|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical verisign lawsuits need data on "core operation" and "stability"
Scott Weeks wrote: > > VeriSign also angered the close-knit group of engineers and scientists > who are familiar with the technology underpinning the Internet. They > say that Site Finder undermines the worldwide Domain Name System, > causing e-mail systems, spam-blocking technology and other applications > to malfunction. > > VeriSign said the claims are overblown. > > "There is no data to indicate the core operation of the domain name > system or the stability of the Internet has been adversely affected," > VeriSign's Galvin said. > > : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40241-2003Oct3.html > : Let's see, a "malfunction" is not a "core operation" or "stability". One of the nice things about lawsuits is something called discovery. Gives a chance to get some "data". We spent thousands of dollars (probably 10s of thousands), had to handle 10 times the mail load, had our upstream links completely fill, had our mail servers completely fill, lost mail, and lost customers. Then, thanks to the yeoman BIND effort, were able to mitigate the damage, and gradually bring the mail servers back to their usual state of 30% free space. Now, using news.google.com search, it seems there are a few lawsuits. I want them to go to class action status. I want money damages! Any other operators want the same? http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=lawsuit+verisign&btnG=Search+News 3rd Lawsuit Against VeriSign; Seeks Class Action Status http://www.circleid.com/article/290_0_1_0_C/ http://www.techfirm.com/v-complaint.pdf Plaintiffs bring this action both on an individual and class basis, and also on a representative basis as a private attorney general under the provisions of Section 17200 et seq. of California's Business & Professions Code, for monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. � 2; for unfair competition and trademark dilution under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. � 1125(a); for cyberpiracy in violation of the Anti- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"), 15 U.S.C.A. � 1125(d); for illegal interception of electronic communications in violation of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. � 2511 et seq.; for unfair, unlawful, misleading, fraudulent and deceptive business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to halt VeriSign's illegal acts and practices before those acts and practices further harm Plaintiffs, the class defined herein, and the general public. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
|