I'm not even going to dignify that with my own response.

I'm not even going to dignify your response from disreputable, right-wing, pro-gun sources with any kind of a response.

Those of us in touch with reality, however, know the facts:

-- Nations with strict gun control laws have homicide rates that are a tiny fraction of America's.

-- Guns make homes less safe, not more safe. Granted, one can take issue with the oft-quoted 43x number, but the fact remains that while guns are supposed to make Americans more safe, the exact opposite turns out to be true. The only question is, how many times less safe?

Spamhaus are not located in the US. Why should they bother?

Two reasons: One, as I repeatedly pointed out, countries often do allow foreign judgments to be registered and enforced. Of course, it depends on the countries involved, but it's often easier than you think. Two, as it turns out, Spamhaus did have assets in the U.S., such as its domain name, that could be seized.

Suppose someone filed a lawsuit against you in, say, Lithuania, because they didn't like your blog or something similar. Would you care to hire a lawyer there, just to get the case dismissed? Really?

If I had assets in Lithuania, absolutely I would. If not, I'd want to know the state of the law on domesticating a Lithuanian judgment here in Canada. Domesticating a British judgment here, for example, is a trivial matter, as is domesticating a U.S. judgment. For these reasons, it is malpractice to advise someone to ignore papers they're served with.

I'll bet the geeks who run Spamhaus and made the decision to abandon their defense of the suit are some of the shithouse lawyers who post here on a regular basis.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many ostensibly intelligent people can be so effing bloody stupid when it comes to courts and the legal system. It's obvious that many /.ers learn most if not all of what they think they know about the court system from watching cop shows.

"While this is a massive reduction in the fine . . . "

It's not a fine at all, it's an award of damages. Fines are imposed in criminal matters, this is a civil matter.

Sad and scary precedent.

It isn't. It's precisely what happens when you don't defend yourself in a lawsuit: The plaintiff automatically wins. A defaulting defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of all of the plaintiff's allegations and the court is bound to follow that. Spamhaus' attorney committed malpractice by advising them not to defend themselves. After all, if the lawsuit is as "frivolous" as they claim it is, then getting it dismissed shouldn't be a problem, no?

In this case, however, there wasn't a reason. Spamhaus has no US operations and as such no US assets to touch.

Wrong again. Countries often recognise judgments from other foreign countries. e360 could rather easily register this judgment in the UK and pursue Spamhaus' assets there.

If somebody sues me in a foreign country that I never intend to visit, the odds of me spending any money or effort to fight the lawsuit are somewhere between zero and none.

Basically if a company gets sued in a country they don't do business in, they just don't have to care.

See above re: registering foreign judgments in other countries.

And this gem from gun nut Firethorn (177587):

Since most countries won't extradite or hold penalties for stuff that isn't illegal in their home country, they'll essentially have to get Spamhaus retried in Britain.

Extradition only applies in criminal matters. You fail. You're obviously a gundamentalist, the kind that puts the "gun" before "da mental."

rtb61 (674572) writes:

Many countries have loser pays law for civil suits, the US does not.

Those who file frivolous law suits should be made to pay the full costs

U.S. courts routinely impose sanctions on parties for advancing frivolous claims or defenses. Google "Civil Rule 11" and you'll see what I mean.

(every time they loose it is by definition a frivolous case).

Not true. A claim or defense can look like a slam dunk early on, but over time can become less so. At that point, that party is obliged to have a "come to Jesus" talk with their client and hope the other side will agree to a reasonable settlement.

In you are not in the US and your country does have loser pays laws, then you would be a bloody idiot to show up in the US to fight a civil case.

Repeat after me: Courts often allow foreign judgments to be registered and enforced.

by Rabid Anti Spammer (1834994) writes: Lindfart wanted the spamhaus.org domain - which was registered in the USA.

Well, here you go: Spamhaus had assets to protect in the U.S. and defaulted anyway. Wow. Their lawyer should be given a medal.

