×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Righthaven Stops Showing Up In Court

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the waving-the-white-flag dept.

The Courts 122

Fluffeh writes "This story has gone from funny to sad. Following copyright-troll Righthaven's recent whipping by a judge, it now appears the company has just given up altogether. CEO Steve Gibson is working at another job (while being investigated by the Nevada Bar) and main lawyer Shawn Mangano apparently has completely stopped responding to all attempts to contact him, even by the court. All this has resulted in the key appeals in its cases to be dismissed 'for lack of prosecution.' Last Thursday it also had a key case closed, with prejudice, driving another nail in its already buried coffin."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

122 comments

What? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478037)

"This story has gone from funny to said."

Another quality slashdot article!

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478073)

Yep. First sentence. Who proofread this?

Who proofread it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478257)

The same person who added an extra "i" in the word "sad" (which was correct in Fluffeh's submission [slashdot.org]).

Somehow, in the process of moving the hyperlink, Soulskill got an extra "i" into the word "sad". Although I'll give him credit - he did fix the run-on sentence.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478077)

Even worst, it says "said" on the front page but "sad" on the page of the article itself.

Another quality Slashdot code!

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478197)

Even worst!!1

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39479283)

Even worst!!1????????????? Damn man. Try worse.

driving another nail in its already buried coffin? (3, Insightful)

V. P. Winterbuttocks (2246736) | about 2 years ago | (#39478039)

Now that's a bizarre twist to that metaphor...

Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (5, Funny)

KingSkippus (799657) | about 2 years ago | (#39478059)

The court actually dug the coffin up, drove another nail into it, and reburied it. Yes, it was a lot of work, but the point needed to be proven that badly.

Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478111)

Sounds more like they dug it up and fired it into the sun.

Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (5, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 2 years ago | (#39478211)

It's like in Moby Dick, the coffin was built for someone, then that someone didn't die, then it was nailed shut and used as a bouy, then it was dragged down to the depths without any human intervention, then ironically the person did die when the coffin would have saved them, but then without any human intervention it erupted back to the surface, saved someone else's life, and then... well, was probably discarded again, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, the coffin which already was buried was exhumed, had one additional useless nail driven in, and - well, it's something to do with hamburgers or cars I'm sure.

Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | about 2 years ago | (#39478443)

Leave the sun out of it. They're being investigated for enough crimes as it is.

Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#39478773)

Sounds more like they dug it up and fired it into the sun.

No, just drove another steak through it's heart and doused out with holy water again.

Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (2)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | about 2 years ago | (#39479407)

Sounds more like they dug it up and fired it into the sun.

No, just drove another steak through it's heart and doused out with holy water again.

Some garlic sauce added, I presume? Or maybe it was frozen in the shape of a stake.

Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (1)

mpbrede (820514) | about 2 years ago | (#39478625)

Personally I'd have preferred the metaphor of "Driving another stake through its already dead heart." Ghoulish vampires deserve extra punishment.

Otherwise known as The Ostrich Technique. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478049)

Stick your head in the ground, pretend it doesn't exist.

Re:Otherwise known as The Ostrich Technique. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478633)

Ostriches don't do that.

Ignore the Court? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478093)

I wish I could ignore court orders and get on with my life. Somehow I don't think that works for people.

Re:Ignore the Court? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39478491)

You could ignore orders from RIAA. "Pay us $5000 settlement cost, or else appear in court on this date ______." Ha. Yeah right. Trashed.

Re:Ignore the Court? (2)

OldGunner (2576825) | about 2 years ago | (#39478587)

Well, they have certainly been electronic bullies far longer than Righthaven was, so perhaps their eventual down fall will be even more spectacular. We can only hope! Come to think of it, they have been amazingly quiet since Righthaven got taken to the judicial woodshed.

SCO and Righthaven merger (4, Funny)

Danathar (267989) | about 2 years ago | (#39478095)

And in other news Darl McBride has announced that SCO will be merging with Righthaven to "Leverage synergistic energies to protect our customers"

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (5, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 2 years ago | (#39478219)

Dear lord, what if they synergize their core competencies?

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (4, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#39478389)

Then they'll be able to fail *twice* as epically!

Failure, of course, being their core competency.

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478529)

But if you fail at failing, aren't you actually successful?

or was it "Umbreall corp"? explains a lot actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478655)

EFG holdings LLC, a world leader in failure since 2002, joins Canopy group.

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (2)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39478409)

You can bet if they do, Robert Enderle will be there to cheer them on and say that this is the death knell for Linux.

--
BMO - Drunken keynote speeches for EVERYBODY!

