DOCSLIB.ORG

Larry Romine, Et Al. V. Compuserve Corporation, Et Al. 96-CV-717-First

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Larry Romine, Et Al. V. Compuserve Corporation, Et Al. 96-CV-717-First • , K - • PM/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COttt - SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION L..e. LARRY ROMINE, at al., on behalf : Ca P.,::.C2.-i.9.5.t7.1-Zu3. of themselves and all others e KinnearY) similarly situated, (Mag. Judge Xing) Plaintiffs, V. coMPUSERVE CORPORATION, et al., (Jury Trial Demanded) Defendants. FIRST AMENDED AND CONSOUDATED CLASS ACTION_COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, allege the following upon information and belief (based, inter alia, upon a review and analysis of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange commission, press releases, reports of securities analysts, news reports, and the investigation conducted by and. through Plaintiffs' counsel), except as to the allegations specifically pertaining to p laintiffs and their counsel. Plaintiffs believe that further substantial evidentiary support for the allegations set forth below will be available after a reasonable opportunity for discovery, NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is a securities class action arising in connection with an initial public offering of common stock (the "Initial Public Offering" or "IPO"), by CompuServe Corporation ("CompuServe" or the "Company") at $30,00 per share pursuant to a registration (1(2 statement (the "Registration Statement") and a prospectus (the "Prospectus") that were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and became effective on or about April 18, 1996. The IPO raised $552,000,000 from the sale of 18,400,000 shares of CompuServe common stock at $30 per share. 2. Formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc. ("H&R Block"), CompuServe provides computer-based interactive services and data communications and is involved in the develop- ment of consumer on-line and Internet access services. The Company operates primarily through two divisions: "Interactive Services" which offers worldwide on-line and Internet access services for consumers; and ',Network Services" which provides worldwide network access, management and applications, and Internet services to businesses. (Prospectus at 3) 3. The Registration statement and Prospectus was false and/or misleading in at least the following respects. The Prospectus glowingly described CompuServe's proprietary software as its cornerstone. But, shortly after selling over 18 million shares of stock to the public at $30 per share, CompuServe announced a fundamental shift in its core business to becoming an Internet service provider using standard software protocols as opposed to its proprietary software. Consistent with this change, which was not disclosed until after the Offering, CompuServe recently announced the discontinuance of one of its showcase software services and an associated after-tax charge of $4.9 million. -2- 4. Defendants failed in the Prospectus to inform investors that, contrary to the impressive statements in the Prospectus, the Company had experienced serious adverse business trends which were likely to materially impact its continuing operations. Defendants failed to disclose that increasing levels of cancellations and declining enrollment of now subscribers had and would likely continue to erode the Company's subscriber base; that the Company was under severe competitive pressure due to increasing use of cheaper direct access Internet services; and that there were serious problems, including design flaws, with the Company's new online service, WOWIsm 5. Defendants failed to disclose that CompuServe intended to substantially abandon its core business as an online proprietary content provider to become an open technology service provider to the world Wide Web (the "Red Dog Plan"). CompuServe was about to embark upon a strategy whereby access to its content would be open to Internet users, who did not even have to pay CompuServe, thus compounding CompuServe's business decline in the months preceding the Initial Public Offering and ensuring the business would continue to suffer as CompuServe went head to head with many, many competitors on the World Wide Web. such a significant change in the nature of its business was not something that could be developed in a month. Rather, while the industry has developed rapidly, such a drastic change in direction would have taken substantially longer to plan and initiate and thus was known to Defendants at the time of the IPO. -3- _ • 6. As the truth about CompuServe's business became known to the marketplace, the price of the Company's stock fell precipitous- ly, and the Plaintiff and the other members of the investing public suffered damages. CompuServe shares now trade for about one third of the IPO price of $30.00, an aggregate market loss of over $350 million. aURISDICTION_AND VENUE 7. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the ', securities Act") [15 U.S.C. 5577k, 77(a)(2) and 7703. 8. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §51331 and 1337 and Section 22 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 577v]. 