Popular tech blog sued by self-proclaimed “inventor of e-mail” hits back

"This fight could be the end of Techdirt, even if we are completely right."

Read the whole story

 

[thatanonymouscoward]

You could listen to Shiva telling us how GMOs will kill us all and how Tamil Spices reverse diabetes... he was on the InfoWars show on Tuesday.
Listen for yourself & decide if he's a conman or not.

 

[thatanonymouscoward]

issor[/url]":3mzigp0y]

hellonearthis[/url]":3mzigp0y]Ayyadurai did create a program that was branded as EMAIL but email had previously been created by ARPANET.

So the argument is over the word EMAIL and email and one represents and application and the other represents a for of electronic communication.

NOTE that Ayyadurai copyright/patented the term EMAIL all caps.

Right. This seems a bit like telling people you invented the whopper when you were a kid, where the "WHOPPER" was some sort of peanut butter and ice cream sandwich. You're not technically lying if that's what you called it. You may even have a copyright on a recipe. But it misleads everyone to say you invented the whopper, and to litigate to enforce your position, because people are either going to assume you mean the malt balls or the hamburger.

He copyrighted a computer program he called EMAIL, not the term.
He copyrighted it years after its alleged creation.
He now screams he is the father of e-mail & if you disagree you are a racist in the pocket of the massive corporations who wish to blot out his accomplishments in creating e-mail.

issor[/url]":3mzigp0y]

jnk1000[/url]":3mzigp0y]

arkiel[/url]":3mzigp0y]Anyone that needs a blow-by-blow of the evolution of Shiva's claim and timeline should check out this:

http://www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai

I don't know the author, and haven't verified any of the citations, so proceed with caution.

Basically, looks like that self-important race-baiting shitheel decided he could change his story multiple times and define 'email' insanely specifically. In this era of combating fake news, motherfucker is basically evil.

The item that I found most amusing... or infuriating is spelled out in the introductory paragraph of the linked article. Ayyadurai's creation couldn't send messages outside the university. It was nothing more than an interoffice messaging system.

Haha.. Ayyadurai invented the memo.

Or rather, the e-mo.

It seems to me that you'd have to claim some ownership over SMTP to lay claim to any sort of ownership over modern e-mail. Just because you use a particular name doesn't mean that something else that goes by that name is also yours. Is there any proof that any developers anywhere built upon this guy's work to get to modern email? Any link at all, aside from a name? Messaging systems are cheap, kids code them as excersizes in school.

He likes to discount the RFC's, but then there are cute 'coincidences' like the RFC having the exact same designations as he used...

http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/2017 ... t-32588713

He wrote an awesome program at 14.... and now he warns about GMOs on InfoWars and promotes his own food plans. Tamil Spices reverse diabetes!


I post at TechDirt a lot.
I don't think the headlines are 'clickbait' in the "YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT!", tradition. Headlines are supposed to get peoples attention afterall.
There are some people who dislike TechDirt because they can be very unflattering to some sacred cows.
I watched an ISP owner on Twitter telling Popehat that he was wrong that this was a 1st amendment issue & Mike deserved it because he had been mean to ISPs.
I looked him up... TechDirt mentioned him in an article like 2 years ago talking about the title regulations the feds wanted to apply to ISPs. He was on the OMG its the end of the world side, & a different ISP CEO was like ummm no.
But because Mike doesn't believe all ISP are caring angels, and dares to call them out on their shit... he is the enemy of the state who deserves it.
He runs afoul of the nicest people, like the Comcast (IIRC) Lobbyist who is very angry if you call him a lobbyist, the **AA's with their huge imaginary loss figures, SOPA supporters, etc...

He believed some sociopath with a trendy avatar (pssst thats me) about copyright trolling and what was happening. He didn't take me at face value (I would have run away if he had) but did the research, looked at all of the data the Scooby's compiled, verified it & reported on it.

They report the story, but give you the links so you can see for yourself. They report on things you might miss across the spectrum of tech (and sometimes to some peoples chagrin just outside the imaginary borders people mentally impose on "tech" blogs. They show up in the comments if you have more questions, and if you are just a whiny shill they will takedown your stupid argument politely & in depth.

If you haven't made any enemies, you're not doing it right. Even if you disagree with every single post & comment on the site... support TechDirt. We can not allow people with deep pockets to silence the truth, and if we don't stand up now... they'll come for sites you support next and there might not be enough news outlets left to report on it for fear of a lawsuit.

 

[thatanonymouscoward]

IIRC Thiel funded many cases & went looking for 'aggrieved' people to sue Gawker.
Gawker might be the devil, but let us be honest about the Hulk Hogan case, a jury didn't like Gawkers attitude & the fact that Hogan lost work over the video. It wasn't screwing his best friends wife that lost him work, it was the racist comments he made.
How much was the lawsuit against Bubba the Love Sponge for?
Ya remember him the guy who recorded the tape, was married to Hulks sex playmate, yet says he had nothing to do with the video getting out despite comments about it being for a rainy day (IIRC).

