UK company ingnoring Illinois Court ruling (spammers)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14855085/

I found this article interesting. I don't know enough about international law. Can a company or person ignore a law suit in another country like Spamhaus is doing? I have to agree with Spamhause that a company in Illinois has no impact on them since they are in the UK - but then I'm not a legal type.

I think this type of issue is going to happen more and more. That whole concept of a world court and world laws (not the UN) seems to be getting closer....

Anyone know if Spamhaus will be forced to pay this and do what the Illinois court said?

Brad!

I'm not into the law domain either, but I know that national laws do not affect in any way people or organizations from other countries. That notice that the software is protected by US laws for example applies only for US. For instance in Romania it doesn't have any value, unless a similar law exists here or it goes under the jurisdiction of an international law that is accepted and has the status of a Romanian law too. If Spamhouse didn't break any UK or internation law enforced in UK they can't do anything to them. US laws simply don't have jurisdiction outside US.

I think the key phrase in this article is:

Quote:

---

Internet service providers use Spamhaus lists to help identify spammers and block e-mail coming from their Internet addresses. The listing hurt the Illinois company's ability to do business as a direct e-mail marketer, the lawsuit claimed.

---

If Spamhaus is doing business in the US, then they *do* have to abide by any US laws/court rulings. Of course, if they are giving their lists away for free, then it might be argued that they are not actually doing business here.

I think it'll come down to the US government asking the UK government for help in the matter. But then again, I'm just an engineer, and not a law person!

Viggy

The court's decision was a "default judgment", which means that the defendant Spamhaus refused to participate in the case. Basically, they said that the US court has no jurisdiction over it.

The AP article is therefore misleading, since it nowhere mentions that the decision came as a result of a default judgement, and came as a result of Spamhaus's position that it is not subject to US jurisdiction.

The e360 website is interesting in that it provides its version of the case history, as well as copies of actual court documents. See http://www.e360insight.com/case_history.html . I read the document towards the end, titled Judgment In Case#: 1:06-cv-03958 at http://www.e360insight.com/show_case_doc25.pdf to learn that the decision was by default.

Mike

Certainly there are some areas where international laws would be helpful... atleast in those areas that easily cross country borders or have internation influence. For example - the internet and other modes of communication, terrorism etc. But these cannot come close to success unless there is a common view of nations on those.

Consider the case of the NPT and the pains of it. Many have different views and you cannot say that a certain way of doing something is wrong - the others may be interpreting them in a good/different way.

But my belief is - if a country's law can work in a nation of 1 billion people why can't some law enforcement group work for some more billions. Sure there would be variety of challenges but where is their absence felt?

But I also believe that it will very easily get politicized when countries like the US would want to "enforce" their views and terms on others. Some may find their benefits and some would oppose it heavily.

International laws as a whole cannot work with that attitude. It needs more open thinking. When you cross the border - you need to think more broadly. And when that is not happening, everything becomes a mess.

However, like they have the UN and considering it has survived the longest than the other two trials before (the world wars) and still going strong- I feel seperate international bodies in specific areas can always grow. Once they individually get stabilized and function smoothly - they can all be brought together. It certainly would take time but it will be a huge step, if its not already started.

Countries and their laws need to think on broader terms. Enhancements can be made to any existing system.

Since they give away their lists for free and don't control who uses their lists, it's indeed highly arguable that they have any business dealings in Illinois. It's a bit as if Mc Donalds gets sued in Illinois even though it has no restaurants/offices there just because some customer brought their food into the state and something bad happened.

In any case, the court's decision is based on so many flaws that it would be hard not to get it overturned in an appeal.

Here's some more news on this topic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InfoWorld

A U.S. judge has denied an order that would have suspended the domain name for The Spamhaus Project, averting a potential quagmire over how U.S. legal rulings apply across the global Internet. Spamhaus, a group of computer security experts based in London, creates a database used by security vendors to block unsolicited bulk e-mail, known as spam.

---

The article is here: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...sdomain_1.html

Mike

Interesting. Thanks for the post Mike. I think there are a lot of underlying issues that are going to continue to come to the surface regarding these issues.

Brad!

Indeed, an interesting discussion. I also read this interesting article, by following a link from the other one.

The Illinois court does have jurisdiction in principle. All that is required for establishing jurisdiction is to prove that the offence was committed within the court's geographical jurisdiction. This can be proved by an affidavit from any resident of Illinois that s/he viewed the block list page and was consequently prejudiced against the plaintiff. However, the Illinois court has insufficient jurisdiction to enforce it's ruling beacuse the defendant has no attachable assets within the Illonois court's area of jurisdiction. This can only be fulfilled by applying to an English court for redress. The English court will not be entirely bound by the Illinois court's ruling and is entitled to review the case in the light of English law. If the plaintiff is unable to prove that it has not violated any UK laws (statutes or common law) the decision may go in favor of the defendant. This not only makes e360 Insight LLC liable for paying the legal costs incurred by Spamhaus but may lay itself open to a counter claim for malicious/frivolous use of process.