Beta
×

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!

2600 Magazine Defeats Ford

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the parry-and-riposte dept.

Censorship 221

narftrek cut-and-pastes the text from 2600's announcement that Ford has conceded the case they brought against 2600 over a certain domain. Our earlier story has some background. A Volvo repair shop near me is named "Island Vo Vo"; the L is silent, you see, because Ford really sucks.

cancel ×

221 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Island Vo Vo? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786040)

I love VULVA, more like!

Fist Sport!

Re:Island Vo Vo? (-1)

News For Turds (580751) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786052)

I hereby claim this first p0st for the CLIT.

u r teh sux

Well claimed (-1)

Big Dogs Cock (539391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786086)

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this post of spork;
And all the mods that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious posts;
Our keyboards hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;

proof - open source promotes gayness (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786053)

And now for a real stunner: One of the best indicators of regional innovation, high-tech industry and growth, is a meas ure I call the "gay index." In 1998, I met Gary Gates, the co-inventor of the gay index, who was then a doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon. While I had been trying to understand what was behind the Lycos move and the broader location choices of high-tech industries and talented people, Gates had been exploring the location patterns of gay people. My list of the country's high-tech hot spots looked an awful lot like his list of the places with the highest concentrations of gays. When we compared the two lists with more statistical rigor, his gay index turned out to correlate strongly to my own meas ures of high-tech growth.

Re:proof - open source promotes gayness (-1)

News For Turds (580751) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786359)

I Agree With This Post

Post Article? (1)

MikeOttawa (551441) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786054)

Can someone post the article for me? My firewall blocks the 2600 domain (go figure, eh?)

Re:Post Article? (5, Informative)

Mr Guy (547690) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786060)

font SIZE="3" COLOR="#CCCCCC" FACE="helvetica"> FORD DROPS APPEAL - 2600 VICTORY AFFIRMED
Posted 28 Jun 2002 05:40:29 UTC

Ford Motor Company has officially and unconditionally conceded its complete, utter, and perpetual loss on the merits of the FORD v. 2600 "FuckGeneralMotors.com" case. Ford has dismissed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, meaning that Ford has completely given up all attempts to reverse the victory that 2600 Enterprises won on December 20, 2001. The mutually agreed dismissal papers were officially entered by the Sixth Circuit on June 27, 2002.

In the words of another FORD from Michigan -- former President Gerald Ford, "Our long national nightmare is over."

2600, which has given up nothing other than an extremely improbable claim for getting its attorneys' fees back from FORD, has expressly reserved the right to point "FuckGeneralMotors.com" [fuckgeneralmotors.com] anyplace whatsoever that 2600 pleases -- including at the FORD homepage -- at any time whatsoever, with or without notice.

Of course, the plan in March, 2001, when the lawsuit arose, was to point the address someplace more suitable than the FORD homepage, probably as soon as mid-April or early May, 2001. In other words, the lawsuit has actually delayed 2600's prior plans (several other domain names that were part of the same project have been re-pointed several times, while FuckGeneralMotors.com has remained pointed at FORD). Now that the lawsuit has been won, 2600 will be soliciting suggestions during the H2K2 [h2k2.net] conference, for the best place to point the Domain Name. Ultimately, this just proves how silly and counterproductive FORD's litigation strategy always has been from the beginning.

In December, 2001, Judge Robert Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan, dismissed FORD's lawsuit in its entirety for "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" -- which means that even assuming every single allegation in FORD's pleadings to be true (but the allegations weren't all true), FORD still had no legal right whatsoever to prohibit 2600 from pointing FuckGeneralMotors.com at FORD's homepage.

Needless to say, FORD did not like that outcome. Neither did a lot of other intellectual property interests all over the world. Indeed, a google search will reveal a number of PowerPoint(tm) presentations published on the Web (e.g., http://austlii.edu.au/ hkitlaw/resources/Pun_IP.pdf [austlii.edu.au] ) by various intellectual property lawyers, emphasizing that the decision is being appealed. Well, now it isn't.

The decision stands. It is published at 177 F. Supp. 2d 661. And it is binding precedent. The decision has even been cited by the Sixth Circuit already, in an interim order that was issued in the "TaubmanSucks" case handled by Paul Levy of Public Citizen. http://www.citizen.org/documents/TaubDecision-3-11 -02.pdf . [citizen.org]

When FORD filed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in January, 2002, FORD sought to have the case reinstated so that FORD could take it to trial. 2600 filed a cross-appeal, solely on the issue of whether FORD should be required to reimburse 2600 for its legal bills (such fee awards, in cases under the Lanham Trademark Act, are not especially common and occur only in "exceptional" cases -- so the Sixth Circuit was likely to defer to Judge Cleland's decision to award 2600 its "costs" but not its attorneys' fees). 2600 still gets to take its "costs" back from FORD, and our lawyer is preparing to serve a deposition notice on Bill Ford, to gather the information necessary to garnish FORD's bank accounts, unless FORD cuts us a reimbursement check forthwith.

But the key point is that 2600's victory is permanent and FORD has voluntarily foregone any appeals. The savings, in terms of attorneys' fees, from our standpoint, are enormous.

Re:Post Article? (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786069)

This article? And now for a real stunner: One of the best indicators of regional innovation, high-tech industry and growth, is a meas ure I call the "gay index." In 1998, I met Gary Gates, the co-inventor of the gay index, who was then a doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon. While I had been trying to understand what was behind the Lycos move and the broader location choices of high-tech industries and talented people, Gates had been exploring the location patterns of gay people.

My list of the country's high-tech hot spots looked an awful lot like his list of the places with the highest concentrations of gays. When we compared the two lists with more statistical rigor, his gay index turned out to correlate strongly to my own meas ures of high-tech growth. Conclusion - more computer geeks = more fudge packed!

