Techdirt

by Leigh Beadon


Filed Under:
history, look back



This Week In Techdirt History: March 25th - 31st

from the so-it-went dept

Five Years Ago

This week in 2013, congress released its proposal for reforming the CFAA — and it managed to make the law even worse. Even the one change we at first thought might be good turned out not to be. The whole thing had experts wondering what the hell congress was thinking, and led Eric Goldman to make the case for ditching the CFAA altogether. Meanwhile, we continued to look at the dangers of CISPA, while Hollywood was still working on pushing SOPA abroad.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2008, a Columbia professor was jumping on the bandwagon of aggressively using patents and exploiting the ITC loophole, while Seagate was casually promising to try to stop SSD technology with a barrage of patent lawsuits. In Canada, Bell decided to start throttling traffic without telling resellers, and enjoying the monopoly position that let it respond to complaints with, pretty much, "deal with it". Meanwhile, TorrentSpy announced it was shutting down out of sheer exhaustion, Warner Music joined the crowd calling for an ISP tax, the IFPI kept putting pressure on ISPs around the world, and Rep. Berman trotted out the old line that anyone opposing new copyright laws just wants stuff for free.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2003, all eyes were on the war in Iraq, and we were looking at the impact on and from technology in many regards. Journalists were flexing new technological muscles in covering the conflict, and the military was flexing similar muscles to recruit new soldiers. The internet was changing how people get their war news, and sucking up a whole lot of time from people at home and in the office — and this empowered hackers and hosting companies to become censors. And in a stunningly politically motivated move, a congressman introduced a bill trying to pre-emptively ensure that any new cellular infrastructure built in Iraq after the war would be CDMA. (The war had so far existed for exactly one week.)


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2018 @ 5:50pm

    November 19 2014

    On November 19 2014 Techdirt published an article about StreamScale and patents owned by StreamScale. Since that time, this Techdirt article has been submitted and it’s legal analysis considered by the USPTO. The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully enforceable and not invalid. The site that this same article references was published under a false name, Louis Lavile https://mobile.twitter.com/louislavile?lang=en. This name has been repeatedly publicly used by Loic Dachary, an employee of Redhat, who we believe paid Techdirt to publish this false legal analysis. We further point out that StreamScale is not a patent holding company, but the original author and inventor of the patents at issue. We respectfully ask that you immediately remove this false and defamatory material from publication. Sincerely, StreamScale Inc. Michael Anderson, President

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

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Apr 2018 @ 7:09pm

      Re: November 19 2014

      LOL.

      >who we believe paid Techdirt to publish this false legal analysis

      Believe what you like.

      Also, read up on what the legal definition of defamation is, you might be surprised, or your lawyers will be.

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

    • identicon
      Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 1 Apr 2018 @ 7:48pm

      Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully

      Why didn’t you link to the article in question?

      Anyway, it doesn’t seem like those patents are valid at all, otherwise the website in question, and the code repos it links to, would have been taken down.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2018 @ 7:25pm

        Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully

        Linking to the article is the equivalent of republishing it.

        Concerning the patent’s validity, the USPTO speaks with authority, having specially reviewed the article and falsely published web site.

        Concerning the web site continued publicatiion, it appears to be published by the same false author who posed as Louis Lavile. The WHOIS information lists the same address for dachary.org and JErasure.org.

        jerasure.orgUpdated 1 second ago
        DOMAIN INFORMATION
        Domain:jerasure.org
        Registrar:Gandi SAS
        Registration Date:2014-12-15
        Expiration Date:2018-12-15
        Updated Date:2017-11-01
        Status:clientTransferProhibited
        Name Servers:c.dns.gandi.net
        b.dns.gandi.net
        a.dns.gandi.net
        REGISTRANT CONTACT
        Name:Jerasure Developers
        Street:12 bd de Magenta
        City:Paris
        Postal Code:75010
        Country:FR
        Phone:+33.664032907

        DOMAIN INFORMATION
        Domain:dachary.org
        Registrar:Gandi SAS
        Registration Date:1999-05-10
        Expiration Date:2019-05-10
        Updated Date:2018-03-30
        Status:clientTransferProhibited
        renewPeriod
        Name Servers:c.dns.gandi.net
        b.dns.gandi.net
        a.dns.gandi.net
        REGISTRANT CONTACT
        Name:Dachary
        Organization:Dachary
        Street:12 bd Magenta
        City:Paris
        Postal Code:75010
        Country:FR
        Phone:+33.142450797

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

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Apr 2018 @ 10:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully

          How can you falsely publish something?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2018 @ 6:09am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully

            By signing the work using a false name, for example. By registering a web site under a false name, for another. Or, even knowing this, to use such work as a supposed legitimate reference.

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

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 3 Apr 2018 @ 12:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully

          Linking to the article is the equivalent of republishing it.

           

          Umm, no it's not.

          https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-spring-2014/r ethinking-hyperlinking

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2018 @ 7:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully

            Interesting article, thank you for that. Question: Since the USPTO has reviewed the article at issue, and the web site material that it references, and subsequently ruled that StreamScale Accelerated Erasure Code System and Method patent claims are valid and enforceable, that means the article is factually incorrect, right? Do you think Techdirt is right to still stand behind this article? Should they be liable to those who depend on this faulty legal opinion in their business decisions? Do you think their publication is protected as free speech, or is this “Commercial Speech”, designed to promote the sale of a product?

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

            • icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Apr 2018 @ 3:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully

              Question: Since the USPTO has reviewed the article at issue, and the web site material that it references, and subsequently ruled that StreamScale Accelerated Erasure Code System and Method patent claims are valid and enforceable, that means the article is factually incorrect, right?

              No. We can have an opinion that your patent is bullshit. We are allowed to have that opinion and state that opinion.

              Do you think Techdirt is right to still stand behind this article?

              Yes, we are.

              Should they be liable to those who depend on this faulty legal opinion in their business decisions?

              LOL.

              Do you think their publication is protected as free speech, or is this “Commercial Speech”, designed to promote the sale of a product?

              Are you threatening to sue us for our opinion?

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2018 @ 7:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully

                I issued no threats. I pointed out the false author of the web site the article links to, the fact that his signed name Louis Laville is actually an alias for Loic Dachary, an employee of Redhat. I pointed out his web site JErasure.org is also registered under a false name but at the same address as Loic Dachary. What I am saying is that the source you refer to in your article is not legitimate and you.are misleading your readers by using it. But since Loic Dachary also signed his name to the comments, I am guessing you are already knew that. Combined with the fact of the review by the USPTO of your article and the subsequent ruling by the USPTO, I thought I might persuade you to voluntarily withdraw this article. Do you have any legitimate sources as the basis of your opinion, or only manufactured sources signed by non-existent authors?

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2018 @ 6:14pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully

                  One more simple question Mike, I assume a one word answer would suffice: To your knowledge, did you or any other Techdirt employee or member author, co-author, edit, revise, review or otherwise contribute to the content of the web site that the article refers to, and if you did, could you please provide the names, dates and contributions of you or any other Techdirt member. If none please reply none.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Apr 2018 @ 11:11pm

      Re: November 19 2014

      This is an April Fool's joke, isn't it?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2018 @ 4:41am

      Re: November 19 2014

      Sounds like someone's late to the Shiva Ayyadurai party.

      What the hell is it with idiots who claim defamation, yet can't back it up with anything more than a flimsy rag that doesn't pass the sneeze test?

      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
Close
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.