Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 06:15:47 -0700

> The cases against MAPS say essentially nothing about what any court 
> accepted except at the vaguest sort of level. No court decided 
> anything beyond pre-trial matters in any of the suits against MAPS. 
> All those cases proved is that it is a bad idea to beg to be sued by 
> companies that might do so with no intention of ever going to trial.

Pre-trial rullings are court decisions, they address issues like
'is there a set of facts which could allow a claim of this sort
to succeed'. As such they are not 'vague', they address the exact
issues being discussed here.

Pre-trial is where questions of law get decided. So saying 'no court 
decided anything except questions of law' does not help when you
are debating a question of law.

The collateral damage issue only gets raised in a handful of early cases.
then it just goes away. I think there is a reason that none of these
cases would come to court, they simply don't need to. 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Bill Cole <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 20:00:49 -0400

>issues being discussed here.

I repeat my plea: cite which rulings you are referring to.

It was my understanding when I was at MAPS in 2000-2001 that none of 
the rulings in any of the cases had settled any significant questions 
of law.

>are debating a question of law.

I said no such thing.

Your interpretation of the rulings in the MAPS cases is directly at 
odds with what MAPS lawyers were telling MAPS management in early 
2001. You may be referring to some decision that I missed after I 
left MAPS, but you have yet to actually mention anything but vague 
generalities when asked for specific citations.

>cases would come to court, they simply don't need to.

The only MAPS case where collateral damage was an issue at all was 
the Media3 case, and Media3 failed to convince the judge that their 
case merited any soirt of preliminary injunction.

-- 
Bill Cole
[email-masked]