9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 22 of the Securities Act, 28 u.s.c. 51391(b). Defendant CompuServe, the issuer, maintains its principal place of business in this District and the acts complained of in this action, including the preparation, issuance and dissemination of materially false and misleading information to the investing public, occurred in substantial part in this District. 10. In connection with the acts alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, directly or indirectly, used the mails and the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including telephonic communications. , -4- _ _ PARTIES Plaintiffs 11. Plaintiff Larry Romine purchased 200 shares of CompuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $30.00 per share and has been damaged thereby. 12. Plaintiff Elaine F. Mason, as Executrix for the Estate of Allan Mason, purchased 1,000 shares of CompuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $35.25 share and has been damaged thereby. 13. Plaintiffs Steven P. Ewing and Connie S. Ewing jointly purchased 300 shares of CompuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $35 per share and have been damaged thereby. 14. Plaintiffs Jere Settle and Linda Settle, joint tenants, purchased 100 shares of CompuServe common stock on April 18, 1996 at $30 per share and have been damaged thereby. 15. Plaintiff Dori Newell purchased 300 shares of CompuServe common stock on May 28, 1996 at $25,50 per share and has been damaged thereby. 16. Plaintiff Vincent Scorese purchased 500 shares of CompuServe common stock on June 4, 1996 at $27.25 per share and has been damaged thereby. 17. Plaintiff Heather Kennedy purchased 100 shares of CompuServe common stock on June 5, 1996 at $26,375 per share and has been damaged thereby. 18. Plaintiff Electa N. Savage purchased 200 shares of CompuServe common stock on May 9, 1996 at $26,75 per share and 300 -5- _ shares of Compuserve common stock on May 24, 1996 at $23,25 per share and has been damaged thereby. 19. Plaintiff Harry Savage purchased 500 shares of CompuServe common stock on May 8, 1996 at $26.00 per share, 300 shares of . CompuServe common stock on May 24, 1996 at $23.50 per share and 300 shares of CompuServe common stock at $23.375 per share and has been damaged thereby. 20, Plaintiff Allan Hepp per purchased 500 shares of CompuServe common stock on May 21, 1996 at $27.25 per share and has been damaged thereby. 21. Plaintiff Guido sodige purchased 1,000 shares of CompuServe common stock on May 7, 1996 at $27.50 per share and has been damaged thereby. 22. Plaintiff James A. Acker purchased 400 shares of CompuServe common stock on may 31 7 1996 at $24.00 per share and 500 shares of compuServe common stock on June 5, 1996 at $24.125 per share and was damaged thereby. 23. Plaintiff cyndi Scott purchased 400 shares of CompuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $34.25 per share and was damaged thereby. 24. Plaintiff Jeffrey Lynn purchased 2,000 shares of CompuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $34.50 per share and was damaged thereby. 25. Plaintiff Hunt McKenzie purchased 75 shares of compuserve common stock on May 8, 1996 at $26 1/4 per share and was damaged thereby. -6- 26. Plaintiff Scott Dinhofer purchased 100 shares of compuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $34 1/4 per share and was damaged thereby. 27. plaintiff Paul McCormack purchased 200 *hares of CompuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $35 1/4 per share and was damaged thereby. 28. Plaintiff Rosemary Mize purchased 300 shares of CompuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $35 1/8 per share and was damaged thereby. 29. Plaintiff James Schwartz purchased 900 shares of Compuserve common stock on April 19, 1996 at $30 per share, 1,000 shares of CompuServe common stock on May 22, 1996 at $25 5/8, and 600 shares of CompuServe common stock on May 28, 1996 at $23 per share, and was damaged thereby. 30. Plaintiff 1070125 Ontario, Ltd. purchased 2,800 shares of CompuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $35.00 per share and was damaged thereby. 31. Plaintiff Philip Silverglate purchased 2,000 shares of compuServe common stock on June 6, 1996 at $25 1/8 per share and 2,000 shares of CompuServe common stock on June 7, 1996 at $27 3/8 and was damaged thereby. 32. Plaintiff Aimee P. Katz purchased 200 shares of CompuServe common stock on April 19, 1996 at $35.00 per share and was damaged thereby. -7- i 1 . 33. Plaintiff Tishrei Trading purchased 100 shares of CompuServe common stock on June 11, 1996 at $25.50 per share and was damaged thereby.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Comments to the FCC on the NTIA Petition for Rulemaking On
    Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) National Telecommunications ) RM – 11862 and Information Administration ) ) Petition for Rulemaking to ) Clarify provisions of Section 230 ) Of the Communications Act of 1934 ) COMMENTS OF TECHFREEDOM (CORRECTED) 110 Maryland Ave NE Suite #205 Washington, DC 20002 Dated: September 2, 2020 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) National Telecommunications ) RM – 11862 and Information Administration ) ) Petition for Rulemaking to ) Clarify provisions of Section 230 ) Of the Communications Act of 1934 ) COMMENTS OF TECHFREEDOM: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 230 is the law that made today’s Internet possible. The law has allowed websites to host content created by users without, as the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), warned in 1995, “spending vast sums of money trying to define elusive terms that are going to lead to a flood of legal challenges.” Without the broad protections of 230(c)(1) in particular, websites would face “death by ten thousand duck-bites” in the form of massive litigation risks. NTIA asks the FCC to turn this law on its head, but the FCC has no authority to reinterpret the statute. The plain language and the legislative history of Section 230 demonstrate that Congress did not intend to grant any regulatory authority to the FCC. Instead, as Rep. Cox declared, Congress did “not wish to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet.” Under the statute’s express terms, the “interactive computer service” providers protected by Section 230 are not “information service providers,” nor are they otherwise subject to the FCC’s jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruising the Information Highway: Online Services and Electronic Mail for Physicians and Families John G
    Technology Review Cruising the Information Highway: Online Services and Electronic Mail for Physicians and Families John G. Faughnan, MD; David J. Doukas, MD; Mark H. Ebell, MD; and Gary N. Fox, MD Minneapolis, Minnesota; Ann Arbor and Detroit, Michigan; and Toledo, Ohio Commercial online service providers, bulletin board ser­ indirectly through America Online or directly through vices, and the Internet make up the rapidly expanding specialized access providers. Today’s online services are “information highway.” Physicians and their families destined to evolve into a National Information Infra­ can use these services for professional and personal com­ structure that will change the way we work and play. munication, for recreation and commerce, and to obtain Key words. Computers; education; information services; reference information and computer software. Com m er­ communication; online systems; Internet. cial providers include America Online, CompuServe, GEnie, and MCIMail. Internet access can be obtained ( JFam Pract 1994; 39:365-371) During past year, there has been a deluge of articles information), computer-based communications, and en­ about the “information highway.” Although they have tertainment. Visionaries imagine this collection becoming included a great deal of exaggeration, there are some the marketplace and the workplace of the nation. In this services of real interest to physicians and their families. article we focus on the latter interpretation of the infor­ This paper, which is based on the personal experience mation highway. of clinicians who have played and worked with com­ There are practical medical and nonmedical reasons puter communications for the past several years, pre­ to explore the online world. America Online (AOL) is one sents the services of current interest, indicates where of the services described in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study: Internet Explorer 1994..1997
    Case Study: Internet Explorer 1994..1997 Ben Slivka General Manager Windows UI [email protected] Internet Explorer Chronology 8/94 IE effort begins 12/94 License Spyglass Mosaic source code 7/95 IE 1.0 ships as Windows 95 feature 11/95 IE 2.0 ships 3/96 MS Professional Developer’s Conference AOL deal, Java license announced 8/96 IE 3.0 ships, wins all but PC Mag review 9/97 IE 4.0 ships, wins all the reviews IE Feature Chronology IE 1.0 (7/14/95) IE 2.0 (11/17/95) HTML 2.0 HTML Tables, other NS enhancements HTML <font face=> Cell background colors & images Progressive Rendering HTTP cookies (arthurbi) Windows Integration SSL Start.Run HTML (MS enhancements) Internet Shortcuts <marquee> Password Caching background sounds Auto Connect, in-line AVIs Disconnect Active VRML 1.0 Navigator parity MS innovation Feature Chronology - continued IE 3.0 (8/12/96) IE 3.0 - continued... IE 4.0 (9/12/97) Java Accessibility Dynamic HTML (W3C) HTML Frames PICS (W3C) Data Binding Floating frames HTML CSS (W3C) 2D positioning Componentized HTML <object> (W3C) Java JDK 1.1 ActiveX Scripting ActiveX Controls Explorer Bars JavaScript Code Download Active Setup VBScript Code Signing Active Channels MSHTML, SHDOCVW IEAK (corporations) CDF (XML) WININET, URLMON Internet Setup Wizard Security Zones DocObj hosting Referral Server Windows Integration Single Explorer ActiveDesktop™ Navigator parity MS innovation Quick Launch, … Wins for IE • Quality • CoolBar, Explorer Bars • Componetization • Great Mail/News Client • ActiveX Controls – Outlook Express – vs. Nav plug-ins
    [Show full text]
  • Browsers Supported
