Definitions
Anti-footprint technology: A proprietary technology for maximizing email deliverability.
Spam: A derogatory word describing an email message that was not solicited. Spammer: A derogatory word for describing a person who sends Spam.
Spamware: A derogatory word for computer software designed for sole the purpose of sending Spam. See
Exhibit A (message ID: <steve-EC4FDB.12420209092000@enews.newsguy.com>)
Testimony
I own and operate an Internet based software company whose flagship product is Avalanche, a direct email-marketing package. CyberCreek's main assets are intellectual property. CyberCreek.Com, an intangible asset, is just as important to CyberCreek than any product residing on the shelf at Macy's department store.
Branding is essential in developing a successful "dot com" business. The Defendant's malicious attack was one of many attempts to label my software illegal and unusable.
Exhibit B (message ID: <nD445.57326$Ft1.3223091@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>) is evidence of libel. This document was one of many published in a malicious, collective effort to deter my product sales as well as have me removed from the Internet.
Exhibit C (message ID: <6CP45.1266$Zr5.167262@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>) is corroborating evidence that supports that Bruce Pennypacker was the author of this document and that his admission acknowledges his publication (Exhibit B).
Exhibit D (message ID: <240620001029056495%steve@uxn.com>) is evidence depicting the backlash I received when trying to persuade Mr. Pennypacker to retract his libelous statement. Since I could not afford to allow these people to further defame me, I felt compelled to bring this complaint to court.
The Defendant made damaging claims that have hindered my ability to maintain a profitable business. Spam is something that is despised by Internet service providers and Internet users alike. I suspect the reason why these few people have made such a strong effort to run me out of the software development business is because I do not discriminately select the users of my software as I follow a civil license policy.
CyberCreek Avalanche was designed to enable marketing departments to conduct and develop accurate direct email marketing campaigns. Avalanche is an open-ended software application that contains features to be configured to suit the needs of everyone. Exhibit E is an affidavit by one of my customers and is testimony to the fact that my software is essential in getting e-mail delivered. While Avalanche is in full compliance with every state law the fact remains some people use it to send Spam. Under no circumstances are any of the features in my software designed specifically for Spam nor have I marketed Avalanche specifically to Spammers.
The consequences of being branded as a Spammer, due to the defendant's libel, have had an effect on my ability to maintain an Internet connection. Internet backbones, or common carriers, are banding together to enforce strict anti-Spam policies. If someone has been labeled as a Spammer, providers will deny access to the Internet. The Defendant's libel essentially has had a significant impact on the opinions of some of our suppliers of Internet connections in effect causing the termination of several partnerships.
Exhibit F is a copy of a letter issued from Global Crossing that clearly illustrates how wide spread this problem is. I am being forced off the Internet because I have been labeled as a Spammer and a Spamware Manufacturer.
Exhibit G is a copy of a letter issued from UUNet Technologies that again, clearly illustrates that this small group of people has been effective in their campaign to remove me from the Internet. As per my agreement with UUNet, I paid them $1,700/month for Internet access. That agreement was terminated because of the Defendant's actions.
Consequences and the rule of law are essential in order to subdue improper social behavior. Without accountability, people like Mr. Pennypacker would literally have a field day. America has no place for people who take the law into their own hands and interpret it to suit their political gain.
The Defendant's behavior was intentional in the defamation of CyberCreek and in the end he did what he set out to do. Prior to my stand their habitual actions were part of a pattern of seek and destroy. Exhibit H is testimony that the effects Defendant's actions were pervasive on my personal life as well.
The right to innovate and the freedom of expression are rights we all possess. Without innovation the future of direct email advertising is in the hands of these few people who are out to stop me. As the evidence clearly shows, the Defendant played a role in making sure that the development of CyberCreek was hindered.
I am seeking to recover the following:
That's the complete text of Andy's complaint against me. Oddly enough, although he didn't mention it in the complaint he had two other exhibits in the complaint:
Exhibit I (message ID: <1NK45.1153$Zr5.159286@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>) was my post offering to retract my statement if he could provide proof the claims were false.
Exhibit J (message ID: <7i845.212$Qp5.4789@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>) was another post by me in reference to another NANAE message wondering if it would be possible for a victim of spam to sue Andy. Interestingly, as I was creating this web page I noticed that the copy of the message Andy included in his complaint had been modified slightly. If you look at the PDF file containing a scan of the documents you'll notice I put <IANAL> tags around my comment. These are missing from the copy in Andy's complaint. If I have time I might go through the rest of all these documents and see if I can find any other inconsistencies between what he has in his complaint and what I posted.
