Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Dee Pridgen, Christopher L. Willis, & I to Speak at Ballard Spahr Webinar on the Trump Administration and Consumer Protection | Main | Dean Baker: The Economic Efficiency Argument for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau »

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Comments

Dave

Mr. Harder seems to suggest that a silly number of degrees and the ability to grab some credulous reporter's interest, is what settles this rather than the merits of the matter. I also don't see the Wired article supporting Shiva Ayyadurai's claims by merely reciting them and highlighting some of his arguments and the criticisms they've received. (The Time article does seem to have accepted Ayyadurai's claim, though it isn't clear how that conclusion was reached, especially how the previous email systems didn't use header conventions sufficiently, nor why this matters. The article is wrong on its face if read strictly, as headers were used in other email systems of the time, but even assuming the argument to be that these weren't good enough, no argument or explanation was made. Its unclear if the reporter actually knew of the preexisting email systems at all or if he just accepted Ayyadurai's claims at face value.)

Mr. Harder does seem like a swell guy, though. I mean, going out of his way to help Mr. Levy with his article and all. And then bad old Levy "intentionally omitted" that "wealth of information," it's enough moisten my eyes anyways.

Mr. Harder, wasn't the entity that paid Ayyadurai that settlement bankrupt and without any prospect of retaining any beneficial interest in their company due to the large judgment already entered against it? If that's true, doesn't that suggest the fact that they paid money to settle his suit kind of meaningless? Sounds to me like the settlement didn't actually cost them a dime, as it came from assets of a hopelessly insolvent company they knew they had no chance of obtaining the benefits of. I don't know that this indicates anything about the merits of Ayyadurai's legal position, though I'd certainly welcome a correction if I'm mistaken.

Paul Levy

Charles Harder says in his comment that I "asked [him] to provide [me] information for [my] piece" and complains that I did not provide a link to his client's web site.

This is the request I sent him (to which he replied by sending me a link to his client's propaganda web site, which I thought irrelevant to my questions).

From: Paul Alan Levy
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 3:29 PM
To: 'charder@hmafirm.com'
Subject: Your demand letter to Diaspora

I am working on a piece about your demand letter to Diaspora on behalf of the fellow who claims to have invented email and has a history of suing people who dispute that claim. I am wondering if you would answer some questions.

What is the basis for your claim that Diaspora, as the host of user comments that criticize your client, is legally liable under Massachusetts law for intentional infliction of emotional distress, based I gather on the intent of the user who posted the comments, and subject to Massachusetts law “remedies [that] include monetary damages, punitive damages, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief?” Is there some reason why section 230 immunity does not apply?

As I read your letter, you also claim that Diaspora, the host of the comments, is subject to “substantial monetary damages and punitive damages” under a libel theory under Massachusetts law. Have I misunderstood your claim? And again, what is the basis for avoiding section 230 immunity?.

Finally, I am also curious about your contention that, because your letter is subject to copyright protection, publication is prohibited. Are you contending that publication would constitute infringement? Have you registered the copyright?

Charles Harder

I am Dr. Ayyadurai's attorney, mentioned above. The writer asked me to provide him information for his piece and I gave him Dr. Ayyadurai's website which has a wealth of information including 25 testimonials from Ph.Ds and other experts as well as at least 2 detailed academic papers which demonstrate, without question, that Dr. Ayyadurai invented the email system we use today. The writer intentionally omitted that site from his article. It can be found here: http:// www. inventorofemail.com/TheFacts The writer also failed to mention that Diaspora removed the defamatory post at issue. The writer also failed to mention that Gizmodo Media removed its two defamatory articles about my client, and Gawker.com just paid him $750,000 for defaming him. Wired magazine, TIME and others have confirmed his invention. Dr. Ayyadurai holds 4 degrees from MIT including a Ph.D and anyone interested in the truth can go to his website, above, which explains it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

October 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31