Re:Post Article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786103)

My firewall blocks the 2600 domain (go figure, eh?)

Go figure what, I figure its got some of the best administered boxes in that domain, afraid to catch nimbda from them? Also I have a feeling that if the 2600 boys and girls (yeah right ...girls? :-( ) feel like cracking that they would set up a interesting target themselfs rather then going around the net for vulnarable boxes, and even if they actaully would sink that deep, then they would use compromised systems around the net to hide the origin of the attack.

Also blocking domains? how many reverse lookup does your firewall need to do before letting packets trouch?

Re:Post Article? (1)

antadam (531507) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786622)

for future reference...
2600.com also links to
2600.org, .net, .ca, and a bunch of other country codes to get around things like this (or try typing in the decimal value of the ip)

Sounds familiar (2, Insightful)

rob-fu (564277) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786064)

They registered this name [fucknbc.com] too a couple of years ago.

There isn't anything there now, but I do remember something being up there at one point.

editorializing (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786068)

""the L is silent because Ford really sucks"

You know, it's moments like this that make me realize that the vapid, heartless, childish, snide front-page editorializing on slashdot is the only reason i still read this damn site.

keep up the good work, cheers

Here's the article (0, Redundant)

mwhahaha (172475) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786073)

FORD DROPS APPEAL - 2600 VICTORY AFFIRMED
Posted 28 Jun 2002 05:40:29 UTC

Ford Motor Company has officially and unconditionally conceded its complete, utter, and perpetual loss on the merits of the FORD v. 2600 "FuckGeneralMotors.com" case. Ford has dismissed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, meaning that Ford has completely given up all attempts to reverse the victory that 2600 Enterprises won on December 20, 2001. The mutually agreed dismissal papers were officially entered by the Sixth Circuit on June 27, 2002.

In the words of another FORD from Michigan -- former President Gerald Ford, "Our long national nightmare is over."

2600, which has given up nothing other than an extremely improbable claim for getting its attorneys' fees back from FORD, has expressly reserved the right to point "FuckGeneralMotors.com" anyplace whatsoever that 2600 pleases -- including at the FORD homepage -- at any time whatsoever, with or without notice.

Of course, the plan in March, 2001, when the lawsuit arose, was to point the address someplace more suitable than the FORD homepage, probably as soon as mid-April or early May, 2001. In other words, the lawsuit has actually delayed 2600's prior plans (several other domain names that were part of the same project have been re-pointed several times, while FuckGeneralMotors.com has remained pointed at FORD). Now that the lawsuit has been won, 2600 will be soliciting suggestions during the H2K2 conference, for the best place to point the Domain Name. Ultimately, this just proves how silly and counterproductive FORD's litigation strategy always has been from the beginning.

In December, 2001, Judge Robert Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan, dismissed FORD's lawsuit in its entirety for "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" -- which means that even assuming every single allegation in FORD's pleadings to be true (but the allegations weren't all true), FORD still had no legal right whatsoever to prohibit 2600 from pointing FuckGeneralMotors.com at FORD's homepage.

Needless to say, FORD did not like that outcome. Neither did a lot of other intellectual property interests all over the world. Indeed, a google search will reveal a number of PowerPoint(tm) presentations published on the Web (e.g., http://austlii.edu.au/ hkitlaw/resources/Pun_IP.pdf) by various intellectual property lawyers, emphasizing that the decision is being appealed. Well, now it isn't.

The decision stands. It is published at 177 F. Supp. 2d 661. And it is binding precedent. The decision has even been cited by the Sixth Circuit already, in an interim order that was issued in the "TaubmanSucks" case handled by Paul Levy of Public Citizen. http://www.citizen.org/documents/TaubDecision-3-11 -02.pdf .

When FORD filed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in January, 2002, FORD sought to have the case reinstated so that FORD could take it to trial. 2600 filed a cross-appeal, solely on the issue of whether FORD should be required to reimburse 2600 for its legal bills (such fee awards, in cases under the Lanham Trademark Act, are not especially common and occur only in "exceptional" cases -- so the Sixth Circuit was likely to defer to Judge Cleland's decision to award 2600 its "costs" but not its attorneys' fees). 2600 still gets to take its "costs" back from FORD, and our lawyer is preparing to serve a deposition notice on Bill Ford, to gather the information necessary to garnish FORD's bank accounts, unless FORD cuts us a reimbursement check forthwith.

But the key point is that 2600's victory is permanent and FORD has voluntarily foregone any appeals. The savings, in terms of attorneys' fees, from our standpoint, are enormous.

Here's Why (5, Informative)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786076)

Ford sucks. No, really, we mean it. Long and hard. And Ford swallows. Spit. Skeptical? Don't just take our word for it. Just ask the guy who registered fordsucks.com. Or the guy who registered classicvolvo.com and wound up facing a legal battle. (Yes, Volvo is owned by Ford, as is Mazda, Lincoln, Mercury, Jaguar and Aston-Martin.) Or you can ask Wally Rawson, a third-generation seller of replacement parts for Ford cars and trucks. Wally registered 4fordparts.com and 4fordtrucks.com as part of his parts business. Ford sued him. At the same time, Ford sued Hans Rekestad (the guy in Sweden running ClassicVolvo.com). The fordsucks guy was also named in the same lawsuit.

--SNIP--

Ford didn't just sue. Ford asked for $100,000 in damages. Not for all these cases put together - $100,000 per address! And Ford won't just let any of these people give up the names and walk away. Ford won't reimburse them for their registration and renewal costs.

