>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Vincent J. Mooney Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If it comes to trial, that could take months or years. How
> should GIMPS act in the meantime? If somebody authorized by
> US West tells the press "CPU cycles were stolen from US West",
> then I believe GIMPS **should** act on that statement.
It's interesting you mention that since, indeed, they may very well claim
that, at least in a possible civil suit. Part of the search warrant (which
I hope Luke has up on his web page now) includes mention of 3 bids obtained
from companies for CPU time or something or other (I'm not sure what exactly
they're trying to do a price check on), ranging from $20,000-$70,000. I
think they only include that because the computer fraud statute says they
have to have suffered damages of $5,000 or greater. Strange though, because
from what I can tell, the figures they give are not related to the damage
they claim. Hmm...so they are implying theft of service.