    System and Browser Requirements for Online Bill Pay (Revised June, 2013) The following list describes systems and browsers that are classified as “Supported” and “Allowed” for PayLynx online bill pay. While the billpay application functions properly with other browser and platform combinations, PSCU recommends only those on the following list: Microsoft Windows: Windows 8: Supported - IE 10*, Firefox & Chrome – Current Stable Release Allowed - JAWS 14, IE 9* Windows 7: Supported - IE 9*, Firefox & Chrome – Current Stable Release Allowed – IE 10, JAWS 14.0 * Internet Explorer 9 supported when used in Compatibility Mode http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/internet-explorer/use-compatibility-view#ie=ie-9 Macintosh: OS X 10.7 – Safari 6.x, Allowed - Firefox & Chrome – Current Stable Release OS X 10.6 – Safari 6.x, Allowed - Firefox & Chrome – Current Stable Release Browser Notes: • JavaScript – is required for the application to function optimally. • Cookies – the browser must be set to allow cookies and/or explicitly allow 3rd party cookies. • Screen Resolution – 800 x 600 VGA or higher • Windows Display Properties Settings – should be 96 dpi (Windows default) • Browser Text Size – should be Medium Blocked Browsers: The following browsers are programmatically blocked from use: • Microsoft Windows – CompuServe, Netscape • Macintosh – Microsoft IE Macintosh Screen Capture: • Apple/Shift/3 – Captures the entire screen • Apple/Shift/4 – Click and drag the pointer and release mouse button to capture a portion of the screen. Links for Browsers: • Microsoft http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/products/internet-explorer • Apple http://www.apple.com/downloads/ • Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ • Google http://www.google.com/chrome/ • JAWS http://sales.freedomscientific.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=340014-001 Browser Category Definitions: • Supported – All functionality of the product has been tested and successfully meets functional and design requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Remember, the Dial-Up Era of Internet Access? Back Then There Were Line
    Remember, the dial-up era of Internet access? Back then there were line sharing mandates requiring the telephone company to allow firms like AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe etc to use the phone company’s network to supply dial-up Internet access into an individual’s home. You could use your home phone connection - suppose you had AT&T for your home telephone service and AOL in that case AOL could use your phone connection with AT&T or whatever phone company you had for an affordable cheap reasonable rate to connect you to their internet service. AOL could use AT&T’s phone network to connect an AT&T phone customer to the Internet. There were plenty of competitors in the dial-up arena from AOL and Prodigy to CompuServe, NetZero and even EarthLink to name a few of the commercial providers, What happened in the broadband era? When we started the broadband era in 2001 the U.S. was poised to lead the world in broadband and have the same level of competition as the dial-up market but the FCC under George W. Bush’s Presidency ended the line sharing requirement and any competition mandates by re-classifying broadband services under Title I of the Telecommunications Act as an information service. We need to get back to that. We need competition restored it is the best way after all to protect Net Neutrality. If competition mandates had been continued and phone companies had to provide access to their infrastructure to competitors today we would still have plenty of land-line or wire-line competition for the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation Slides by Swri by December 8, 2006
    Change Management Board Meeting Bridgeline # 850-414-4976 January 12, 2007 SunGuide Change Management Board Meeting 1 Welcome and Introductions Steve Corbin, CMB Chairman January 12, 2007 SunGuide Change Management Board Meeting 2 Change Management Board Time Item Lead Supporting Materials 9:45 – 9:50 Welcome and Introductions Corbin December 1, 2006 9:50 – 10:05 Previous Meeting Recap and Action Item Review Corbin Meeting Minutes 10:05 – 10:20 SunGuideSM Footprints Issues Review Dellenback CMB .ppt CCTV Preset Scheduling CMB .ppt, White Paper, Enhancement Requirements, SunGuideSM Software 10:20 – 10:50 Dellenback Responses to Release 2.2.2 GUI Performance Comments on Enhancement Design AVL Subsystem – 1 new / 6 changed Req’s (Vote) EM Subsystem (Vote) PM (Reporting) Requirements (Vote) Release 2.2.1 Road Ranger Requirements Documents; SunGuideSM Software (Vote) Release 3.0 10:50 – 11:50 Bonds Release 3.0 Requirements Video Incident Detection Specification, Requirements (Vote) Ballots SunGuideSM Event Viewer Subsystem (Vote) AMBER Alert DMS Message Template – 2 new Req’s (Vote) SunGuide Change Management Board Meeting January 12, 2007 3 Change Management Board Time Item Lead Supporting Materials Using SunGuideSM Travel Time Enhancements Dellenback Travel Times SunGuideSM Software 11:50 – 12:20 White Paper Release 3.1 Tallahassee LPR and Tillander iFlorida Enhancements 12:20 – 12:30 Closing and Action Item Review Corbin SunGuide Change Management Board Meeting January 12, 2007 4 Change Management Board Previous Meeting Recap and Action Item Review SunGuide Change Management Board Meeting January 12, 2007 5 Change Management Board SunGuide users are to provide Trey Tillander with their comments on the SunGuide Support Definition Response Times document so that the mean time for software repairs can be tracked for the purposes of documenting response times.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravity and Antigravity (1) Page 1 of 29
