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.)
Comments on “This Week In Techdirt History: March 25th – 31st”
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
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.
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.
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
Re: Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully
How can you falsely publish something?
Re: Re: Re:2 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.
Re: Re: Re: The USPTO has held that StreamScale patent claims are fully
Umm, no it’s not.
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-spring-2014/rethinking-hyperlinking
Re: Re: Re:2 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?
Re: Re: Re:3 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?
Re: Re: Re:4 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?
Re: Re: Re:5 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.
Re: Re: Re:6 The USPTO has held that StreamSc
You want a one-word answer? How about two? "You lost."
…Ah, what the hell. I’m feeling generous. Have two more!
"Fuck off."
Re: November 19 2014
This is an April Fool’s joke, isn’t it?
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?