3 ms·
So how do the courts typically resolve the equivocation that the plaintiff has historically and routinely taken advantage of, even as part of this lawsuit? The
by cjslep 9y ago
So how do the courts typically resolve the equivocation that the plaintiff has historically and routinely taken advantage of, even as part of this lawsuit?
The root issue is that he created a program whose name happened to be EMAIL so when laymen misinterpret the claim to mean "e-mail" and the plaintiff doesn't correct them, it results in confusion that benefits him. The reporter tried to cast light on that and it seems like the plaintiff is trying to leverage the same confusion to win in court.
- dsp1234 9y agoThe court solved it is in one of the usual ways. From the decision[0]: "Accordingly, whether plaintiff's claim to have invented e-mail is "fake" depends upon the operative definition of "e-mail". Because that definition does not have a single, objectively correct answer, the claim is incapable of being proved true or false." Since defamation requires a false statement, and because the definition of e-mail can't be proven true or false, it can't be defamation. [0] - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3987555-Gov-Uscourts-Mad-185980-48-0.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3987555-Gov-Uscourts...
- athenot 9y agoPerhaps if someone sues them for some issue with email in general (say loss of productivity due to spam), they will quickly revert to the distinction between e-mail (as in SMTP) and EMAIL (his program).
- ascagnel_ 9y agoSuch a suit could have wide-reaching consequences -- he'd effectively be getting sued for failing to anticipate the need for a feature.