    Gravity and antigravity (1) Page 1 of 29 Gravity and Antigravity David Pratt Feb 2001, Feb 2005 Part 1 of 2 Contents (Part 1) 1. Gravity and mass (02/06) 2. Shielding, electrogravity, antigravity 3. Explaining gravity (Part 2) 4. Levitation and technology 5. Human levitation 6. Theosophical writings 1. Gravity and mass It is said to have been the sight of an apple falling from a tree that, around 1665, gave Isaac Newton the idea that the force that pulls an apple to earth is the same as that which keeps the moon in its orbit around the earth. The reason the moon does not fall to earth is because of the counteracting effect of its orbital motion. If the moon were to cease its orbital motion and fall to earth, the acceleration due to gravity that it would experience at the earth’s surface would be 9.8 m/s² – the same as that experienced by an apple or any other object in free fall. Newton’s universal law of gravitation states that the gravitational force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. To calculate the gravitational force (F), their masses (m 1 and m 2) and the gravitational constant (G) are multiplied together, and the result is divided by the square of the distance (r) between them: F = http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm 15.12.2006 Gravity and antigravity (1) Page 2 of 29 Gm 1m2/r². According to newtonian theory, the gravitational force between two or more bodies is therefore dependent on their masses.
    [Show full text]
  • You've Got Mail: FBI Hacking in United States V Lough and Why It Is a Fourth Amendment Search
    Volume 63 Issue 6 V.63, Tolle Lege Article 5 6-15-2019 You've Got Mail: FBI Hacking in United States v Lough and Why It Is a Fourth Amendment Search Ryan Dieter Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ryan Dieter, You've Got Mail: FBI Hacking in United States v Lough and Why It Is a Fourth Amendment Search, 63 Vill. L. Rev. 101 (2019). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol63/iss6/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Dieter: You've Got Mail: FBI Hacking in United States v Lough and Why It YOU’VE GOT MAIL: FBI HACKING IN UNITED STATES v. LOUGH AND WHY IT IS A FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH RYAN DIETER* “[This] can lead to large-scale privacy and civil liberties abuses at home and abroad.”1 I. PLUGGING IN: REVISITING THE DEBATE BETWEEN SECURITY AND PRIVACY The Inland Regional Center is a facility for those with developmental disabilities.2 Until December 2, 2015, most people had never heard of the San Bernardino facility, but on that date, it became the infamous location of one of the most memorable and devastating terrorist attacks on American soil.3 The shooters, Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, killed fourteen people and wounded twenty-two others.4 Perhaps even more well-known than the actual attack was the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) extremely public battle with Apple over access to Farook’s iPhone.5 After seizing the smartphone, the FBI realized that Farook had secured the * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Compuserve Inc
    CompuServe Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F. 3D 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) Note: This was a case of first impression for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court stated, “The Internet represents the latest and greatest of these historical, globe- shrinking trends. It enables anyone with the right equipment and knowledge – that is, people like Patterson – to operate an international business cheaply, and from a desktop…. Thus, this case presents a situation where we must reconsider the scope of our jurisdictional reach.”1 Facts CompuServe was a proprietary information service network headquartered in Ohio where its main servers were located. Subscribers had access to the Internet and to proprietary information and software products on the CompuServe network. CompuServe and some members authored the software products, called “shareware,” available to CompuServe subscribers. End users pay voluntarily for “shareware”; here, the end user paid CompuServe directly and CompuServe, after taking its 15% cut, would remit the balance of the payment to the shareware author. Patterson, a Texas resident, was a CompuServe subscriber and shareware developer. Patterson entered into a “Shareware Registration Agreement” (SRA) with CompuServe authorizing Patterson to place his shareware on the CompuServe servers in Ohio where other CompuServe subscribers could access that shareware. The SRA incorporated by reference two standardized contracts: (1) the Service Agreement and (2) the Rules of Operation, published on the CompuServe information service. These documents specified that the contract between Patterson and CompuServe was entered into in Ohio and that disputes would be settled in Ohio. Patterson, sitting in Texas before his computer, assented to these terms by typing “Agree” at various points in creating his account.
