<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] spamhouse litigation
because everyone who understood the issue knew this was almost inevitable?
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Veni Markovski wrote:
Interesting.
Why didn't someone post it already here? I guess it's such a pity ICANN was
not punished, as some predicted?
On 19 October 2006, United States District Court Judge Charles P. Kocoras,
presiding over the e360Insight v. The Spamhaus Project matter in the Northern
District of Illinois, issued an
<http://www.icann.org/legal/spamhaus/denial-proposed_order-19oct06.pdf>order
denying e360Insight's ("e360") motion asking the Court to, among other
things, suspend www.spamhaus.org. The Court explained that the relief e360
sought was too broad to be warranted under the circumstances. First, the
Court noted that since there is no indication that ICANN or Tucows acted in
concert with Spamhaus, the Court could not conclude that either party could
be brought within the ambit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), which
states that an order granting an injunction is "binding only upon the parties
to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,
and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them." Second,
the Court stated that a suspension of www.spamhaus.org would cut off all
lawful online activities of Spamhaus, not just those that are in
contravention of the injunction the Court previously issued against Spamhaus.
Sincerely,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com
check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com
--
http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@xxxxxx
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|