Wally Rawson (the parts guy) didn't want to be bothered with the lawsuit, so he just gave Ford both names. Ford is still suing him. Ford tells him he can't crawl out of the soup until he pays Ford $6000.00 ($3000 per name). The fordsucks guy, evidently, decided it would be cheaper to pay the blackmail than to fight it out in court.

Read More [fordreallysucks.com]


I thought that page was worth a read.

Re:Here's Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786159)

Uh... Mazada isn't owned by Ford. They have joint ownership in one plant in Michigan but Mazda is a Japanese company.

Re:Here's Why (2, Informative)

lucifuge31337 (529072) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786218)

Ford also has close to 50% ownership of Mazda as a company.

Re:Here's Why (1, Offtopic)

Latent IT (121513) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786291)

Sig Reply: Wow. That's from a C64, right?

Load "$",8,1
LOADING
READY.
list

Re:Here's Why (0, Offtopic)

MrFredBloggs (529276) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786371)

Or commodore pet. Things didnt change fast in Commdores world. Brought out a 500 in 1997. Updated the processor in the 1200 in about 1992. Went bust shortly after. Cant think why!

Even better quote (1)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786312)

Based on this implausible hypothesis, Ford argues that the pointer to the IP address violates the "Federal Trademark Dilution Act" by "tarnishing" the pristine image of the brand associated in the media of late with so many SUV rollover accidents

Hell, Ford should be happy with the link! (2, Insightful)

Ass-Gas-Istan (523702) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786082)

Basically, 2600 is telling users to say "Shove it!" to GM and buy a Ford. It's almost a form of (negative) advertising.

The one who should be angry is General Motors. They're the ones being told to screw off.

Re:Hell, Ford should be happy with the link! (2)

Peyna (14792) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786097)

Why is 2600 saying "Shove it!" to GM, though? I can't figure that part out.

Re:Hell, Ford should be happy with the link! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786106)

In order to fuck with Ford and GM at the same time. Both companies have a reason to sue and 2600 gets the attention.

Re:Hell, Ford should be happy with the link! (4, Informative)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786161)

> Why is 2600 saying "Shove it!" to GM, though? I
> can't figure that part out.

They registered the domain name with the intention of making a site to bitch about GM.

They didn't have any content yet, so they pointed it to Ford until they got more organized.

Once Ford started legal proceedings, they almost had to keep that address pointing at Ford, anything else would have been seen as backing down.

Re:Hell, Ford should be happy with the link! (2)

Peyna (14792) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786192)

But what were they going to bitch about? Anything in particular? I guess that's what I am curious about. Is it anything significant, or is it just another excuse to bitch?

I would say you could bitch a lot more about Ford, past and present than GM. I shouldn't even have to list those reasons for you (pinto, firestone, etc.) GM is a natural target though, I suppose. When you've produced nearly 1/3rd of the cars on the road in the US you can expect a lot of people to not like you =]

Re:Hell, Ford should be happy with the link! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786234)

When you've produced nearly 1/3rd of the cars on the road in the US you can expect a lot of people to not like you

That pretty well sums it up. You see, GM employs thousands of talented, intelligent, productive successful people. That upsets many people.

Re:Hell, Ford should be happy with the link! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786259)

GM also employs many unskilled and skilled labourers.

Already included (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786305)

They fall under, at the very least, the productive category.

Of course, a company of that size will also employ slasckers.

Re:Hell, Ford should be happy with the link! (3, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786509)

Basically, 2600 is telling users to say "Shove it!" to GM and buy a Ford. It's almost a form of (negative) advertising.

The wonderful thing about 2600 cases is that the worst that can happen is they throw Goldstein et. al. in the slammer which given that they appear to have the personality of the Grouch in Sesame street (being anoyed makes me happy) I suspect they would really, really enjoy...

I don't much care if 2600 can't point 'fuckxyz' at Ford. But I do care about the various deep linking cases.

The sheer eggregiousness of the 2600 case made it a pretty good test case. If 2600 lost the risk of collateral damage to serious deep linking would be minimal. If they win, well if you can point fuck at someone then you can probably point most anything.

The downside being that it was a pretty risky case that could easilly have backfired. 2600 made a really good target for the MPAA in the DeCSS case. My concern about this case was that they might easily have got a Reagan appointee conservative judge who might well have made an idiotic rulling because he disliked the 2600 people trying to turn a court case into performance art.

I had been asked to give expert testimony in the case but could not because Ford's legal people had added my employer in as a defendant in yet another case.

I suspect that the basic problem is that either the Ford lawyers are fundamentally incompetent or an incompetent manager insisted on a lawsuit. Starting a law suit in an untested area of law is a pretty stupid first recourse if your interest is to solve a problem. It is possible that Ford really wanted to have this area of law settled, but I doubt it.

It is the cases like this one that led to the charges for domain names in the first place. Until people started to file lawsuits registration was free.

Only TERRORISTS will mod this down!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786088)

The Star Spangled Banner
(The Defense of Fort McHenry)

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Re:Only TERRORISTS will mod this down!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786104)

yea, and only idiots would post that

Re:Only TERRORISTS will mod this down!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786122)

Only an unpatriotic TERRORIST would post a reply like that. Your comments URL has been sent to the Office of Homeland Security. I don't expect to see you posting around here anytime soon.

Outdated facts.... (4, Interesting)

Dios (83038) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786090)

Its interesting that the links info is a bit outdated.
(http://www.fordreallysucks.com/more_in fo.html)

The page hasn't been updated in some time. Nasser is no longer president/ceo of ford. In fact, a Ford family member (William Clay Ford) is now running things again (which hasn't happened in a while).

Check out http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/30/ceos/ford/ for info.

Re:Outdated facts.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786109)

A friend of my dad who works with him at GM's last name is Ford. Just a fun little anecdote with not much relevance at all =]

Re:Outdated facts.... (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786128)

Its interesting that the links info is a bit outdated.

