Cris Daniluk writes:
> There are no current court cases. There is, however, strong legal basis. I
> sell content to a customer which I deliver via email. You cut my route to my
> customer who has an email account with you. That prevents us from fulfilling
> our end of the deal between us and our customer.
If it is within my legal right to cut the route, which it is, since the
route lies on my private property, using private equipment that I paid for,
than that's just too bad. I am under no legal obligations to conduct my
business in a way that does not conflict with yours.
> They paid us money, we
> didn't deliver.
Frankly, I do not care for your contractual obligations with your customer.
It is none of my concern. Until several key provisions of the Bill of
Rights are voided, I have every legal right to configure my equipment in
whatever way I see fit, unless it is a violation of existing law to do so.
Whatever impact it has on your business does not interest me very much. If
you put yourself in a situation where you depend on other entities that
have no legal obligations to you in order for you to conduct your business,
you have nobody but yourself to blame for your poor business choices.
> If you will all remember, Network Solutions' lawyers were in
> a similar situation when they were threatened with a blacklist for their
> high volume of spam. They made this very same argument. That never saw a
> court room, but then again they aren't blacklisted are they?
They weren't blacklisted because they took steps to stop spamming.
> >The real question is, "are you a lawyer?" If you're not, then you really
> >have no business speaking about the law in any forum.
>
> Are you? Is Sam? Are any of us? No.
Good, so stop inventing laws that do not exist.
> and no, Sam, legal fees would not be awarded. If you'll do your homework,
> legal fees are rarely awarded except in exceptionally erroneous claims. My
A legal claim based on laws that do not exist would probably qualify as
"exceptionally erroneous".
--
Sam
