Friday, April 11, 2003

What is the right remedy for anti-competitive behavior? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21873-2003Apr3.html?referrer=email 10:59:43 PM    comment []

"Google's site handles an average of 112 million daily searches, based on estimates complied by Search Engine Watch. Yahoo handles about 42 million daily searches, Search Engine Watch estimates, with Google's software generating most of the results." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45249-2003Apr7.html?referrer=email 10:56:28 PM    comment []

"People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law. This ability to speak one's mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one's identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People who have committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court's order to discover their identity." "Although the motion judge stated Dendrite was "entitled to every reasonable inference of fact in this analysis[,]" he refused to "take the leap to linking messages posted on an internet message board regarding individual opinions, albeit incorrect opinions, to a decrease in stock prices without something more concrete." The record does not support the conclusion that John Doe's postings negatively affected the value of Dendrite's stock, nor does Dendrite offer evidence or information that these postings have actually inhibited its hiring practices, as it alleged they would. Accordingly, the motion judge appropriately concluded that Dendrite failed to establish a sufficient nexus between John Doe No. 3's statements and Dendrite's allegations of harm." http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a2774-00.opn.html 10:50:54 PM    comment []

2001 guidance for internet anonymouse speech decision. "Although anonymous speech on the Internet is protected, there must be an avenue for redress for those who are wronged. Individuals choosing to harm another or violate an agreement through speech on the Internet cannot hope to shield their identity and avoid punishment through invocation of the First Amendment." IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. v. Doe, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a2762-00.opn.html 10:44:39 PM    comment []

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/apr03/code.html 10:31:19 PM    comment []

Criminals have found the 'net. The internet must be a real thing. "While online auction fraud accounted for 46 percent of complaints, the average amount lost in these cases was just $320. By comparison, victims of Internet identity theft averaged $2,000 in losses, with check fraud losses averaging $1,000." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64999-2003Apr9.html?referrer=email 10:04:54 PM    comment []

Courts just don't want to hear cases that aren't real cases or controversies. The speculative, chilling impact of the DMCA lacks concreteness so far. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A331-2003Apr9.html?referrer=email 10:01:29 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Noel D. Humphreys.