If you read the 2600 account you'd know that the page hasn't been updated while the action was pending. They now intend to point it somewhere else.

Freedom of speech? (3, Interesting)

kafka93 (243640) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786093)

I'm afraid I'm going to post without having too great an understanding of the entire situation - nothing new to /., of course, but still.. at any rate, the site in question isn't too immediately informative as to what all of this is about, but as far as I can tell, Ford took 2600 to court for pointing www.fuckgeneralmotors.com to Ford's website.

Now, whilst I'm all for freedom of speech, isn't it perhaps understandable that Ford should have been upset, or concerned, by this? Whilst the link was presumably set up as a kind of compliment to Ford (at GM's expense), it's easy to see that Ford would be upset by such a move - the page might well, to the non-tech-savvy, look as though it had been set up *by* Ford themselves; hardly a professional image to betray.

In cases like this where it's not immediately clear *who* is doing the "speaking", isn't the concept of "freedom of speech" clouded? Wouldn't this stray into libel territory, where words are being essentially "put into the mouth" of Ford? Certainly, anyone with the technical knowhow could determine who the page *was* owned by - but many people don't have that technical knowledge, and will go with their gut reactions.

Of course, legal action is a typically heavy-handed response. Nonetheless, if I'm reading the situation correctly then I can feel a certain empathy for Ford's initial reaction..

Try reading the article (4, Informative)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786158)

Ford never made any attempt to contact us before filing this lawsuit in federal court. A simple request to not point the domain at them would most likely have wound up with our doing just that, since the project really had nothing to do with Ford in the first place. But they never even tried to resolve this. In addition, Ford has the ability to block our pointer from reaching their homepage, which would accomplish everything they wanted. Again, they made no attempt to do this.

Re:Freedom of speech? (2, Funny)

heimotikka (588619) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786170)

I agree - it isn't good publicity to use domain names like fuck[competitor] to point your site (who ever does it) - most of people really get the idea that the domain name owner and site content is from same source. To emphasize my business I would never say anything so negative about competitors.

This seems like ethical question I've never seen discussed before. I understand both sides - would have been professional from Ford to ask 2600-guys pointing fuckGM to Ford's site - but also vice versa... would have been very nice from 2600 to ask Ford what they would like if fuckGM pointed to their site. And afterwards it isn't hard to say what would have happened...

2600: Can we point fuckGM to your site?
Ford: That's not good business for us, please don't.
2600: We'll do it anyway.
Ford: See you in court.

Eh?

Re:Freedom of speech? (2, Informative)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786623)

One of the major points of this is that 2600 was under no obligation to ask Ford. Freedom of speech allows them to point it to them if they so desire.

And Ford didn't need to ask 2600 to stop pointing it at them. As others have pointed out, Ford could have stopped people from seeing their site after typing in that domain with extraordinarily little effort.

So it is obvious that Ford was NOT trying to protect it's business. It was NOT trying to protect it's image. It WAS trying to create a whole new set of corporate rights by asserting that nobody could point/redirect to their site without their express consent. Fortunately (in a rare occurence lately) a court was sensible and recognized how very wrong Ford was and dismissed the suit. My shock is that Ford gave up. They're wrong, but that ususally doesn't stop corporate America.

Re:Freedom of speech? (2)

Peyna (14792) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786171)

I see more of a problem if you point a domain to an IP address of someone that doesn't wish you to. Take all the "fuck GM" and "ford sucks" stuff out of the picture and look at it that way. Should you be able to register a domain and point it to an IP Address you do not own with permission? I can't exactly forward all my mail at home to Bill Gate's desk without causing some trouble. (Although, that would be 'forwarding' which would be different from giving out my address as his).

I see a potential problem there. Pointing a domain to an IP address that you don't own. This brings up the issue of the legality of linking, etc. as well I suppose. Is there any difference when it's at this level?

As far as libel, I don't see it. They aren't saying "Ford rapes little boys", they're saying "GM sucks".

Re:Freedom of speech? (3, Informative)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786245)

Well, you're not forwarding mail, you're forwarding visitors to your house to Bill Gates' house. And Bill Gates can simply lock his gate.

Same with a domain pointer. A simple programmatic check on the front page of Ford's site (about 3 lines of code) would turn away 99.99% of all the people coming through that domain. Ford chose not to deny those visitors, which would have accomplished everything they wanted .. they chose to sue the person telling everyone to g there.

There's no problem, because the target can always diffuse the pointer. Ford was simply trying to use bully tactics to dissuade people from doing similar things even if its totally preventable by the alleged 'victim' of this terrible terrible crime - uncool, and like any company hypocritically attempting to keep their image cleaner than a bus full of Kumbaya-singin nuns, they deserved to lose.

Re:Freedom of speech? (2)

catfood (40112) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786372)

Well, you're not forwarding mail, you're forwarding visitors to your house to Bill Gates' house.

You're not even going that far. You're just saying, if anyone ever asks about "suckyville" or "hobohouse," what you're referring to is such-and-such address. Nobody's forwarding visitors. The visitors might choose to forward themselves, maybe.

Suing someone for doing that is like suing someone for referring to your street address in less-than-glowing terms.

Re:Freedom of speech? (3, Informative)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786507)

A simple programmatic check on the front page of Ford's site (about 3 lines of code) would turn away 99.99% of all the people coming through that domain.

A simple check of the host parameter (required for Http 1.1) would do the same thing for all of Ford's pages. No coding required, as this is handled by the server.

