Comments on: Apple vs PowerPage, reloaded

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:09:21 +0000

I so don’t care about Jason O’Grady or his PowerPluge web site. I also don’t agree, and I hope the court sees, that posting what you know to be a company’s confidential information on the web is not protected by “free speech”. What’s next? Posting my name, address, date of birth, and social security number going to be free speech one day too? Let’s draw the line here in the sand once and for all. Jason can go get a real job for once.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:25:31 +0000

thanks for your comment Mr. Rumsfeld

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:06:58 +0000

Well, it only figures that a website dedicated to negating copyright holder’s rights would side with these soapbox “bloggers”. Apparently, they have little to no respect for property rights either, albeit intellectual property. One day you people are going to have to grow up and realize that in the real world just because you can gain access to something, it doesn’t mean it’s OK to take it and/or pass it along to your friends.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:03:21 +0000

Once again, another example of a situation that would not have festered into mountains of litigation if ISPs would simply stop obsessively keeping logs about every single byte that was transported on their networks when no longer needed for trouble shooting or quality assurance purposes. In the US (which has NO EU-style data retention requirements,) ISPs are not required to keep any usage logs beyond what is needed to support correctly billing customers. Certainly content information is not required for billing purposes. With ‘unlimited’ (caveated by “don’t be a pig” terms) access services, almost no log information is necessary for billing.

Large corporations and their high-priced lawyers can issues subpoenas until their laser printers burst into flames, but if the information sought was never saved nor even collected in the first place, it can not be turned over.

Most judges do not take too kindly to plaintiff’s counsel who continues to harass and badger a non-litigant third party after they’ve sworn to the court that the information specified in a subpoena does not exist.

This is a simple solution that would end much of the litigation activity that serves only to harass, intimidate, unmask an anonymous critic, or expand a fishing expedition.

–TurboGeek