Tag: Mark Mumma

Mumma anti-spam litigation beaten back

Venkat Balasubramani over at Spam Notes posted a nice summary of the recent 4th Circuit Court decision in the Mark Mumma anti-spam case.

In brief:

The court also rejected the underlying CAN-SPAM claims. The decision is important for one simple reason: anti-spam lawyers (and plaintiffs) often advance the exact arguments advanced by the plaintiff in this case. Lawyers on the other side know these arguments lack merit, but do not have any court decisions to back them up. As a result, a vicious settlement cycle results. This case probably represents the start of the tide turning in the other direction.

I questioned the whole Mark Mumma bit from the get go, and Mark came back. Mark hired a crack attorney. It didn’t seem to help matters.

Of course, none of what I said really made much difference – in general, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument for alternate reasons (and ones that are surprisingly simple to understand). Read Venkat’s entire post – summary of the litigation is available as a PDF download as well.
(more…)

More Mumma, more money

Mark Mumma, who sued some spammers who sued him back, is getting a little help in his latest fight. Mark has “hired” Pete Wellborn, the “Spammer Hammer” to assist him with his case.

Mark seems to have also hired a public relations outfit, as the recent press release on this issue suggests. Spamroll has had an exchange or two with Mumma about the suits, where his methods and intent were brought into question. Now Mumma is engaging high priced attorneys and sending out press releases, so I suspect any donations to his “legal defense fund” aren’t going to be considered charitable contributions. If I were Mumma’s accountant, I’d be booking them on the revenue line.

Comments from Mark Mumma

Spamroll provided some commentary a week ago on the Mark Mumma lawsuit against Cruise.com, and now Mark has been kind enough to provide some additional insight.

I would like to point a few things out before you catch it.
(more…)