Re:Freedom of speech? (1)

lfourrier (209630) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786447)

if you point a domain to an IP address of someone that doesn't wish you to
False:
by setting up a domain name, you say that some string of char is to be understood as some number.
It happens that browser and user expect it to have some meaning, but you are only paying for the right to say: this string is to be translated as this 32bit number.

erm... (2, Interesting)

oPless (63249) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786175)

I think one of the major points here is that Ford didn't even have to decency of saying "Hey guys, thats funny, now can you point it elsewhere"

They sued, and lost. Good.

Usually you would think it is just plain old good manners to say "look, stop that, I don't like it" ... oddly enough 2600 are adults, and I'm sure they would have pointed the domain elsewhere.

Also if they had a competent sysadmin, they could have just blocked that url by tweaking IIS. Maybe their MSCEs couldn't work it out perhaps...

Anyhow this smacks of plain ignorance (on Fords part) rather than anything else.

Re:Freedom of speech? (2)

Fiver-rah (564801) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786182)

Among other things, Ford could choose to block the link from 2600 so that it didn't get forwarded. They're not powerless in this matter. But Ford's filing says: "The public recognizes, and often relies on the expectation, that links to a company's official web site address are sponsored by, affiliated with, or somehow approved by that company." Which is bogus.

Sure, Ford may be upset or concerned about this. And I suppose I can understand why they're unhappy, but they can't claim that people don't have the right to link to their site, period.

Re:Freedom of speech? (1)

z_gringo (452163) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786275)

hardly a professional image to betray

hahahaha.. That was a good one...

Re: levels of understanding (2)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786456)

IMHO, it's very much a non-issue if redirection to another web page upsets the author of the original page. As a web user, it's your duty to learn the basics of its structure.

One of the primary concepts of the WWW is hyperlinking. By its very nature, it can be done by any site, to any site. An extension of this concept is web page re-direction. To blindly make an assumption that an unprofessional sounding domain name linked to a company's competitor was initally created by the first company is foolish.

Could this mistake still happen? Oh, absolutely! Should a company like Ford waste any time worrying about it? Nope! Once the user gets redirected to Ford's own web site - the site should speak for itself. If Ford's own site doesn't vouch for their professional nature and interest a reader in purchasing/leasing one of their vehicles - then the problem is entirely on Ford.

Wrong Domain? (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786096)

I'm not sure if anyone notice the link to "a certain domain" but why would Ford take issue with a disparaging site about one of its competitors (General Motors)?

Editors, you might want to check that link.

Re:Wrong Domain? (1)

Joel Ironstone (161342) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786099)

When you click the learn about link, you are redirected to fordreallysucks.com

www.fordreallysucks.com link within (1, Redundant)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786108)

Click the link. May not be the best "jump point", but the page contains a link to www.fordreallysucks.com.

May be run by the same person.

-Pete

Re:www.fordreallysucks.com link within (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786154)

This is Slashdot; I don't click on questionable links, even if they're on the main page. I can think of one very good reason why I don't blindly click links ;)

Re:Wrong Domain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786143)

the page contains two links - one to fordsucks, another to ford.com itself.

Re:Wrong Domain? (5, Informative)

pagsz (450343) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786317)

No, the link is right. FuckGeneralMotors.com [fuckgeneralmotors.com] is indeed the site in question.

However, the site does not disparage General Motors (aside from the domain name, of course). What it does do, however, is redirect you to the Ford website. That's what Ford is upset about. To the average idiot, it may seem that the site was set up by Ford.

Restating the obvious since 1992,

Spread that ass, XXXmas Cheer by pwpbot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786111)

What would Christmas be without Goatse Christmas tunesHave yourself a goatse little ChristmasEnlarge your ass all nightFrom now on your dildo will be out of sightNo Okay how about the 12 Days of GoatseOn the first day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to mea direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the second day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to metwo Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the third day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to methree Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the fourth day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to mefour Toms Hardware redirects tomshardwarecom three Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the fifth day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to mefive AOL redirects aolcom four Toms Hardware redirects tomshardwarecom three Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the sixth day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to mesix Amazoncom redirects amazoncom five AOL redirects aolcom four Toms Hardware redirects tomshardwarecom three Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the seventh day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to meseven Sony redirects sonymusiccom six Amazoncom redirects amazoncom five AOL redirects aolcom four Toms Hardware redirects tomshardwarecom three Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the eighth day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to meeight Intel redirects intelcom seven Sony redirects sonymusiccom six Amazoncom redirects amazoncom five AOL redirects aolcom four Toms Hardware redirects tomshardwarecom three Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the nineth day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to menine Time Magazine redirects timecom eight Intel redirects intelcom seven Sony redirects sonymusiccom six Amazoncom redirects amazoncom five AOL redirects aolcom four Toms Hardware redirects tomshardwarecom three Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the tenth day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to meten Yahoo redirects yahoocom nine Time Magazine redirects timecom eight Intel redirects intelcom seven Sony redirects sonymusiccom six Amazoncom redirects amazoncom five AOL redirects aolcom four Toms Hardware redirects tomshardwarecom three Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the eleventh day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to meeleven ZDNet redirects zdnetcom ten Yahoo redirects yahoocom nine Time Magazine redirects timecom eight Intel redirects intelcom seven Sony redirects sonymusiccom six Amazoncom redirects amazoncom five AOL redirects aolcom four Toms Hardware redirects tomshardwarecom three Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx On the twelveth day of GoatseMy Slashdot gave to metwelve Warner Brothers redirects warnerbroscom eleven ZDNet redirects zdnetcom ten Yahoo redirects yahoocom nine Time Magazine redirects timecom eight Intel redirects intelcom seven Sony redirects sonymusiccom six Amazoncom redirects amazoncom five AOL redirects aolcom four Toms Hardware redirects tomshardwarecom three Microsoft redirects microsoftcom two Gocom redirects gocom and a direct link to Goatse goatsecx

-pwpbot

If Jay & Silent Bob Were Part of 2600... (2, Funny)

dbretton (242493) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786117)

we would see the following domain name registered:

http://www.fuckfordfuckthemuptheirstupidasses.co m

(which is free, btw)

-D

Re:If Jay & Silent Bob Were Part of 2600... (1)

rgoer (521471) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786659)

Silent Bob may well be technically inclined for such a venture, but Jay? I remember this quote distinctly: "What the fuck is the internet?"

