Farelf Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Unearthed by "Retired" at NG grc.spam - http://whew.com/ This domain is for sale now As a direct result of spam and the recent rulings where IAS/ISPs are not allowed to sue spammers to get them to stop. (see Gordon v. Vurtumundo and Ferguson v. Active Response Group) ... The judge in Ferguson v. Active Response Group did in fact agree that I was an IAS/ISP and did in fact have ISP like damages but apparently since I have been able to absorb and mitigate the damages I have not been damaged enough for the judge to even tell the spammers to stop spamming me and my clients. ... the judge actually agreed that I should be forced to upgrade my services because, "they would be faster". ... I am no longer able to absorb the losses do (sic) to spam. In the last ten years I can estimate a loss and out of pocket expense of approximately one-hundred thousand dollars and a loss of potential income of approximately at least five-hundred thousand dollars conservatively. ... As "Farelf" remarked, "Justice must be be blind to uphold the laws with perfect impartiality, judicial blindness (aka judicial innocence) is therefore a virtue and it is Mark Fergusson's (sic) misfortune to appear before a veritable paragon of that virtue."
Geek Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 What about the precedent set by Facebook successfully suing the Canadian spammer for hundreds of millions?
Wazoo Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 What about the precedent ....?? Different lawyers, different judge, and different presentations of different facts involved.
Farelf Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 As Wazoo says - believe this one was 'handled' under the laws of Washington State.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.