Comcast answer to E360
Spamsuite has published Comcast's response in the E360 vs Comcast lawsuit (in which E360 is suing Comcast for blocking E360's spam.) The document is a long, slow read, since the Comcast lawyers are being very careful to dot all their t's and cross all their i's. Either that, or they're being paid by the word. For the fun part, skip ahead to their Memorandum of law, below.
Allow me to summarize: most E360 allegations are facts about E360, for which Comcast says they don't have any first-hand information to form a belief and therefore deny.
E360 makes many allegations of harm they've suffered because of the spam blocking, and Comcast says they don't have any first-hand information to form a belief and therefore deny.
E360 quotes the law in several places, and Comcast admits that E360 is quoting the law. Except where E360 gets it wrong, in which case Comcast denies.
E360 claims they don't spam, and that they follow the rules. Comcast responds that because they get hundreds of thousands of emails to its subscribers, some of which are forged, and therefore they don't have any first-hand information to form a belief and therefore deny.
E360 claims that Comcast is deliberately and maliciously attacking them. Comcast denies this.
Paragraph 60 is interesting. E360 alleges that Comcast writes pink contracts. Comcast denies this.
Things get interesting in the "Affirmative Defenses" section of Comcast's response (starting at paragraph 63).
Naturally, Comcast starts right out with the section of the Communications Decency Act that immunizes isps that use technical means (e.g. filtering) to protect their subscribers from spam. They go on to state that CAN-SPAM and various state laws also immunize them.
They then point out that E360 has unclean hands based on their violations of CAN-SPAM, the Computer Fraud and Abuse act, and the Illinois Electronic Mail Act.
Next on the docket is Comcast's Memorandum in Support of their motion. This is where the fun begins. This is the document where Comcast calls a spammer a spammer.
The memorandum starts out Plaintiff is a spammer who refers to itself as a “internet marketing company,” and takes off from there.
Of special interest is Comcast's reminder to the court that even if spam doesn't actually violate the CAN-SPAM act, it's still spam and isps still have the right to block it.
Allow me to summarize: most E360 allegations are facts about E360, for which Comcast says they don't have any first-hand information to form a belief and therefore deny.
E360 makes many allegations of harm they've suffered because of the spam blocking, and Comcast says they don't have any first-hand information to form a belief and therefore deny.
E360 quotes the law in several places, and Comcast admits that E360 is quoting the law. Except where E360 gets it wrong, in which case Comcast denies.
E360 claims they don't spam, and that they follow the rules. Comcast responds that because they get hundreds of thousands of emails to its subscribers, some of which are forged, and therefore they don't have any first-hand information to form a belief and therefore deny.
E360 claims that Comcast is deliberately and maliciously attacking them. Comcast denies this.
Paragraph 60 is interesting. E360 alleges that Comcast writes pink contracts. Comcast denies this.
Things get interesting in the "Affirmative Defenses" section of Comcast's response (starting at paragraph 63).
Naturally, Comcast starts right out with the section of the Communications Decency Act that immunizes isps that use technical means (e.g. filtering) to protect their subscribers from spam. They go on to state that CAN-SPAM and various state laws also immunize them.
They then point out that E360 has unclean hands based on their violations of CAN-SPAM, the Computer Fraud and Abuse act, and the Illinois Electronic Mail Act.
Next on the docket is Comcast's Memorandum in Support of their motion. This is where the fun begins. This is the document where Comcast calls a spammer a spammer.
The memorandum starts out Plaintiff is a spammer who refers to itself as a “internet marketing company,” and takes off from there.
Of special interest is Comcast's reminder to the court that even if spam doesn't actually violate the CAN-SPAM act, it's still spam and isps still have the right to block it.
7:37 PM |
permalink
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home