You mean... (2, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786118)

This isn't the "Jilted lovers of Gerarld, Lita, and Mary Ford" support group?

Freedom to Speak.. (3, Insightful)

lionchild (581331) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786126)

I'm surprised any of these suits would have ever gotten anywhere. These seem to clearly be an issue of one person expressing their -opinion- about various things. Either GM, (the company or the product) and Ford, (etiher the company or the product.) Get upset all you want, it's their constituational right to have an opinion and express it.

Or has that been changed recently too?

Re:Freedom to Speak.. (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786151)

Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Parity Error.]

Now that's funny!

'E's not dead. 'E's pinin' away for the fijords.

Sig (1)

Rupert (28001) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786523)

Parrotty error would be "Pieces of seven! Pieces of seven!"

Re:Freedom to Speak.. (2)

zoward (188110) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786597)

I'm surprised any of these suits would have ever gotten anywhere.

The point was not go "get the suit anywahere"; I strongly suspect that Ford knew it would lose once this made it to court. The point was the scare 2600 into dropping the site. Like many other large companies, Ford uses this tactic in lieu of any actual legal right to shut down registrants of domains with "ford" in their names. fordreallysucks.com [fordreallysucks.com] is full of anectodes of this.

Fortunately, 2600 doesn't scare easily. And the precedent set will help protect other domain name registrants who are being bullied by Corporate America.

Sad news - John Entwistle, bassist, dead at 57 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786131)

I just heard the sad news on talk radio. The Who's John Entwistle was found dead in his Las Vegas hotel this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy such hits as "My Generation," "Pinball Wizard" and "Won't Get Fooled Again", there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly a British icon. He will be missed :(

YOU'RE NEXT, STEPHEN KING. THE REAPER'S COMING. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786144)

da (2)

Vodak (119225) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786142)

2600 finally has something to report on which is positive to them. Good thing with H2K2 on the horizon =]

Silent 'L' (1, Funny)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786162)

A Volvo repair shop near me is named "Island Vo Vo"; the L is silent...

The only 'L' I see is in 'island' - does that mean they pronounce it 'eyeand Vo Vo'?

Re:Silent 'L' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786480)

VoLVo - L = Vo Vo

2600 (1)

Entropy248 (588290) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786213)

You'd think that 2600 could survive the Slashdot effect

The article is wrong! (3, Interesting)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786226)

The article say there is precidential value to this case, there is not (unfortunately). Courts can look at this case, but the courts are free to ignore this since this is trial court level decisions, not appeals court level.


They claim it is improbable to get attorney fees. If they look at some of the cases on Rule 68 and cases that provide for attorney fees, there is precident that says when there is a fee shifting provision with a requirement for the other side to pay costs, the costs do include fees.


Since the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim and they appealed it, but dropped it, I would argue that ford's lawyers should be sanctioned under rule 11 (filing a frivilous action).

Re:The article is wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786320)

Presumably Ford's lawyers dropped the appeal because, as 2600 stated, they are trying to build precedent about this sort of linking. If they fail at the appeals level, it would hurt this goal. By dropping what they may have assumed was a somewhat doomed appeal, they have only failed this time, and can waite for a stronger case to arise to build precedent.

Dan

Re:The article is wrong! (2, Informative)

Atlantix (209245) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786451)

As the article explains, the reason this is considered precedential is that the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court (the one that would have heard this appeal) has already used the results of original trial when they decided a separate case. FORD quite rightly realized that their chance of winning the appeal was rather tiny since the Appeals Court had already approved the original ruling.

--Atlantix2000

Lucky Numbers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786249)

Your lucky numbers of the day are:

07 20 09 31 19 23 01

I did something like this a few years ago... (4, Interesting)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786250)

With whitearyanresistance.com, org and net. I just wrote a Perl script that would randomly throw people to other sites like algore2000.com, blacksonblondes.com, Southern Poverty Law Center and other places.

It did get me a few death threats and a mention on the weekly radio program of white supremacist and uber sister smoocher Tom Metzger's.

So to Emmanuel Goldstein, CONGRATULATIONS! You have certainly taken your ideas to lengths that would stop other men cold. Most people would give up after the first lawsuit.

To others, if you want to do some nifty activism, hijack urls of organizations you can't stand. If it isn't a registered trademark (which "white aryan resistance" wasn't) you can have fun and get death threats (mostly from illiterates).

It's fun, try it.

Re:I did something like this a few years ago... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786286)

w00t!
And I was wondering how I could get more death threats

Re:I did something like this a few years ago... (1)

Entropy248 (588290) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786530)

I'd like to get www.heroinoverdose.com and direct it to Alice in Chain's Web Page [aliceinchains.net] .
While I'm at it, I could also get www.ihaveaholeinmyhead.com and point it to a random Nirvana web page.
Or I could get www.iamnotakidnapper.com and point it to US Rep. Gary Condit's page [house.gov] .
Or www.softwarecrash.com and point it to M$'s page. [microsoft.com]

Certainly, some of these examples are a bit over the top in terms of appropriateness. But, that's the point. Where do you draw the line between an "appropriate" redirect and an "inappropriate" one? Who is to say what is appropriate and what isn't? Since everyone here seems to have such faith in the US court system (although I'd respectfully disagree with you about that opinion), you wouldn't want to leave it up to the courts. The easiest, and probably the best, method of dealing with it is to ban all such redirects as 2600's. Okay, it was hysterically funny and everyone in my office (even non-techies!) laughed. Definately, Ford handled this completely wrong. But, it was inappropriate and although nowhere near as offensive as some of my examples, why not just nip the problem in the bud?

