First result for a search for ayyadurai gawker settlement:

            Ayyadurai, who was originally seeking $35 million in his defamation suit, will receive $750,000, while Terrill, who was seeking $10 million, will get $500,000.

            Second result:

            Ms. Terrill will receive $500,000 from Gawker Media, and Mr. Ayyadurai will receive $750,000, according to the court documents.

            Third result:

            Ms. Terrill will receive $500,000 from Gawker Media, and Mr. Ayyadurai will receive $750,000, according to the court documents.

            Fourth result:

            Hogan will get $31 million, Ayyadurai will get $750,000, and Ashley Terrill will get $500,000.

            I can't speak for the smell test, but it passes the "spend three seconds typing it into a search engine" test.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 3:11am

            Re: Citation needed

            To get him to drop his stupid lawsuit, so they could clear the slate to sell off the carcass of the dead beast, they settled for $750K.

            In lawyer & whack job client land, this is called a win.

            The case was never heard on the merits, they scared them into removing posts about him. In whack job land this is an outstanding win that proves they were wrong, because he chooses to ignore actual facts... I sense a pattern.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 7:32pm

      Re:

      That, you have always been able to back up everything you say pretty well in the past, but this one escapes me. Citing other cases is pretty basic to the legal system, and interpreting other cases such that they can be applied to your case is also fundamental. What is it you think would be done differently if the litigant was "non-vexatious"? To me, it looks like standard legal fare by both parties.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 1:19pm

    Hey Mike,

    Why'd you leave out the part where you begged the judge to not let him file the sur-reply and the judge shot you down? Pro-tip: Begging the judge to not allow a filing just makes the content of that filing all the more interesting. It also makes you look like a bully after he allowed you file a brief with excess pages.

    Nice try telling the court that Mann is distinguishable. In fact, you claim it only helps your case. I don't think the judge will buy that either, though. If it were so helpful, why didn't you cite it earlier?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 2:22pm

    Wait, I thought the First Amendment protected me from anything illegal I do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 4:26pm

    Reading the sur-reply and ALL i can think of is "what the ever-loving fuck is going through his head?"

    "it is not necessary to determine what the definitions of e-mail is or even if Dr. Ayyalmao even invented it, but rather the personal attacks on himself"

    THAT IS THE CORE OF THE CASE, YOU JUST DISMISSED YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT!

    I know TechDirt staff cannot legally say this, but I can state the following as an opinion. Dr Shiva Whatshisface is an Idiot, a moron, and certifiably mentally incapable of any logical thought process, and I am going to question the legality of his "Doctorate" title.

    To quote Monty Python: "You can't wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart lobbed a sword at you. I mean if I went around saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Daniel Audy (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 9:34pm

      Re:

      That was roughly my thought too - though I re-read it twice to make sure I wasn't overlooking something key that made his legal strategy coherent. The idea that the idea that the court should adjudicate if a statement was a 'personal attack' without regard to whether or not it is true is ... novel.

      If by some gross miscarriage of justice takes place and Shiva wins this I look forward to the estate of Ted Bundy suing everyone since the history books have the NASTIEST personal attacks on him.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 7:35am

      Re:

      It's pretty clear that this is vexatious litigation. It doesn't matter whether it dismisses itself, unless the court dismisses it with prejudice it'll just get refiled over and over, since the goal here isn't to win a lawsuit, it's an attempt by a billionaire with very deep pockets to bankrupt the defendant for printing news the billionaire doesn't like.

      That's the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit, just taken to a seldom seen extreme.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 4:44pm

    I would hope techdirt is remembering to take a look at some of these flagged comments... If you're willing to sue to prove something you didn't do... You're willing to leave shit comments. Shit comments that go a long way to showing a person's character in court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 9:58pm

      Re:

      Yes, character is important, and you might remember that TechDirt is named in this suit, and has a character of it's own. Simply identify articles with hidden comments, and then compare what is hidden to what is not hidden. Terrible sexual and personally insulting comments are routinely kept, while legitimate blogs that show a hint of another point of view are hidden. Character indeed. Take a look if you don't believe me. The disgusting vitriol promoted by TechDirt by way of it's editorial decisions is very, very obvious and publicly documented over years and years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 10:03pm

        Re: Re:

        Nice fantasy you got there, but those who come here regularly see otherwise.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 10 May 2017 @ 7:20am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm one of them. As a woman I have never been made to feel unwelcome. Yes we get trolls from time to time. That's why we hide comments. It's not the admins who do it, it's us. I vote to hide them. Now stop your whingeing.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 1:43am

        Re: Re:

        "Terrible sexual and personally insulting comments are routinely kept"

        Citation needed.