I am not familair with the cited comments about a rape video being posted & the victim being told to suck it up. Gawker doesn't sound like the nicest people in the world, but to pretend she couldn't retain a lawyer seems silly. She would have been a most sympathetic plaintiff, and any lawyer would have been able to make a name & cash in on that case.

Gawker is not without sin, but to accept it is perfectly fine for a rich person to fund burying them in litigation to get even for reporting the fact that he is gay is wrong. The legal system is to right wrongs & make people whole again, not to crush a media outlet for 1 wealthy man's revenge. He funded a lawyer to find 'victims' & bury them in cases. Shiva was a client, the man who didn't create e-mail, was yet another case waiting in the wings in case the Hogan case didn't drive the nail into the coffin. Gawker was denied its right to appeal from all of these antics.

While you are cheering its death, are you willing to suffer Gawkers fate because someone with money decides to find anything possible to destroy you for revenge? Rights are rights even if they apply to those you think are horrible people, and allowing them to be eroded because they were 'bad people' has that side effect of eroding your right too. If someone decides you are a 'bad person' you can suffer the same fate & have people cheering your fall talking about how you deserved it ignoring the ground they are standing on is crumbling away as they cheer. Assholes should have the same rights as everyone else, or no one has rights because everyone is someone elses asshole.

 

[thatanonymouscoward]

Saikaici[/url]":i71yy088]

Swimminginurea[/url]":i71yy088]

thatanonymouscoward[/url]":i71yy088]IIRC Thiel funded many cases & went looking for 'aggrieved' people to sue Gawker.
Gawker might be the devil, but let us be honest about the Hulk Hogan case, a jury didn't like Gawkers attitude & the fact that Hogan lost work over the video. It wasn't screwing his best friends wife that lost him work, it was the racist comments he made.
How much was the lawsuit against Bubba the Love Sponge for?
Ya remember him the guy who recorded the tape, was married to Hulks sex playmate, yet says he had nothing to do with the video getting out despite comments about it being for a rainy day (IIRC).

I am not familair with the cited comments about a rape video being posted & the victim being told to suck it up. Gawker doesn't sound like the nicest people in the world, but to pretend she couldn't retain a lawyer seems silly. She would have been a most sympathetic plaintiff, and any lawyer would have been able to make a name & cash in on that case.

Gawker is not without sin, but to accept it is perfectly fine for a rich person to fund burying them in litigation to get even for reporting the fact that he is gay is wrong. The legal system is to right wrongs & make people whole again, not to crush a media outlet for 1 wealthy man's revenge. He funded a lawyer to find 'victims' & bury them in cases. Shiva was a client, the man who didn't create e-mail, was yet another case waiting in the wings in case the Hogan case didn't drive the nail into the coffin. Gawker was denied its right to appeal from all of these antics.

While you are cheering its death, are you willing to suffer Gawkers fate because someone with money decides to find anything possible to destroy you for revenge? Rights are rights even if they apply to those you think are horrible people, and allowing them to be eroded because they were 'bad people' has that side effect of eroding your right too. If someone decides you are a 'bad person' you can suffer the same fate & have people cheering your fall talking about how you deserved it ignoring the ground they are standing on is crumbling away as they cheer. Assholes should have the same rights as everyone else, or no one has rights because everyone is someone elses asshole.

It is straight up malicious prosecution and honestly I'm surprised it isn't already known as "Thieling" since he is a public figure and is making it famous.

Malicious prosecution is funding people who should win cases and funding them and having them win in a court of law?

This is one of the few times when a company was held liable for their preying on celebrities for juicy news, and it came back to shut them down. For once a cancer spewing entity gets shut down, and you call it malicious prosecution.

Guess what honey, DAs do malicious prosecution all day long, and you know what's worse? Instead of men of questionable morals funding them, it's the government! *gasp*

So you think Shiva's claims have merit, that he indeed invented email?
Or perhaps it was just a rich man funding anything that could bury someone he disliked in court?
It is not a binary world, you can not deny someone rights because they offended someone and expect it won't be done to others. Serving up justification of 'well they picked on stars' can and does slide down that slope.

Guess what honey, DA's hide evidence and railroad people into jail. And sometimes people fight for their rights despite the claims they are the most horrible people in the world. And even when we show they were railroaded at every step of the way, there are still people who cling to the idea that they must have deserved it. Nothing like cheering teens sent to jail for years over a witch hunt & then the public denying them compensation for being in jail on lies & false evidence. Or forcing them to accept a plea by threatening to retry them for the case where the evidence exonerated them & keeping them in jail until they get around to that second trial. Because protecting the conviction, even if 'won' by cheating matters more than the life of someone society looks down on.

The National Inquirer is still on news stands, they prey on celebrities... Thiel isn't funding shutting them down.
TMZ is still on the air... Thiel isn't funding shutting them down.

This was a rich man using the legal system to crush someone he disliked, not for the honor of a has been wrestler who screwed his best friends wife and talked about his dislike of n*******'s that lost him work.