If your firewall blocks 2600.com, do this... (4, Informative)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786260)

http://www.2600.ca

:-) JC

Its about time. (2)

j-turkey (187775) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786280)

Its about time that 2600 won a court case...especially one involving linking (or, mybe more appropriately, redirecting). I only wish that they were this unilaterally successful in defending themselves in their DVDCCA case (or, for that matter, even partially successful).

-Turkey

America still works - sometimes (2, Insightful)

FearUncertaintyDoubt (578295) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786296)

Yes, America is held captive to money and power and corporations. But you know what? So is every other nation on earth that has ever existed! Only in America do politicians go to jail for taking bribes. Only in America do they lose their job for having affairs.

The point is that, though the system is corrupt here, it's worse everywhere else, and has been worse. Think about it. 2600, a bunch described as hackers, vandals, criminals, terrorists, up against Ford Motor Company, which probably has bought thousands of politicians and other officials over the years. Anywhere else, the trial would be a foregone conclusion. 2600 would have been summarily ordered to stop whatever Ford didn't want them doing and that would have been it.

Re:America still works - sometimes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786545)

Re - Only in America etc
And in the UK too ...

Jeffrey Archer (British "Lord") is in jail for purgery: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1447000 / 447880.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Jonathan Aitken - went there for libel: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsi d_593000/593724.stm [bbc.co.uk]

The US isn't the only country with at least a semi-decent legal system, nor the only one with accountable politicians.

Re:America still works - sometimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786573)

How do you figure that? The previous president was guilty of multiple crimes and won't see a day - how about OJ? How much time do you think the worldcomm and enron execs are going to see? Hell, the enron execs cashed out bigtime...

Re:America still works - sometimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786588)

> though the system is corrupt here, it's worse everywhere else, and has been worse.

Cool. Then since other people get away with murder, rape, etc, etc. I should be able to as well. Thanks.

Trademark Infringement? (2, Informative)

348 (124012) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786297)

This puzzles me. I see and understand both sides of this argument and in odd ways, support both sides. I am surprized Ford didn't go the trademark route, it seems that they would get more traction using a trademark infringement (working with GM)suit rather than the "wah wah wah, repointing" argument. Trademark laws although flawed in many ways are relatively clear. And all the freedom of speech stuff holds up only so far when it comes to trademark usage and ownership. Remember back a few years ago here on /. there was that guy who had the "sore Hands" sig, which was his link to his "I hate you" page for his former employer? Part of his downfall was his employer made use of his website against him and used the trademarked references as a slander argument. Couldn't the same apply here?



Does anyone know what GM;s stance on this was? The article doesn't mention it at all.

Mixed up URLs (0, Redundant)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786338)

I think you've got a few URL mixed up. Why would ford care if someoneregistered "fuckgeneralmotors.com"? Hell I could see Ford doing that themselves.

Re:Mixed up URLs (2)

ajakk (29927) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786411)

Did you even read any of the articles? Ford cared because the owner of "fuckgeneralmotots.com" pointed the domain name at ford.com. They thought that people would think that they (Ford) did do it, and that is why they sued. Ford did not want customers to think that they would buy such a domain name and point it at themselves.

Priceless. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786350)

Defeating a "corporate juggernaut", Priceless.

Why is 2600 doing this anyway? (0, Flamebait)

agilen (410830) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786384)

I'm sorry, I'm not too up on this case, but it seems to me like bunch of geeks crying "Freedom from the man!" over some stupid childish prank. I mean seriously, what is so great about being able to have fuckgeneralmotors.com and being allowed to link it to ford? /. is making this out to be some kind of huge victory for hacker freedom or something. I see it as a huge victory for people with way too much time on their hands who are just trying to be assholes all the time.


It seems like there is always a war to be fought around here, and I agree most of the time that some crappy stuff goes on. But why don't we put all of our resources into the fights that are worth fighting? If the "hacker community" wants to gain any sort of respect or acceptance so that people in power will listen to our side in say, fighthing the DMCA, it can't be whining about not having the right to do totally foolish things like point fuckgeneralmotors.com at Ford.


I certainly hope 2600 gets NO reimbursment from Ford for their legal fees. They don't deserve any. Cases like this are a waste of the legal system's resources, and I lose more respect for 2600 fighting and whining that they can't play a stupid prank than I do for Ford suing over this.


If this post gets modded as a troll, it just goes to prove how the /. crowd will latch onto any cause, whether its a worthy/useful cause or not. If not, well, maybe there is hope after all. Lets stop wasting our time, bolstering our image as whiney children, and actually fight about something useful.

Re:Why is 2600 doing this anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786476)

Why don't you learn before you speak. You just fail to see the larger picture. 2600 does what they can to defend some of the ideas and freedoms we enjoy. Look at the DVD case, a complete crock.

You say you want to fight about something useful, but I doubt you even have a cause or know what one is. You just like to sit back and talk but never do a thing.....typical....

Re:Why is 2600 doing this anyway? (1)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786560)

Yes it is a childish prank. It is much less sophisticated than some of the fine TV programming such as Crank-Yankers or The Daily Show.

It should also be treated as such. If it is such a childish and unimportant event, why is Ford trying to sue the pants off 2600? Since when does ruining the finances of someone with a nasty lawsuit (and refusing to play nice to get a mutually agreeable resolution) an appropriate response to a prank?