        "legitimate blogs that show a hint of another point of view are hidden"

        Before whining, you might need to learn what a blog is. Because what you just said is nonsensical.

        "it's editorial decisions"

        There is no editorial decision in hiding comments, it's the community here telling you you're an asshole. This , unlike your claims, is very much in evidence every time you comment.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 4:05am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well, Paul, I believe you provided your own sexual and personally insulting comments (in this very post) by calling me an a**hole. Given your well known sexual orientation, I assume this is type of come-on, which I find disgusting. You are so routinely foul, abusive, insulting and disgusting I guess you just don't notice anymore.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 4:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            " I believe you provided your own sexual... comments (in this very post) by calling me an a**hole"

            That's a sexual comment to you?

            Oh, and you might notice I didn't call you an asshole, I said that other people here who reported your comments were calling you an asshole. Honest people would note the distinction before launching into another set of irrelevant fictions, as you have done.

            "Given your well known sexual orientation"

            Oh, this should be fun. Please quote where my sexuality has been revealed, and specifically what it is. Come on, a link to my comments, every one of which has been logged under this account - since unlike some people I'm not afraid to have people able to track my opinions. You must surely have evidence before trying to insult someone like that (I'm not offended, I just assume that whatever you think my sexuality is must be offensive to you, since you brought it up).

            You're surely not lying about someone on a personal level yet again because you can't defend your own despicable behaviour?

            If not - what a pathetic human being you are, you can't even defend yourself without trying to make vile implications about other people that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. You have nothing to defend yourself with, so you lie. You have nothing to add to the subject, so you try to derail by attacking people personally.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 5:00am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Turns out Shiva's Hamiltonian fanboy is a homophobe, too. Who would've thought? That's got to drum up lots of support for him now. /sarc

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 7:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I believe the two of you have completely made my case for me. My point was about the low character of TechDirt, which is aptly represented by PaulT. With over 10,000 recorded comments, and not a single one hidden. Take a look just at the occurrences of the words "pathetic" or "asshole" or hundreds of other insulting and vile terms, and you will understand a lot of the character of TechDirt.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 7:37am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "My point was about the low character of TechDirt, which is aptly represented by PaulT"

                  How? I'm just a commenter like you. I represent nobody but myself.

                  The difference being that you specifically avoid having your lies and disgusting accusations tracked, whereas I'm honest enough to stand by what I say, and do apologise when called on it. You simply change your IP address to try and avoid being tracked, then whine when people can tell it's still the same troll.

                  I notice that you have sidetracked the direct personal attacks on me, the implications that my sexuality (whatever you imagine it to be) has some relevance to my comments here and that some people deserve to have their opinions treated as less valid if they are in certain groups.

                  No, you're not honest enough to back up your own words, you just play the victim when called out on your own disgusting behaviour.

                  "With over 10,000 recorded comments, and not a single one hidden"

                  You checked them all? Wow. I'm sure if one of the people working here wants to go through the database, there must be one, that would prove you a liar yet again?

                  "Take a look just at the occurrences of the words "pathetic" or "asshole""

                  Always accurately aimed at pathetic assholes. Perhaps you should stop earning the moniker if it offends you so much?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Bergman (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 7:38am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Perhaps. But when the most accurate way to describe your obsession is "pathetic", that's not an insult or a sign of low character, that's merely someone being honest with you.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 7:45am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Insults do not necessarily invalidate a comment nor does it reflect on the character of the site. What matters is the content, and yours always seems to be severely lacking, relying primarily on faking facts and ad hominem.

                  The person who allows a complete trail of all his comments is objectively the more honest one.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 8:05am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  If the word "pathetic" is all it takes to rustle your jimmies, don't be surprised to learn that not many people take you seriously. Prudes might turn up their noses at the usage of the word "asshole", but getting offended by the word "pathetic" doesn't make you look morally superior. It just makes you look like an overly sensitive weakling.