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#39478435)

They'll use best practices and outside-the-box thinking to rightsize the cloud-based agile empowerment solutions with viral social messaging, of course. Do I have to think of everything around here?

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (3, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#39478461)

They'll use best practices and outside-the-box thinking to rightsize the cloud-based agile empowerment solutions with viral social messaging, of course

Hey, I got Bingo!! Awesome, thanks.

Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (1)

rvw14 (733613) | about 2 years ago | (#39478711)

Best practices dictate that you not take the low hanging fruit and become much more results driven.

Re:Do I have to think of everything (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 2 years ago | (#39478967)

"...main lawyer ... apparently has completely stopped responding to all attempts to contact him, even by the court" should be met by "Court offers a $5,000 contest to find him."

Compel them to show up? (5, Interesting)

Kylon99 (2430624) | about 2 years ago | (#39478173)

IANAL, but is there some way to compel them to show up? Not to force them to prosecute their claims, but rather to compel them to answer for their frivolous lawsuits, for example?

I mean, lodging a lawsuit against someone causes emotional harm and waste of time and money if they did it with malice. Can there be restitution with any of their cases for the injured party? Although I know it may be very hard to prove...

Re:Compel them to show up? (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about 2 years ago | (#39478233)

I'm not familiar with common law, but in continental law, you may be taken in by the police if you fail to answer your summons for a trial, or even taken in the night before, and held at the precinct overnight, then led forward handcuffed by an officer. The court has to order this specifically, and I've only seen this used in case of private persons, so I'm not sure it could apply in case of a corporation (after all, the legal persona applies to the whole corporation, who is there to summon by force in this case?)...

Re:Compel them to show up? (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#39481275)

When the plaintiff doesn't show up, one of three things can happen:
1. The defendant moves for dismissal and wins
2. The defendant can ask for a continuance* so that the plaintiff can show up
3. The Judge gets angry and orders a arrest warrant or fine for contempt upon the plaintiff.

When the defendant doesn't show up, see #3

*unless you were trying to get sued and set a precedent, this never happens

Re:Compel them to show up? (4, Informative)

JazzHarper (745403) | about 2 years ago | (#39478267)

IANAL, but is there some way to compel them to show up? Not to force them to prosecute their claims, but rather to compel them to answer for their frivolous lawsuits, for example?

Yes, the defendant can file a counterclaim. If they still don't show up, the defendant wins, automatically. Then, there's the little detail of collecting on the judgement, but take it one step at a time...

Re:Compel them to show up? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#39478487)

In most states, if somebody doesn't pay a judgement, then the plaintiff can do things like have the sherriff show up at their office and take anything of value up to the amount of the judgement. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the individuals have already collected very handsome salaries and let the company go into bankruptcy so the actual money is hidden behind the corporate veil.

Re:Compel them to show up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478623)

Besides getting a judgment, there is also the beauty of Rules 11 and 37 (FRCP 11(c), especially). They specifically allow sanctions against a party (subject to (c)(5)(A)), its officers, and its attorneys and the law firm that the attorney works for. So, they can get it out of the attorneys as well. Besides, at this point, the court may end up going around the corporate veil because it is now the officer's fault for not doing anything as well as the corporation's.

Re:Compel them to show up? (5, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#39478689)

In most states, if somebody doesn't pay a judgement, then the plaintiff can do things like have the sheriff show up at their office and take anything of value up to the amount of the judgement.

Like this priceless gem: A Florida Couple 'Forecloses' On Bank Of America [npr.org]

Over the past few years, we've heard plenty of horror stories about bungled foreclosures. The one of Warren and Maureen Nyerges, from the Naples, Fla. area, is just as bad. In 2009, they bought a home with cash, yet in 2010 Bank of America tried to foreclose on them. It took two months of phone calls and eventually court intervention to clear up the misunderstanding.

In December, a judge ordered the bank to pay the couple $2,500 in attorney fees. But months went by and the bank never cut a check. So, the Naples Daily News reports, Nyerges hired a lawyer, who pursued a levy, and this past Friday the showdown was on: The Nyergeses showed up to a local branch of Bank of America with the sheriff, the media and some movers with a truck:

"I'm either leaving the building with a whole bunch of furniture, or a check or cash or something," the attorney, Todd Allen, vowed.

... An hour later, the bank cut a check.

Re:Compel them to show up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39479813)

I won a claim in court several years ago. The defendant dodged collectors for a few months. I finally had his truck seized from in front of his business and sold at auction. I took my cut, the towing company got paid, and then a check was sent to him for the rest. Somehow I think the check for $900 for his 2009 F350 didn't make him very happy.