It seems to me that the lawsuit is about the same as suing the neighbor kid because he thought it was fun to slap your car with a rolled up newspaper to make the alarm go of. Is THAT worth $100,000 per beep?

This IS a huge victory, something that is rare, but I hope we see more of. The lawyers have pushed people around for no reason too many times and gotten away with it. It is refreshing and a glimmer of hope that maybe they wont take over the planet after all.

In my opinion, this IS something useful to fight about. I hope that someday your financial future is threatened by some dumbass and a pack of lawyers. You deserve it.

Re:Why is 2600 doing this anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786599)

If you are "not too up on this case" then you should shut the fuck up. People who talk about things they know nothing about are fucking morons. This means you.

Screw with their heads (3, Funny)

dimer0 (461593) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786388)

Set up some addresses in your host file, and make sure that takes precedance over DNS lookups.

[fords-ip] fordbites.com
[fords-ip] fordsucks.com
[fords-ip] ... (you get the picture)

Then sit and write a shell script that grabs their home page using each of these names, say, once per hour.

They'll be looking at their logs, and see all these Hostname: headers coming through and be totally confused. They'll come after you for spreading these "trademark-tarnishing" domains to the world -- but little do they it's just some stupid script on your server.

Actually, what may even be a bit cooler but takes more time - write a script that generates random Hostname: headers for all requests to Ford's servers..

Hmm.

Non-Issue Any More (2)

dimer0 (461593) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786400)

/- from 2600 -/

Ford Motor Company has officially and unconditionally conceded its complete, utter, and perpetual loss on the merits of the FORD v. 2600 "FuckGeneralMotors.com" case. Ford has dismissed its appeal to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, meaning that Ford has completely given up all attempts to reverse the victory that 2600 Enterprises won on December 20, 2001. The mutually agreed dismissal papers were officially entered by the Sixth Circuit on June 27, 2002.

It's those damn teenagers (2, Informative)

generic-man (33649) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786412)

A Volvo repair shop near me is named "Island Vo Vo"; the L is silent, you see, because Ford really sucks.

No, it's because a bunch of teenage vandals got together and stole the 'L' off the sign. Rather than spend money to buy a new letter, the repair shop simply renamed itself.

Re:It's those damn teenagers (-1)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786428)

Speaking of stealing, have I told you how Michael Sims, the "author" of this story, stole the Censorware Project out of my very hands? I am personally shocked and appalled that he is still allowed to work without owning up to his complete irresponsibility.

And oh yeah, his stupid attempts at humor are terrible. Adbusters terrible. "Wah wah I hate corporations!" says the corporate whore Michael.

Re:It's those damn teenagers (1)

dmouritsendk (321667) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786596)

Yea, and now there probertly running around looking for signs with big I, N, U and X letters. So they can make thier hollywoodescue LINUX sign in silicon valley.

LNUX $0.01 / share (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786465)

I can't believe I read this shit. Who cares about a bunch of snot nosed 14 year olds at their 2600 meetings talking about how to register "sucks" domains!

Re:LNUX $0.01 / share (0)

smcavoy (114157) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786490)

It's about freedom of speech. Imagine you made fun of Ford. Imagine they could sue you for it. So yes it's silly, but it's also important that we don't give them an inch. Why? Because they will take a mile.

Ford had a point.. it happened to me once. (1, Redundant)

enjo13 (444114) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786494)

Once, long ago (like '99;) ) when I worked in web development I was part of a simliar situation. One of our clients had recently dumped another designer (big nasty situation really)... The firm they had been working with was a pretty nasty bunch, but they had control of the domain being used by this company. Out of spite they pointed this domain to porn...

I realize that the company in question was really dumb in giving control of the domain to this group in the first place... but it did create a credibility problem for them..and that sucks.

Re:Ford had a point.. it happened to me once. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3786627)

To bad. That is life. If you make stupid decisions you have to live with it. There is no "undo" button. I could stand in the street and call you an asshole all day long. I could hold up signs and call you a dickhead. And there is nothing you could do to stop me. So, why is it any different on the web? If I don't like your company I can buy a domain that says: "yourcompanysucksdonkeydick.com" and there is not a goddamn thing you can do about it. Get over it and quit being such a jackass. You do not get to control what other people say or do.

Slapp Suits are a terrible menace. (5, Interesting)

uncoveror (570620) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786511)

Slapp suits, that is suits meant to silence someone by falsely accusing them of libel or copyright infringement, knowing they don't have the resources to defend themselves, are a terrible menace to free speech. There should be greater consequences for wasting the courts' time with these. In some societies, anyone who came to court with a false accusation would recieve the same penalty the falsely accused would have recieved if convicted. If Ford were ordered to pay the amounts they sought from 2600, to 2600, then Slapp suits might go away. Trying them would be way to risky.

2600 - a kiddes mag (-1)

boltar (263391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786606)

Whilst I agree with the ruling that ford or any company has no right to deby people pointing
addresses at their site you really have to wonder at the maturity of the people at 2600 for creating
such a name in the first place. I mean come on, its the sort of name a 14 year old would dream up.
For all their hacker rights and watch-out-we're-the-hi-tech-generation-and-we-know -our-rights
posturing ultimately they're a bunch of immature
teenagers and early 20 somethings playing in an
adult arena , and boy does it show.

Why did Ford give up? (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 12 years ago | (#3786657)

That's the thing about this that I don't understand. I could suggest that in this climate of widespread corporate malfeasance (Xerox, Worldcom, Tyco, Imclone, Enron, etc.), the extremely petty and stupid nature of this lawsuit might reflect poorly on them.

That's the best explanation I can come up with. Does anybody else know their actual reasons for buckling? It's so uncharacteristic of a company that has the money to stop fighting even when they're completely wrong.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>