                  At least you've stopped posting replies to yourself. Baby steps, I suppose.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 8:04pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Wow, you made my point for me yet again. I think it safe to say that "overly sensitive weakling" does not rise to the level of an educated comment, at least not in Massachusetts culture. It speaks to your low character. Comments like this are routinely preserved, indexed, searchable, and promoted widely on the Internet, while comments without any personal insults or foul language are routinely hidden when they do not agree with your "promoted" agenda. Thank you for demonstrating TechDirt's low character yet again, and thank you moderators for reinforcing my argument by preserving the foul language and personal attacks. Way to go. Will look great in court.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 10:22pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Personal insults are a thing since speech was invented. They're not going to go away just because you feel your feelings might have been slightly infringed. Indeed, they might be routinely preserved and promoted widely on the Internet. Here's a newsflash, it's not just this website! Yet that doesn't become grounds for other websites to be shut down, either.

                      You ever heard of Don Rickles? He's an American. He made a career of insulting people for cash. He kicked the bucket, and passed onto the other side as a widely revered icon of entertainment. Your sad attempt to parallel "insults" with "low character" isn't convincing anyone.

                      And here's another thing: it's not a personal attack if nobody knows who you are. All the court is going to glean from these little delusional exchanges that you keep throwing up is one anonymous individual who happens to have his thong wound up too tight. Short of you actually being Shiva - hell, that wouldn't matter either. You chose to respond poorly, then got prissy when you got treated in kind. You made the decision to get offended. Live with it.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 12:39am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "at least not in Massachusetts culture"

                      What does Massachusetts have to do with anything here? Is that the hole your bridge is located in?

                      "Thank you for demonstrating TechDirt's low character yet again"

                      So, you still don't understand the the public commenting here have nothing to do with the staff running the site?

                      "thank you moderators"

                      There are no moderators on this site, other than the public you're lying and whining about.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 12:41am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "the foul language and personal attacks"

                      Oh, by the way, would that include the attacks on my supposed sexuality that you're used to attack me rather than address the actual things being talked about here?

                      "Will look great in court."

                      Yep, see you there if you want. You'll be in the defendants chair.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Trails (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 8:39am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  What's more vile, calling someone an asshole or launching a strategic lawsuit against public participation?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 7:24pm

    I would think that if the judge had planned to dismiss the case, he would have done so already. I think he is sending a message to the litigatants (by delaying) that they should work out their differences, which would be best for him. If he thought the case was as baseless as the thread above asserts, he would have ruled already. I think it is time for everyone to understand that this case is a serious matter. The mystery is why Mike continues, what does he hope to prove? Nobody reasonable (even Thad) believes the First Amendment covers absolutely everything. If people get hurt, it is possible (maybe even likely) that someone will have to pay, at least with an apology. Pretty simple logic, no? Be accountable for the results of your actions. God Bless America.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 7:39pm

      Re:

      No.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 9:30pm

        Re: Re:

        Maybe I could phrase it another way that you would find more persuasive. TechDirt and Mike Masnick make their money by using their publishing software and fake bloggers to smear the names of others on behalf of companies with a particular political and economic agenda. Red Hat, for example, and others like them, who pay Mike. They perform what is basically a marketing service on behalf of others who stay invisible, but incentivize Mike and his group to spread a particular message that they find useful in their business agenda. Mike, TechDirt and his band of bloggers then create a fictional blog in order to support their agenda. Everyone who looks already knows this, and Mike promotes this service very publicly. So, the bigger question is, is that OK? The service that Mike and TechDirt sells injures others in return for money for Mike. Should we, as a society, protect that kind of business, or hold it accountable? If Mike were interested in a higher cause, like journalism, that would be different. But he is paid, on the sly, to promote agendas that he intentionally presents as "reporting" and "blogging", which is totally misleading to everyone other than those that spend the time to analyze his business over time. How can you call what Mike does, posting articles and paid responses to promote a hidden against, anything other than "Fake News"? Who wants to defend his right to do so? The judge? The jury? I doubt it. Nobody actually likes it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Daniel Audy (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 9:37pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I assure you that they don't have a 'fictional blog' - it is in fact quite real. As a matter of fact YOU are on that blog at this very moment - it is as if the power was always inside you and you just had to believe.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 9:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            By "fictional" I mean that it appears legitimate, but (a) many of the posters are shills for Mike (b) any post that does not promote their hidden cause is hidden forever unless the user learns how to navigate the controls and (c) the purpose of the article and the fake posts are never revealed, and always denied. Mike get PAID to do this, and he HIDES both his intent and his customers identity. Make FAKE is a better word than "fictional". Three things are hard to hide long: the sun, the moon, and fake.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 10:12pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Shiva