    [Show full text]
  • Compuserve, Inc. V. Cyber Promotions, Inc. Steven E
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 32 | Issue 2 Article 9 1998 Canning Spam: CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. Steven E. Bennett University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven E. Bennett, Canning Spam: CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 32 U. Rich. L. Rev. 545 (1998). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol32/iss2/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CANNING SPAM: COMPUSERVE, INC. V. CYBER PROMOTIONS, INC. "As new technology emerges, the appearance of related legal issues seems never to be far behind."' I. INTRODUCTION A. The Issue of Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Messages The rapid development of the Internet as a source of infor- mation and as a means of communication has caused courts and legislatures to scramble to integrate old legal structures into a new framework. The characteristic of near-instantaneous access to millions of subscribers of various Internet service providers (ISPs) has attracted the attention of commercial ad- vertisers, especially those seeking mass audiences. The Internet has also fostered the proliferation of electronic mail (e-mail) as a means of communication. Further,
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: the Semiotic Conditions of Videogame Authorship
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The Foundations of Videogame Authorship Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/96x08750 Author Huber, William Humberto Publication Date 2013 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The Foundations of Videogame Authorship A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Art History, Theory and Criticism by William Humberto Huber Committee in charge: Professor Lev Manovich, Chair Professor Grant Kester Professor Kuiyi Shen Professor Stefan Tanaka Professor Noah Wardrip-Fruin 2013 © William Humberto Huber, 2013 All rights reserved. SIGNATURE PAGE The Dissertation of William Humberto Huber is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2013 iii DEDICATION With gratitude to friends, family and colleagues. To Samantha, with deepest devotion, for her friendship, affection and patience. To Rafael, for whom play is everything. iv EPIGRAPH Art is a game between all people, of all periods. – Marcel Duchamp v TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ............................................................................................................... iii Dedication ..................................................................................................................... iv Epigraph ..........................................................................................................................v
    [Show full text]
  • AOL's Acquisition of Netscape Will Not Undo the Harm to Competition
    C. AOL’s acquisition of Netscape will not undo the harm to competition caused by Microsoft’s predatory and anticompetitive conduct 392. The acquisition of Netscape by America Online in November 1998 will not eliminate the competitive harm caused by Microsoft’s course of conduct. 1. AOL acquired Netscape for reasons other than its browser 393. Rather than demonstrating that the Netscape/AOL combination is a robust platform threat, AOL’s acquisition of Netscape itself evidences the harm to Netscape’s browser business caused by Microsoft’s predatory campaign. Netscape was acquired because it had been damaged by Microsoft’s campaign. Microsoft's findings (MPF ¶ 275) greatly overstate the importance of Netscape's browser business to AOL's decision to acquire Netscape. 393.1. AOL acquired Netscape despite the browser business, not because of it. i. Steve Case, AOL’s CEO and Chairman, testified that AOL “did not buy Netscape because of the browser business. Indeed, we bought Netscape, to some extent, despite the browser business.” Case Dep. (played 6/4/99am), at 46:7-12. ii. Barry Schuler, AOL’s President of Interactive Services, testified that Netscape’s browser business “wasn't something that we were really focused on. The browser market share played a very small role in our overall evaluation.” Schuler Dep., 5/5/98, at 81:4-8 (DX 2810). iii. Schuler further testified: “I was relatively lukewarm about the idea” of acquiring Netscape. “I felt that there was a part of their business which was compatible with ours and another part that was outside of our core competency.
    [Show full text]