RICO Suit Filed Against Skype Founders

Stitch_Surfs writes "Defendant Skype Technologies S A, Niklas Zennstrom, Janus Friis, Kazaa, Bluemoon Ou and a slew of others have been named in a Rico Suit Filed by StreamCast Networks, of Houston, Texas. StreamCast is the company credited with the development of the Peer to Peer Technology called Morpheus. From the little information the courts have released, StreamCast is claiming that the group engaged in corrupt business practices."

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization

[Short Circuit]

So that's what RICO [wikipedia.org] stands for...

RICO use and abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

RICO was ostensibly passed to help prosecutors go after mobsters. Mafia organizations were set up so that the guys running them could avoid personal responsibility for the corrupt actiosn of the organization itself, so prosectutors ended up always going after low-level guys, which wasn't right and wasn't productive. So they got RICO which would let them bust the top guys, even if the top guys were not directly involved in the corruption. Prosecutors would just have to show that the organization itself is corrupt.

But now RICO gets used and abused for many other things. It is used to go after political groups (anti-abortion groups is one case I'm aware of). In this case it sounds like it is being used in a business dispute.

I swear, if Congress keeps on passing laws that inadvertently (or otherwise) lets law enforcement get involved in what are civil business disputes, this country will be ruined. I was talking with an attorney a while ago who said that these days anyone who is a business leader should have a crim. def. attorney retained or available. There's no way law enforcement can help achieve a fair resolution of a business dispute by getting involved in it.

------------
Contact management, calendar mangement, multiple timezones, sales automation [contempo.biz]

Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not

[Nom du Keyboard]

It is used to go after political groups (anti-abortion groups is one case I'm aware of).

I'm not sure that qualifies as abuse of the act. An organized group of people (Operation Rescue) attempting to extort legal businesses (abortion clinics) into either changing or closing entirely through threats (see what is on some of their websites), intimidation (in-your-face confrontations directly in front of clinics), and violence (bombings and beatings tacitly accepted as part of the struggle), simply because their view isn't your view (First Amendment issue of everyone, including clinics have rights to free speech and association and freedom from religion)...

Yeah, IANAL, but I'd call that a valid RICO case.

Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization

[hey!]

Can a private company file a RICO suit ? I thought that was a Govt charge ?

RICO allows private companies that have been damaged by criminal enterprises to bring suit. It's kind of like the False Claims Act, which essentially allows private individuals who have knowledge of defrauding of the Federal Government to become, in essence, civil law vigilantes.

RICO in a nutshell

[aws910]

Here's your better link. From info in TFA and here [ricoact.com], it looks like Streamcast is alleging that Skype(and others) did one(or more) of many things:

a. use an enterprise to launder money generated by a pattern of racketeering activity

b. a victim business owner cannot make payments to a loan shark; upon default, the loan shark says: "you're either going to die or you're going to give me your business." Given the threat to this life, the victim transfers control of his business to the loan shark. Usually, the victim business owner remains the owner on paper but the loan shark controls the business and receives all income from the business. Thus, the loan shark has acquired and maintained interest or control over an enterprise (i.e. the business) through a pattern of racketeering (i.e., loan sharking and extortion).

c. [Streamcast] has been injured by reason of the defendants' investment of the proceeds of racketeering activity / (1) a defendant person[Skype] (2) was employed by or associated with an enterprise (3) that engaged in or affected interstate commerce and that (4) the defendant person operated or managed the enterprise (5) through a pattern (6) of racketeering activity, and (7) the plaintiff[Streamcast] was injured in its business or property by reason of the pattern of racketeering activity.