Re:Compel them to show up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39480897)

but that's the REAL problem here. Our court system doesn't really have a way to compel a case to completion. By "just not showing up" the legal fault is on the lawyers for not pressing their case... not on the MERITS of if the case would have been won or lost. In short, these guys can start another company, do it all again in a few years... and there is no Legal Precedent that says they CANNOT do this.

Is this the end? (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#39478207)

With all Righthaven did, I wonder if this will simply be the end to the lawsuits. If so, this would be a really bad thing. When all is said and done, if the courts just shut down the lawsuits now, the folks behind Righthaven will have been able to sue a bunch of people and then walk away without any penalties. Sure, Righthaven will be shuttered, but there are indications that they shuttled assets elsewhere first to avoid paying debts. If the courts allow this, what's to stop any company from forming a shell company (to protect the parent), conducting a series of lawsuits, and simply dissolving the shell if things go badly? The downside here seems low and the upside (if you are successful in forcing people to settle) seems high. There needs to be a full investigation here with appropriate charges filed/fines issued to make sure other companies get the message that this is unacceptable.

Re:Is this the end? (4, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39478367)

It's called piercing the corporate veil, and if that happens, the principals are directly responsible for any and all judgments against the company.

It has to be pretty serious fiduciary irresponsibility, though, at the criminal level.

--
BMO

Re:Is this the end? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478595)

piercing the corporate veil applies to shareholders who normally have limited liability. The actors within a corporation are never shielded from any illegal activity they do themselves on behalf of a corporation. I'm not sure why so many people get this confused.

Re:Is this the end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478431)

There needs to be a full investigation here with appropriate charges filed/fines issued to make sure other companies get the message that this is unacceptable.

While I fully agree, that would be up to the State judiciary and/or State Bar wouldn't it? And likely cost a pretty penny to see to fruition. Hard sell in a possible election year, going after a patent troll with likely no recovery of funds for the defendent, much less the state.

There's a reasons lawyers are 1st, or 2nd, against the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:Is this the end? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39478537)

According to wikiedia Righthaven owes one gentleman (a blogger) $34,000 in a court case where they lost. It would be a shame if he spent all that money defending himself, but then never sees any of it. Yet another reason I'm opposed to limited-liability corporations.

Re:Is this the end? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#39478811)

Well, I tend to go through a friend of mine for matters like this. His phrase when collecting is something akin to "34 grand or 34 teeth".

Works better than the average court order. No limitation of liability possible.

beating a dead horse is sometimes necessary (4, Informative)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about 2 years ago | (#39478221)

What seems like beating a dead horse is necessary in this case. You must continue to beat the horse even after the horse is long dead. It's like a course of antibiotics, it may seem like the infection is gone but if you stop too soon a resistant strain might come back.

Re:beating a dead horse is sometimes necessary (2)

Abreu (173023) | about 2 years ago | (#39478379)

Beat the dead horse, then stake it through the heart, sever the head, fill it with garlic, and bury it separately from the body, preferrably across a body of water...

Re:beating a dead horse is sometimes necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478421)

Shouldn't you leave the head on somebody's pillow?

Re:beating a dead horse is sometimes necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478387)

It's not beating a dead horse. It's making the rubble bounce, as a warning to others.

Re:beating a dead horse is sometimes necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478747)

Yes, but that doesn't make it come back to life!!!

Fuck up careers (3, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#39478235)

So these guys just fucked their careers for life, for what? A promise of some $$$ at the end of the line....

Re:Fuck up careers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478315)

I like England's "loser pays" law.

Re:Fuck up careers (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 2 years ago | (#39478619)

I like England's "loser pays" law.

I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.

Re:Fuck up careers (1)

dcollins (135727) | about 2 years ago | (#39478749)

Suggest: min(a,b)

Re:Fuck up careers (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 2 years ago | (#39478941)

Doubling the already substantial financial obstacle of hiring a lawyer for the average joe, and having an effect on the corporation indistinguishable from zero.

It's better than the naive implementation of 'loser pays', but this is damning with faint praise.

Re:Fuck up careers (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#39479107)

How about you pay twice your own lawyer's cost. Once to your lawyer, once to the winner's?

If you win against a corporation who put a million dollar dream team together your lawyer just made bank. If you lose then the corporation still doesn't realize the rewards necessary to afford the dream team. I feel like it wouldn't be worse than what we have now and would actually encourage more lawyers to act pro-bono for the poor, at least in cases where they may win.

Re:Fuck up careers (2)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#39479287)

Did you ever have rights against rich entities anyway?