Gawker isn't an innocent angel, but using the 'they were asking for it' or the 'they deserved it'... is that what you tell a rape victim as well? Being an asshole doesn't mean you deserved it, its just a justification. The bigger picture is that someone with money and power can silence people who report on things that are TRUE but not flattering to them.
Do you really want a world where the super-rich can keep you from learning they poisoned your water supply?
Or that the peanut butter factory was the source of the disease that killed hundreds?
Or that they were drunk driving & killed someone?
They buy peoples silence now, and supporting bogus lawsuits to bankrupt targets is a great way to get silence. How many stories haven't we heard because they are afraid of being sued even if the story is true?

But Gawker deserved it and your moral high horse will guide you away from the horrible things waiting in the wings if this passes unchallenged.

 

[thatanonymouscoward]

Saikaici[/url]":38ym19le]
Most of the time it's not even about whether people are legally correct, it's about the party's perceived attitude. In that way I'm not really happy with techdirt, but in this particular case I'm far happier to back them than the self absorbed guy who can't handle mean things said on the internet.

O_O

Perceived attitude?!
You can't be bothered to look at the actual facts, but because they were snarky to the man who tweeted at every media outlet the day Roy Tomlinson died that the inventor of email was not dead and they needed to correct that, you run on your perception.

If perceived attitude counted for this much, then you would be on the side of Prenda, because I was a snarky bastard to them and their extortion scheme. They sued me for defamation so by your thinking I deserved it.

Lets see, their lawsuits failed because they lied to the courts like they always did & they are now under Federal Indictment... but by your perception the wrong person was indicted I guess... because I hurt their feels.

I'm glad we don't all have to follow your, don't make the subject of the reporting feel bad even if they brought it on themselves, rules.

Public figure does batshit things, mildly snarky things are said by tech reporters sick of his DECADES of false claims and they are the bad guys. Got it.

 

[thatanonymouscoward]

Saikaici[/url]":ke1arg0v]

thatanonymouscoward[/url]":ke1arg0v]

Saikaici[/url]":ke1arg0v]
Most of the time it's not even about whether people are legally correct, it's about the party's perceived attitude. In that way I'm not really happy with techdirt, but in this particular case I'm far happier to back them than the self absorbed guy who can't handle mean things said on the internet.

O_O

Perceived attitude?!
You can't be bothered to look at the actual facts, but because they were snarky to the man who tweeted at every media outlet the day Roy Tomlinson died that the inventor of email was not dead and they needed to correct that, you run on your perception.

If perceived attitude counted for this much, then you would be on the side of Prenda, because I was a snarky bastard to them and their extortion scheme. They sued me for defamation so by your thinking I deserved it.

Lets see, their lawsuits failed because they lied to the courts like they always did & they are now under Federal Indictment... but by your perception the wrong person was indicted I guess... because I hurt their feels.

I'm glad we don't all have to follow your, don't make the subject of the reporting feel bad even if they brought it on themselves, rules.

Public figure does batshit things, mildly snarky things are said by tech reporters sick of his DECADES of false claims and they are the bad guys. Got it.

This is a news site. I take everything on here with a spoonful of salt. It's my only source on this issue and this is the age of internet misinformation, everything has an underrepresented second side.

I consider who's actually right and wrong, but these comments for articles like this are just people mostly expressing the popular sentiment with whatever spin the article aims for. On top of that they're awfully passionate about it when they've only ever heard from one source. I'm not the one judging per se, but the general populace does. Mob mentality is really something...

"everything has an underrepresented second side"

Please then tell me the unrepresented side of Prenda Law.
I chose Prenda because I'm pretty much an expert on them.
I watched them shaking down senior citizens for their social security checks, lie to courts, openly flout the law, devise a scheme to pretend to have a client to hide they had a direct financial incentive in the bogus cases, I spied the name they were using on torrent trackers to upload the files to create an event to profit from, I watched them setup stooges to create massive fishing trips after the courts denied joinder as improper, I watched them lie to Judges, I watched them file forged documents, I watched them file cooked books.
I giggled at the indictments & was sad there weren't more.

So what is the underrepresented second side of Prenda? I'm dying to know.
Maybe it'll make me feel better about them claiming I was a hacker and an identity thief when they submitted an edited twitter comment to the court to support those claims when the full tweet tells a much different story.

Person claims to have invented e-mail for decades.
Person has conned media & institutions with his claim.
The media & institutions look at the ample evidence challenging his claims & retract.
Tech blog makes comments about self serving conman.
Tech blog comments on Gawker case & its connection to the 'father of e-mail'.
Tech blog notes conman tweeted when someone who could be the actual father of e-mail passed away demanding corrections.
Tech blog gets sued for a kajillion dollars by lawyer who has worked for Thiel in the past in getting revenge.
Tech blog could collapse even if the case gets tossed, meaning less voices & more fear for other blogs to maybe avoid some topics else they get sued as well.
I'm on the side of the Tech blog & will mock the conman who has added more scams to his repertoire to sell snakeoil to people suckered in by his claims of creating e-mail.