this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
26 points (100.0% liked)

Malicious Compliance

19593 readers
2 users here now

People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
dystop@lemmy.world
Kaiser@lemmy.world
Imotali@lemmy.world
archonet@lemmy.world
26
Here's all the source code (lemmy.sdf.org)
submitted 1 year ago by ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org to c/maliciouscompliance@lemmy.world
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In 2000, I wrote a Linux device driver that "decrypted" the output of a certain device, and my company, which hosted open-source projects, agreed to host it.

The "encryption" was only a XOR, but that was enough for the maker of said device to sue my company under 17 U.S.C. § 1201 for hundreds of millions in damages.

The story got a lot of press back then because it highlighted how stupid the then-new DMCA was, and also because there was a David open-source enthusiasts vs. Goliath heartless corporation flavor to it.

Our lawyer decided to pick up the fight to generate free publicity for our fledgling company. For discovery, the maker of the device requested "a copy of any and all potentially infringing source code". They weren't specific and they didn't specify the medium.

So we printed the entire Linux kernel source code including my driver in 5-pt font and sent them the boxes of printouts. Legally they had been served, so there was nothing they could do about it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't know. I didn't do the printing. The law firm did it. But I remember our lawyer mentioning that they fedexed over 20 cartons of printing paper. Assuming 500 sheets per ream and 5 reams per carton, that would be 50,000 sheets, or 100,000 pages since it was printed on both sides to be even more annoying.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Your lawyer destroyed a forest to comply maliciously. Sort of not the best way to do it IMO.

[–] ngdev@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Na, they've got managed forests and it's fine. Your comment had me google to see and it's actually pretty interesting.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

As somebody who lives in an area with an active logging industry, I can tell you that parts of the world with an economic interest in their forests still have lots of trees whereas areas that do not are very likely to have destroyed most of theirs.

The relationship between paper use and the environment is not what you think it is.

[–] Danatronic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Damn. Did they ever find your actual source code in there

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No idea. That company folded before it could even respond. It was a typical dot-com with a completely ridiculous business model. That's why our lawyer decided to fight the suit: he figured they'd collapse soon anyway, so we might as well milk the lawsuit for the publicity.