Besides, with loser pays organizations like the EFF can turn donations into loans instead of gifts.

The EFF can throw gobs of money at the case, win it, and get their money back to reuse on the next case.

Re:Fuck up careers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39481415)

I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.

You don't pay their actual costs, you pay reasonable costs. What the judges determines to be reasonable costs for that kind of legal action. If the defendant paid for top dollar lawyers, or a team of lawyers, they'll have to pay the difference themselves.

Re:Fuck up careers (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#39478319)

People do it all the time.
They feel the need to stick it to the man, they believe in a get rich scheme or both. They go out full cock until until reality hits them like a train. They loose everything.
I have seen a case where a Guy who was running a business sold it to an other company just as long as he would stay the manager. So they kept him, during this time he got Pissed off because he had to deal with bosses who were telling him to do things he didn't want to do (BTW he sold his company because he couldn't make it profitable, and the buyer was giving directions on how to make it profitable). So he quit, and stole all the companies data, and tried to start his own business by taking away customers because there will be a 0 migration problems.
So he got sued. He ended up paying the cost that he sold his business and then some (legal costs) for and forced to close his business. So the new company got a unit for free. and he got nothing, and if anyone does a background check on him he will get limited career options.

Criminals can be strange that way (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 years ago | (#39478887)

They sometimes seem to be just attracted to crime, rather than turning to it as a last resort or because it makes so much money. A great example is a guy here locally who would break in to newspaper dispensers to steal the money. Well this was fairly hard work, they are built nice n' sturdy and this guy didn't have some tool to bust them open real fast. Also it required a good bit of walking around to get to them, there aren't all that many and they aren't densely packed. Of course the biggest thing is the haul was exceedingly small. These things are not massive profit machines, he'd be lucky to find $5 in one.

The police said he literally would have made more money with a job at McDonalds at minimum wage. It wasn't as though he'd found a good way to make money, though illegal, he was really being an idiot about it.

Or take a look at people in the drug trade. Quite dangerous not just because it is illegal but because it is violent. Your competitors may well kill you. Now there's some considerable money to be made... For a few people. Yes there are some very rich drug lords, but not that many really. Compare it to regular legit business and you see a lot of similarities, except the the top legit businessmen make even MORE money, and do not fear for their lives. In either case those going in to it at a low level with the idea they will strike it rich are probably deluding themselves but in legit business if you "fail" and are just a regular worker you can end up with a good career and a retirement rather than a shallow unmarked grave.

Re:Fuck up careers (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#39478831)

Fucked their careers? They managed to patent troll and bully a couple people, lose EVERY SINGLE effin case and get away with it.

I foresee a great future as MAFIAA lawyers.

Re:Fuck up careers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39480559)

Fucked their careers? They managed to patent troll and bully a couple people, lose EVERY SINGLE effin case and get away with it.

I foresee a great future as MAFIAA lawyers.

All that plus they probably managed to get paid with someone else's money in the process.

And so the two most responsible people walk away.. (4, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 2 years ago | (#39478249)

..with hardly any punishment for the thousands of dollars of losses they inflicted on their victims. Makes me sick.

Re:And so the two most responsible people walk awa (2)

jd (1658) | about 2 years ago | (#39478503)

That seems to happen a lot. *trynottomentionwallstreet* *trynottomentionwallstreet*

The worrying thing is that it basically legitimizes patent trolling in that those wanting to organize a patent troll company now have a template to work from where they know they have a good chance of sponging lots of money and then escaping cleanly. Sure, the ending needs a little work, but most of the template is now proven solid.

Re:legitimizes patent trolling (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 2 years ago | (#39479081)

Yeah, that's the real danger here. The people on the receiving end of the suits had their year wrecked. Then everyone whisks away, "Nah, I don't think I'll bother to respond to the court anymore".

Then next year another one will rise, with a slightly different spin.

Re:And so the two most responsible people walk awa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478533)

..with hardly any punishment for the thousands of dollars of losses they inflicted on their victims. Makes me sick.

Well, there is the matter of that pesky Nevada Bar investigation. Disbarment remains a possibility.

Re:And so the two most responsible people walk awa (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39478593)

Victim that lost $50,000 can work through the courts, and when the courts find Righthaven has zero cash and can't return the money, shoot former CEO in head. (It's Vegas. People disappear all the time.)

This is great! (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 years ago | (#39478649)

I am finally glad that this sue for profit scheme has completely unraveled. This should put some waves of fear into the likes of RIAA and MPAA to make certain they have absolutely valid claims before they try to strong arm people. I love it! This is so funny as to be better than Andrew Dice Clay!

