3 ms·

"Microsoft had a plan in place to keep legitimate customers online, while stopping the malware, but it didn’t work." Presumably Microsoft were able to convince

by rlpb 12y ago

"Microsoft had a plan in place to keep legitimate customers online, while stopping the malware, but it didn’t work." Presumably Microsoft were able to convince a judge that their plan was acceptable on the basis that they had a plan and it would work. IMHO, that should be enough in itself to hold Microsoft culpable for all damages as a consequence of their plan failing. Nothing against Microsoft in particular here; anyone can screw up. It should just be a general rule that applies equally to everyone in this sort of case. Doing this "ex parte temporary restraining order" without any opportunity for the targeted party to respond presents enough of a risk to the target that it should only be permitted if the party requesting it is prepared to take the financial hit should they screw up. Perhaps the funds should even be required to be held in escrow. Enough to cover the target's financial collapse.

drivingmenuts 12y ago
>Nothing against Microsoft in particular here; anyone can screw up. Well, except for the bit where they appointed themselves Sheriff without any legal authority. Sure, what they did may have been legal, but anointing themselves doesn't sound legal to me. It's the moral equivalent of someone appointing themself the President because he or she has the biggest and most guns.
- rlpb 12y ago
  > Well, except for the bit where they appointed themselves Sheriff without any legal authority. AFAICT, this is factually incorrect. They acquired a court order, did they not? They didn't appoint themselves as anything. They asked a court, and a court agreed. This is how the legal system should work. If you have a problem with it, then you can petition for laws that bind a court to do something else instead. This is what I am saying: a court should be bound by law to ensure the target is adequately protected financially in this sort of case.
  - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
    > This is how the legal system should work. Nonsense. The legal system is a two party system where both sides get to make an argument and an independent arbitrator makes a judgement. The way Microsoft are using the law, effectively the other party never gets to argue and the first they hear about the lawsuit is when Microsoft has already won. That isn't how the legal system is meant to work. The Lanham Act is broken.
    - rlpb 12y ago
      > The legal system is a two party system where both sides get to make an argument and an independent arbitrator makes a judgement. And in exceptional cases, an independent arbitrator can agree to something different where justice would be better served by doing so. Search warrants are an example. I don't have any problem with judges having this sort of power, because somebody has to be able to intervene when justice requires it. A judge whose job is to remain impartial is the best we can do. Provided that judgements are able to receive public scrutiny as soon as is possible, and that the public can (through their elected representatives) write laws for what they want done in specific situations. This case is receiving public scrutiny, so the system is working well up to now. What happens next remains to be seen. If your country has a problem with getting what the public wants written into laws, then you have a political problem, not a legal one.
      - worklogin 12y ago
        Eh, typically, a private company shouldn't get the privilege the NSA enjoys regarding one-party secret warrants.
        ghshephard 12y ago
        I think Microsoft is liable for all the damage they did, (which could be in the 10s of millions of dollars), but There was nothing secret about this - the process server handed over everything, nobody was bound by law to not talk about this. This is nothing like the NSLs.
  - mhurron 12y ago
    > They acquired a court order, did they not? This is what I don't understand. How can a private company get a court order to simple assume the operations of another private company?
    - marvy 12y ago
      By invoking obscure laws very cleverly I guess.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  If Microsoft can do it, so can you. You have as much authority as Microsoft does. The only difference is that Microsoft flexed those muscles, while the remaining 7billion of us did not.
  - serf 12y ago
    > If Microsoft can do it, so can you. You have as much authority as Microsoft does. The only difference is that Microsoft flexed those muscles, while the remaining 7billion of us did not. well, that and a legal department. I don't know many solo entrepreneurs that could deal with the drawing of '3 inches' of legal documentation to serve someone with while maintaining any level of profitability.
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      I am my legal department, and am a solo entrepreneur. :-)
fiatmoney 12y ago
Seems reasonable. It's the equivalent of being liable for any damages caused during a wrongful citizen's arrest.

by rlpb 12y ago

drivingmenuts 12y ago

>Nothing against Microsoft in particular here; anyone can screw up. Well, except for the bit where they appointed themselves Sheriff without any legal authority. Sure, what they did may have been legal, but anointing themselves doesn't sound legal to me. It's the moral equivalent of someone appointing themself the President because he or she has the biggest and most guns.

rlpb 12y ago
> Well, except for the bit where they appointed themselves Sheriff without any legal authority. AFAICT, this is factually incorrect. They acquired a court order, did they not? They didn't appoint themselves as anything. They asked a court, and a court agreed. This is how the legal system should work. If you have a problem with it, then you can petition for laws that bind a court to do something else instead. This is what I am saying: a court should be bound by law to ensure the target is adequately protected financially in this sort of case.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  > This is how the legal system should work. Nonsense. The legal system is a two party system where both sides get to make an argument and an independent arbitrator makes a judgement. The way Microsoft are using the law, effectively the other party never gets to argue and the first they hear about the lawsuit is when Microsoft has already won. That isn't how the legal system is meant to work. The Lanham Act is broken.
  - rlpb 12y ago
    > The legal system is a two party system where both sides get to make an argument and an independent arbitrator makes a judgement. And in exceptional cases, an independent arbitrator can agree to something different where justice would be better served by doing so. Search warrants are an example. I don't have any problem with judges having this sort of power, because somebody has to be able to intervene when justice requires it. A judge whose job is to remain impartial is the best we can do. Provided that judgements are able to receive public scrutiny as soon as is possible, and that the public can (through their elected representatives) write laws for what they want done in specific situations. This case is receiving public scrutiny, so the system is working well up to now. What happens next remains to be seen. If your country has a problem with getting what the public wants written into laws, then you have a political problem, not a legal one.
    - worklogin 12y ago
      Eh, typically, a private company shouldn't get the privilege the NSA enjoys regarding one-party secret warrants.
      - ghshephard 12y ago
        I think Microsoft is liable for all the damage they did, (which could be in the 10s of millions of dollars), but There was nothing secret about this - the process server handed over everything, nobody was bound by law to not talk about this. This is nothing like the NSLs.
- mhurron 12y ago
  > They acquired a court order, did they not? This is what I don't understand. How can a private company get a court order to simple assume the operations of another private company?
  - marvy 12y ago
    By invoking obscure laws very cleverly I guess.
anonbanker 12y ago
If Microsoft can do it, so can you. You have as much authority as Microsoft does. The only difference is that Microsoft flexed those muscles, while the remaining 7billion of us did not.
- serf 12y ago
  > If Microsoft can do it, so can you. You have as much authority as Microsoft does. The only difference is that Microsoft flexed those muscles, while the remaining 7billion of us did not. well, that and a legal department. I don't know many solo entrepreneurs that could deal with the drawing of '3 inches' of legal documentation to serve someone with while maintaining any level of profitability.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    I am my legal department, and am a solo entrepreneur. :-)

fiatmoney 12y ago

Seems reasonable. It's the equivalent of being liable for any damages caused during a wrongful citizen's arrest.