Second issue in point, and a second mistake to make if you don't consult a lawyer. There is this little treaty with the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and most of Europe, known as the 'cross border enforcement treaty'.

Wrong. There is no such treaty between all of those countries. You're referring to the Brussels Convention which applies between certain EU members only.

From a scientific standpoint, the beginning and the end of the argument is this: Acupuncture posits that (1) energies within the body travel (2) along certain routes and (3) can be redirected using needles with the effect of (4) curing or treating human disease. There is exactly zero evidence to support any of these, charitably, very farfetched claims.

Skeptics very accurately point out that the placebo effect is very powerful and is not fully understood. However, more than that explains why acupuncture doesn't go the way of bloodletting, trepination or any of a hundred other quackeries over the centuries. Confirmation bias is a big one. A patient has just paid big bucks to a TCM practitioner and desperately wants to believe that the treatment will work. Of course, if the treatment doesn't work, the patient is a fool and wasted his money. No one wants to be thought of as a fool even by himself, so the patient will believe the treatment worked and his/her imagination will fill in the gaps.

Another aspect to this is good old fashioned Western (particularly American) racism, ignorance and cultural imperialism. Since the "medicine" is coming from an almond-eyed gentleman with darker skin, a thick accent and with office decor written in strange foreign characters, it's "different" and "exotic," so by extension it has to be "cool" and thus must be effective.

Finally, there's a much simpler aspect. A sick person who feels like traditional medicine has failed him/her visits a TCM practitioner. Generally speaking, said TCM practitioner is a kindly gent with a grandfatherly demeanour who looks and sounds like Mr. Miyagi (see above re: "exotic"). Said gent listens to the patient unhurriedly and may genuinely want to help and may genuinely believes that what he has to offer will help. Anyone would feel somewhat better in that situation and that temporary relief is enough to make people want to come back for more and to shell out more of their money.

The trouble with this, of course, is that people will continually seek the temporary succor provided by the quacks while delaying or avoiding those who can actually treat the underlying problem. This can cause the underlying problem, particularly something like cancer, to move from the treatable stages to the untreatable.

to tell us that if we just repeal all of those pesky workers' rights laws that corporations will, out of the goodness of their hearts, afford their workers such unaffordable luxuries as unpaid days off, an eight-hour day, overtime pay, a (gasp!) minimum wage, etc.

reaches down, realizes he has a pair and actually does his job as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

And in a related story, let's see if Hell freezes over.

to say that we shouldn't have "intrusive" net neutrality regs and should "let the market decide" instead.

How's it working out for you guys? What are you going to do when the "free" market, dominated by a few huge players, decides to throttle or block traffic outside of their network? Switch to one of the other huge players that does the same damn thing? This is doubly true given that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people and that said huge players don't have to open up their networks.

So, I put the question to you: Where's this "free" and "open" "competitive" market you guys keep droning on about?

No nation on this planet can go up against the current US armed forces 1v1.

Vietstan and Vietraq come to mind. America hasn't been able to force a decision in either of those places and if Sen. McCain is to be believed, won't be able to for the next 100 years.

Protection Against Threats Real, Imagined or Theoretical.

CowboyNeal's ass in Soviet Russia, you insensitive clod!

And....if you lose, you're responsible for all of their costs - including reasonable travel and expenses for their lawyer.

In America, not true at all. In other common law jurisdictions, not necessarily true in small claims court.

This decision was released on January 29th. I'm sorry, but after almost three months, it ceases to be "stuff that matters."

Although in this case, the project manager of Bob was Melinda French--now known as Mrs. Bill Gates.

In other words, she stayed in on her back. Normally that dismal a failure causes a project manager to be shown the door, but because of who she was sleeping it, she could do no wrong.

Looks like vigourous enforcement of antitrust laws that have real teeth in them has finally brought the mighty Microsoft to its knees.

By contrast, America adopted the losertarian "let-the-market-decide" theology.

Hmm . . . guess which one works to, you know, actually promote things like competition and a truly free and open market?