Re:RICO use and abuse - Or Not

[Solandri]

I'm not sure that qualifies as abuse of the act. An organized group of people (Operation Rescue) attempting to extort legal businesses (abortion clinics) into either changing or closing entirely through threats (see what is on some of their websites), intimidation (in-your-face confrontations directly in front of clinics), and violence (bombings and beatings tacitly accepted as part of the struggle)

A good way to determine if your argument is logically sound is to replace the subject with something you personally feel differently about. Let's try that, switching anti-abortion with, say, environmentalism:

"I'm not sure that qualifies as abuse of the act. An organized group of people (Greenpeace) attempting to extort legal businesses (oil companies) into either changing or closing entirely through threats (see what is on some of their websites), intimidation (in-your-face confrontations directly in front of oil refineries), and violence (bombings and beatings tacitly accepted as part of the struggle),"

Or entertainment:

"I'm not sure that qualifies as abuse of the act. An organized group of people (slashdot) attempting to extort legal businesses (record companies) into either changing or closing entirely through threats (see what is on some of their websites), intimidation (in-your-face confrontations directly in front of court houses), and violence (bombings and beatings tacitly accepted as part of the struggle),"

Aside from the violence bit in the latter, I'd say this fails the test pretty miserably.

simply because their view isn't your view (First Amendment issue of everyone, including clinics have rights to free speech and association and freedom from religion)...

Companies, including clinics, don't have First Amendment rights (aside from a limited subset given to "artificial persons"). One cannot on the one hand declare that corporations are evil and aren't entitled to any of the protections provided to people, then on the other hand claim a company's rights exceed individuals' rights when you happen to disagree with the individuals protesting. "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" means what it says. Once you start picking and choosing who qualifies for those rights, you're no longer operating on priciple, you're operating on political opinion.

Re:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop, you're making me hot.

Re:Looking deeper

[jonbryce]

The founders of Skype previously set up Kazaa, and ran it until they sold it to Sharman Networks.

Streamcast started life as the largest alternative Napster network. When that was shut down by the courts, they launched a rebranded version of Kazaa.

Kazaa a bit later on released a non-compatible version of their software which had the effect of kicking them off the network. Apparently they hadn't paid their bills for the use of the software, but Streamcast deny this.

They then relaunched as a spyware infested version of Gnucleus, a Gnutella client, and subsequently as some other gnutella client which now supports other p2p networks as well.

They have always denied that the advertising features in their software are spyware, but most people disagree with that.

Re:I-K-RICO

[SierraPete]

It has been tried [catholicleague.org] as far back as 2002 with little to no success. The US Federal Courts set a very high standard when it comes to tagging an organization with RICO. Even the mob managed to get out from under a prosecution or two because it did not met the strict standard. Likely, neither will this but it gets the issue/complaint out into the media and the publicity/attention is what the plaintiffs are looking for.

Re:I-K-RICO

[tomcres]

Because administratively, these matters do not rise above the diocesan level. It comes down to either bad bishops or otherwise good bishops making bad decisions. There has been a lot of hysteria about this. The real facts are that there are only a handful of cases, it's not rampant as the media would have you believe. And secondly, almost all of the cases involved teenage boys, which seems to point not to pedophilia, but to homosexual attraction. Proactively preventing homosexuals from entering the seminaries will go a long way towards abating this. I personally know a priest who was defrocked and served jail time for a relationship he had with a 14-year old boy. In his case, he was involved in a relationship with the principal of his Catholic high school. He was going to be a priest, and he was told by this other priest that this is what priests do and that it was alright. When he went through seminary, there were many homosexuals, who kept things on the DL, so to speak, but it was known what was happening, and simply ignored. He understands that this was poor judgment to get involved with this boy, and he knew it was wrong, but he was conditioned to such an environment that encouraged these kinds of things.

The anti-Catholics want to have it both ways. They either label it pedophilia, when it clearly is not. These priests have been targeting teenagers, not little boys, and almost never girls. Or they do acknowledge that homosexuality is to blame, but they attribute it to celibacy and the Church's dogma against homosexual behavior and denounce the Church for not allowing priests to marry or live a homosexual lifestyle.

The enemies of the Church will spin this a million ways to try to attack it or make it conform to what they envision. The reality is, that far more children are at risk by their own families and teachers than by their parish priest. The hysteria concerning the supposed "pedophilia epidemic" is just an orchestrated attack on the Church and its steadfastness in holding to 2000+ years of Gospel teaching without flinching in the face of a sinful and disgusting world.