              Dont you have better things to do than try to whitewash the fact that you are a big scam? Everybody in the business knows it. The only one you can convince are people who knows nothing about IT history

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 1:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'm assuming that you take your 'information' from Infowars, given the complete lack of citations of intentional falsehoods.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 1:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              What about the truth that Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent the concept of email and had no hand in creating, developing, implementing, and popularising the very systems that we know today as email? I imagine that would not be too hard to hide.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Wendy Cockcroft, 11 May 2017 @ 2:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Are you going to tell us who else adopted EMAIL, apart from your college when you were fourteen, or are you not?

              Attacking the blog and its owner is a diversionary tactic. Nobody is falling for it.

              If your reputation is being harmed by the fact that we're calling you out for lying about your achievement, to wit, pretending that your achievement at age fourteen, which was restricted to your college, is basically the same thing as we call "email" today, it's because you're lying. Try telling the truth: holding four degrees is pretty damn impressive.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 10:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          publishing software

          It's like Tara Carreon and John Steele had a baby. I'd measure the intelligence of this nutjob, but numbers don't go that low.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 7:45am

      Re:

      You appear to have hilariously misunderstood what a pre-trial motion for dismissal is for, and what it does.

      Such a motion asks the judge "Assuming the plaintiff's claims are true, would that be enough to rule in their favor?"

      If the answer is "no" then the lawsuit gets dismissed because even if the plaintiff proves every claim they make, no law would be broken and no harm done, so no judgment award would occur.

      All the judge denying the motion means is that IF the plaintiff can prove their claims, the judge could rule in their favor without violating court rules or the law. It says nothing about whether the plaintiff can actually prove anything at all. And the plaintiff still needs to try to prove it.

      But going by the plaintiff's sur-reply above, I'd say they won't be able to prove much, since the lawyer's strategy seems to be to claim that it doesn't matter if the alleged defamatory statement was true, it hurt the plaintiff's feelings so he deserves to win his lawsuit -- The problem with that is that US law doesn't protect against hurt feelings, and the fact that a statement, even a horribly mean one, is TRUE means it cannot be defamatory.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2017 @ 8:29am

      Re:

      I'm sorry your an asshole

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2017 @ 8:31am

      Re:

      I'm sorry you're an asshole

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stosh, 9 May 2017 @ 9:40pm

    Will Al Gore be filing suits against those who report that he "didn't invent the internet"?

    This suit makes about as much sense....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 9 May 2017 @ 10:01pm

      Re:

      Or will Sarah Palin file suit against those who report that she "can't see Russia from her house"?

      (To use a similar misquote...)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 6:29pm

      Re:

      don't really give a shit about gore-whore, but this canard needs to die: if ANY ONE kongresskritter could be said to be responsible for the inertnet, it would -IN FACT- be gore-whore...
      the FACT is, he was/is a technology champion, and was one of the primary movers on the legislation/formation of DARPAnet, the DIRECT precursor of the inertnet we know and love/hate...
      obviously, the inertnet is the product of the efforts of thousands to make it what it is today, BUT, he WAS instrumental in providing the first efforts to form it...
      simply true...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 10:16pm

    Shiva is pathethic. He has taken out both www.inventorofemail.com and historyofemail.com and filled them with his bullshit lies..

    Amazing. We need to get his con struck down once and for all

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2017 @ 10:23pm

    One of the joys i have in life is teaching new students about the history of computers. And everyday i get to teach people that Shiva A. Is a scam and that his just tries to take credit for others achievements.

    Its a pure pleasure teaching the new generation about his scams.

    How do you like that Shiva? All of the students will know the truth much before they ever know you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 1:04am

      Re:

      Technically, what you're saying is <i>not quite true</i>. It is a fact that Ayyadurai invented <b>a particular client</b> that could use the EMAIL algorithm.