Re:This is great! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#39478845)

Completely unraveled? Hell, it's a fucking template.

1. Found limited liability company.
2. Sue the crap out of people.
3. If you lose, fold and start over.
4. If you win, profit.

Re:This is great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39479085)

3. If you lose, fold and start over.

So that's the secret meaning of "?????"

Hold them in contempt (1)

AvderTheTerrible (1960234) | about 2 years ago | (#39478857)

If they've stopped showing up entirely, I say the court should issue warrants and hold them in contempt until they take the proceedings seriously. They made their bed, time to lay in it.

Re: Righthaven Stops Showing Up In Court (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39478993)

At some point, that dead skunk in the road isn't going to get any flatter no matter how many more trucks drive over it.

It'll still stink, though.

Well deserved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39479097)

The Righthaven guys are scum, other lawyers hate them. They deserve to have their careers trashed. Perverting the legal system is not a business plan. They need to be made an example of.

Not Steve Gibson of SHIELDS UP, right? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39479257)

In other words, NOT this guy -> https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 [grc.com] of "Shields Up" online security fame, correct?

* Just asking for clarification, photo's not the same guy I remember (and to cover "the" Steve Gibson (I say "THE" because he's well-known & this can 'trash' HIS good name)).

APK

P.S.=> I hope not! I state that mainly because despite the b.s. many others tried to spread about the guy over time? He's pretty damned good (his early work on disk checkers showed me that from the DOS days, as well as his frameworks for building Windows app in Straight Assembler alone, which is HARD ENOUGH doing it in C even (doing all window setup in API, doing your own scheduler loop etc./et al), overall, in computing &/or computer programming (but, not saying he's perfect, none of us are)... apk

Re:Not Steve Gibson of SHIELDS UP, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39480525)

That was my question as well.

Well, good question (my answer to you...) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39480569)

"Great minds think alike"...

* :)

APK

P.S.=> On that note? I have to take off, but... I just don't want to see a 'great one' being crapped on (anymore - he endured a LOT of that from "lesser minds" & I DO MEAN THAT, because I have yet to see a single one of his 'naysayers' out produce he on an individual level in terms of accomplishments + contributions to the art & science of computing... MOST ESPECIALLY IF not competitors he has & yes, that goes on too, especially from today's rather reprehensible world of 1/2 truths & rumor mills)

Yes, though he is not always 'perfect' or 'right' 110% (who is)? The man's good & has been since his SPINRITE days for DOS as a I noted, & he continued that trend with sites like "Shields Up"...

Thus, it'd be a shame to have others crap on he unknowingly by being unaware of the fact he is not the same guy as the one noted in this article is all))... apk

Re:Not Steve Gibson of SHIELDS UP, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39480957)

The Windows apps he's made have no reason to be in assembly. It's a waste of time and he is seen as a fool for bragging about it.

1 thing 2B a critic (quite another 2B a cook) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39481141)

Perhaps not, since inline asm directives exist in many compilers (e.g.-> C/C++ compiler + IDE variants, even Delphi, though it's changed in HOW you do in Delphi XE2)!

You have a point (somewhat, regarding time expenditure & skills needed though), since many compilers' code is so optimized (especially C++ ones offering levels of optimization that are not even matched by Delphi (not quite, but close)).

However - the frameworks he provided SAVE the time factor @ least (which is, after all, even what VCL/CLX/.NET & even MFC do, save you time, masking out entire API calls (which are, more paramstr laden by FAR & more complex)).

Still, the point is, he has the skills to do so!

(Again - I've done it in the 'olden days' in Win16 as I noted I had to with the tools I was using then, & had to do ALL my work via the API for the Window frame etc. itself AND design my own schedulers loops & more... was a nightmare compared to RAD tools today like Delphi &/or C++ Builder for example)).

* Ahhh.. in any event? See my subject-line above...

APK

P.S.=> People can try to "bust him up" all day long, but, how many of his 'critics' are not just 'armchair QB's"? Not too many & when I confronted a few over the years on THAT VERY NOTE?? They ran...

I.E.-> Nothing to show for themselves on that account (& certainly not more from DOS & Gibson SpinRite onwards into his Shields up Site + those ASSEMBLY frameworks for Windows apps even)...I just do NOT relate to folks like that! It's like seeing guys say "I could do better than Payton Manning as a QB!" Yea... ok, prove it I say!

It also astounds me others do NOT *think* that straight asm code, even Macro-ized stuff, still has performance gains possibles, even today & with the compilers I noted above, vs. macro assembly tools like MASM or even TASM could do, it does... apk

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...