      It is not a fact that Ayyadurai devised the EMAIL algorithm. However, Ayyadurai seems to confuse and conflate the two intentionally, and that <i>is</i> scummy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Chuck, 10 May 2017 @ 6:45am

        Re: Re:

        What is an email algorithm?

        No, really, what is this?

        Do you mean the SMTP protocol? POP3? IMAP? The MBOX mail storage format?

        None of that is an "algorithm" by any definition. Algorithms are equations. Math thingies. Aside from a few different encryption schemes that weren't invented until the mid-90's, there are no algorithms in email.

        Unrelated: didn't Shiva actually put in a court filing that he had never heard of Mutt or Pine? Given that both of those email clients pre-date Shiva's supposed work, shouldn't the mere existence of Mutt and Pine be enough to get a judgement, once and for all, that he didn't invent anything related to this?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 9:35am

        Re: Re:

        "The email algorithm"? There is no such thing. As to whether or not he used the official protocol or RFC, I have no idea.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        rkhalloran (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 9:00am

        Re: Re: "EMAIL algorithm"

        Yes, since Shiva's insisted on that all-caps EMAIL when talking about his teenage work for UMDNJ, he did invent whatever algorithms used in that particular program.

        That said, do those algorithms comply with any of the IETF standards of the time? My understanding is they do not (I'm quite willing to be shown otherwise). That said, his work is an interesting effort for a teenager in the late 70s/early 80s, but has *NO* impact to the current landscape for electronic mail communications, where the IETF standards for interoperation apply.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Thad, 11 May 2017 @ 11:35am

          Re: Re: Re: "EMAIL algorithm"

          Yes, since Shiva's insisted on that all-caps EMAIL when talking about his teenage work for UMDNJ, he did invent whatever algorithms used in that particular program.

          That doesn't follow at all. Using an algorithm in a computer program doesn't mean you invented the algorithm; if I write a program that uses bubble-sort, that doesn't mean I invented bubble-sort.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 1:37am

      Re:

      I'd prefer it if you didn't teach them anything about him. Just teach them the actual history of email, focusing on all the people who contributed well before this guy created his client. Mentioning Shiva even in passing is as unnecessary to your class as his work is to the existence of email.

      If this guy comes up, point out how all those things predate his work and that he's now a desperate scam artist riding on lies about the work he did decades ago, because he hadn't achieved anything noteworthy since then. An actual genius would have moved on and created something else of note, not turn to suing people over work he did decades ago.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 3:21am

        Re: Re:

        Sometimes it is useful to have a good example of the bad example to hold up.

        Exs:

        Dr. Oz getting his ass handed to him for pushing quack 'cures' & 'treatments' on his show by oversight boards.

        Dr. Phil constantly mentioning now that he is a mandated reporter after his staff told hot sauce mom to liven up the videos.

        He can think he made the best thing since sliced bread, but you really can't make the entire world bend to your desire.
        How many geniuses appear on InfoWars to hock inventions to save you from the imaginary threats?
        Once upon a time he could throw down the racist gauntlet & people would step back to avoid the label. Now hes screamed racist so many times, the village isn't listening.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 2:03am

    Shiva - inventor of inapposite case citation

    He was the first, and his lawyers took his advice (UPL?) and filed it. Nobody before him cited a case so inapposite to his stated position.

    If there weren't so much riding on this I'd get out the popcorn. Instead I'm saving up my popcorn money and contributing to TD's support as I can.

    We're with you guys in spirit. When this is all over we'll be with you in spirits!

    Ehud

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 1:24pm

    May this case be dismissed in such a way that Shiva Ayyadurai can no longer hide behind his lies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2017 @ 9:23pm

    Here is a question for you legal scholars - is it OK for the Honorable F. Dennis Saylor, IV to read this blog (this very article) while he is considering the situation regarding the lawsuit? It would seem to be it is public, and nothing prevents him from reading it, right? In my experience, Judges always crave more information before they make a decision, and there is a lot of information here. Lots of foul language, personal attacks, and hidden posts. So, what do you think (maybe Descartes): is the actual judge in this case, the Honorable F. Dennis Saylor, IV, reading this blog to help him form an opinion about how to bring a just conclusion to this dispute?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 May 2017 @ 10:16pm

      Re:

      That depends. Do insults bear any weight on an argument of fact—in this case, whether Shiva Ayyadurai invented the concept of, developed, implemented, and popularised the systems we know of today as email?

      Because last time I checked, Shiva Ayyadurai did none of those things, and the truth remains the best defense against a charge of defamation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 12:37am

      Re:

      He's welcome to read it. I would hope that, unlike anonymous trolls, he's able to understand the difference between public comments and the site's editorial and understands the fact that the former is protected under safe harbour provisions. No matter how personally the anonymous idiot who has no qualms personally attacking others, while whining about the names he's being called, feels about the whole thing.

      "Lots of foul language, personal attacks, and hidden posts"

      Yep, it's a public international forum. These things happen, especially when those people are faced with liars obsessed with denigrating them and their community. So?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 5:46am

        Re: Re:

        Well, Paul, I would venture to guess that he understands a lot about the law itself, as well as the purpose behind the law. To answer your question "So?", I would just say that the question of character may well enter into his decision, either now or in the future, as well as the (future) decision of the jury. Your character is on very public display (I counted hundreds of your posts with the word "a**hole), and you appear to be a key part of the TechDirt operation. So, what does society want more of: gangs of foul mouthed aggressive leftist activists like yourself and your gang (which you all demonstrate quite clearly with your cursing and personal insults), or well educated, articulate and polite professional men that care enough about their country and their country's constitution to run for the US Senate? I am sure the Judge understands his role in shaping society, and I PRAY he might tip the scales away from your and your kind, and toward American Inventors and Patriots. I believe this country has had enough paid sponsorship by multi-national organizations that finance these unfair and low-character attacks an upstanding American Citizens and American Inventors. Especially from the aggressive, masked and anonymous gangs that roam this forum under the guise of others. You, for example. Your profile is completely phony, right?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 6:23am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I would just say that the question of character may well enter into his decision"

          Whose character? What do comments from all over the world on a forum not moderated by a single human being have to say about the character of a specific person?

          "I counted hundreds of your posts with the word "a**hole"

          Yes, I encounter a lot of assholes here, especially anonymous trolls, and I call them out on it when I see them. I employ a lot of other words to describe what I'm seeing, although I avoid some of the more offensive ones I'm thinking sometimes when faced by a particularly odious character.

          So? It's telling that you obsess over how I choose to say something rather than the accuracy of what I'm saying. I wonder why...

          "gangs of foul mouthed aggressive leftist activists like yourself"

          Wait, I forgot to bring my list of buzzwords used by idiots to try and attack people they don't like when they can't handle honest opinions. I think I might win a game if you keep it up.

          "well educated, articulate and polite professional men that care enough about their country and their country's constitution to run for the US Senate"

          With the track record of the current administration, that's comedy gold.

          "Especially from the aggressive, masked and anonymous gangs"

          I'm not anonymous. In fact, I've had people over the years email or message me in other ways external to this site as a result of my posts here. I have nothing to hide, and I'm not afraid to be accountable if I say something that is factually wrong.

          You are, however, anonymous in a deliberate attempt to avoid having your posts trackable between articles and allow your previous lies to chase you. Ironic, huh?

          "Your profile is completely phony, right?"

          Nope. In fact, I'm not sure whether it's depressing or heartening that I've not had to change the information in that profile for the years I've been here (in that my occupation and location have stayed essentially the same - a sign of my having made my new life here work or a sign that I'm in a rut? Who knows, but I am largely happy with my lot)

          It's funny that you do have to try and lie about me in order to oppose what I'm saying. Even funnier that you have to pretend I'm the pathological liar you prove yourself to be.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 7:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          We live in a country where a man can talk about grabbing women “by the pussy”, have millions of people hear him say it, and still become president…and you are worried about someone saying “asshole” on a blog’s comments section?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 11 May 2017 @ 7:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not only that, but from previous comments he seems convinced that the word has a sexual connotation rather than merely referring to how full of shit he is. There's some deeper seated issues here, I think.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2017 @ 7:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not only that, but this somehow doesn't disqualify Trump as a person of character, let alone president... yet the usage of the words asshole, pathetic and weakling is suddenly enough to declare a website as being worthy of getting shut down. Shiva's army has some pretty skewed sense of standard and priority.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Smith, 3 Jun 2017 @ 1:03pm

    One day, the people who call others names like "nutter" or "whack job" are going to be the ones involuntarily committed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.