"Alberts im Uhrenturm", or the good vibrations of a computer historian. Nice to see a major popular journal reporting about a real historian, not about a self-proclaimed inventor! Best, Pierre MK ----- Mail original ----- De: "Ulf Hashagen" <u.hashagen@deutsches-museum.de> À: members@lists.sigcis.org Envoyé: Mardi 14 Février 2017 16:33:22 Objet: [SIGCIS-Members] Computer Historians in the German Press Dear Colleagues, surprising as it may seem, in Germany not only "first stories", but also also professional computer historians are in the national press. The Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Munich, Germany ) as on of the leading German newspapers recently published an article about the computer historian "Indiana Jones" staying at the at the Research Institute for the History of Science and Technolohgy of the Deutsches Museum: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/deutsches-museum-nachts-im-museum-1.3322... Regards, Ulf -- PD Dr. Ulf Hashagen Leitung / Head Forschungsinstitut für Technik- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte / The Research Institute for the History of Science and Technology Deutsches Museum Museumsinsel 1 80538 München / Munich Germany Tel. +49/(0)89/2179-453 Fax +49/(0)89/2179-239 u.hashagen@deutsches-museum.de http://www.deutsches-museum.de/forschung/wissenschaftl-mitarbeiter/pd-dr-ulf... _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity... The most objectionable in this paper is the term " skeptics " ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not " skeptic ", we know that S.A.'s claims are wrong . Yours truly, Pierre MK De: "Brian Dear" <brian@platohistory.org> À: "Dave Walden" <dave.walden.family@gmail.com> Cc: "members" <members@sigcis.org> Envoyé: Mardi 14 Février 2017 16:10:36 Objet: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL Blows my mind how reporters remain ignorant of the fact that registering a document for copyright protection has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing an invention claim. That would be a PATENT. Different government agancy handles patents. Guy did not file a patent. Why is this so incredibly difficult for a reporter to grasp?! No wonder this guy has gotten away with this for years. - Brian On Tuesday, February 14, 2017, Dave Walden < dave.walden.family@gmail.com > wrote: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/02/13/says-invented-email-dispute-h... -- 12 Linden Road, East Sandwich, 02537 landline=508-888-7655; cell=774-205-3202 website= walden-family.com _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org , the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

It may be an ideal time to publicize this goofiness, given the area of alternative facts and the public' fatigue with them, and the bullies who rely upon them. --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com

On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Dave Walden <dave.walden.family@gmail.com> wrote:

The reporter is quite a good technology reporter, in my view; and I see the Globe as a pretty high quality newspaper. I suspect that the article was carefully reviewed by the Globe's legal people to cast doubt on Ayyadurai's claims without making it possible for him to sue them for saying his claims are wrong.

...

On 2/14/2017 11:42 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN wrote: Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity... The most objectionable in this paper is the term "skeptics" ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not "skeptic", we know that S.A.'s claims are wrong. Yours truly, Pierre MK

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

I'm certainly aware of that...but I guess it's a good reminder for others (?). I'm also tweeting publicly about this, and have been for a few years whenever it crops up. Thanks --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com

On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:14 AM, David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net> wrote:

Dear All:

I think it might be wise for you to consider that the SIGCIS Members email discussion archives are published publicly.

Dr. Ayyadurai and his lawyers are included in this public.

David

...

On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Sarah T. Roberts <sarah.roberts@ucla.edu> wrote:

It may be an ideal time to publicize this goofiness, given the area of alternative facts and the public' fatigue with them, and the bullies who rely upon them.

---

S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D.

Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/

Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com

...

On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Dave Walden <dave.walden.family@gmail.com> wrote:

The reporter is quite a good technology reporter, in my view; and I see the Globe as a pretty high quality newspaper. I suspect that the article was carefully reviewed by the Globe's legal people to cast doubt on Ayyadurai's claims without making it possible for him to sue them for saying his claims are wrong.

...

On 2/14/2017 11:42 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN wrote: Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity... The most objectionable in this paper is the term "skeptics" ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not "skeptic", we know that S.A.'s claims are wrong. Yours truly, Pierre MK

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

---

This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

Perhaps the most disturbing thing in the Boston Globe column (which I notice Ayyadurai is already featuring prominently on his own website) is the line “One early innovator declined to be interviewed, fearing litigation from Ayyadurai.” So we now live in a world where Internet pioneers are afraid to tell journalists that electronic mail was widely used in the mid-1970s. That is what is known as a “chilling effect” on free speech. I have focused my own statements (www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai <http://www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai> ) on Ayyadurai’s claims and arguments rather than his ethics and motivations. My expertise is as a historian and technologist, not an ethicist or psychologist. My position is simple: 1) Nobody can invent a technology that already exists, still less one that is in widespread use. 2) “Email” is a contraction of “electronic mail” and refers to the same thing. For example, Abbate’s Inventing the Internet (p. 106) notes “The network’s users unexpectedly came up with a new focus for network activity: electronic mail. Email (initially called ‘net notes’ or simply ‘mail’….” 3) Electronic mail systems were in widespread use many years before Ayyadurai developed his “EMAIL” system at some point between 1978 and 1982. For example, Abbate states (p.107) of the early-1970s ARPANET that “Email quickly became the network’s most popular and influential service, surpassing all expectations.” 4) Therefore, Ayyadurai is not “the inventor of email.” The implication of Ayyadurai’s recent lawsuits is that anyone who acknowledges that 1, 2 and 3 are true, and that 4 is their inescapable corollary, risks a hugely expensive legal ordeal. Here is what his press release of Jan 4 said. “There is no reasonable dispute that Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email. The full press kit contains more than 20 testimonials from leading technology experts and numerous Ph.D.s. The press kit also includes two extensive research papers prepared by well-respected academic university professors and scientists explaining why Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email, and how the few doubters are wrong.” The next sentence announces the lawsuit against Techdirt. (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gawker-media-pays-dr-shiva-ayyadurai...) I hope that members of this community will not allow themselves to be intimidated, though as David warns it may be prudent not to say anything one would not feel comfortable defending in court. If Ayyadurai’s legal campaign succeeds then what would happen to books like Abbate? Will anyone who uses Abbate’s work in the classroom run the risk of a multimillion dollar lawsuit? Ayyadurai has also shown himself willing to exploit open records laws to obtain my university emails, perhaps in a hunt for discrediting or actionable materials. http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/emailgrab. Other such requests have been harshly criticized by scholars as an assault on academic freedom. A few weeks ago Christopher Leslie asked whether this case is really so important to us, versus say defending net neutrality from the Trump administration. I would argue that it is, because the challenge that the post-fact world poses to academic freedom (and to so much else) is something that we are all called to fight in our own little corners of the world. Netflix and other tech firms will fight for net neutrality, but who will fight for history? If the SIGCIS community doesn’t stand up for the integrity of the historical record, against such a concerted campaign to undermine it, then who will? Best wishes, Tom From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Sarah T. Roberts Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:15 PM To: David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net> Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL I mean I certainly don't intend to be silenced about either the record or my take on this situation, or engaging with others about it. That's rather the aim of suing, right? --Sarah --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com <http://illusionofvolition.com/> On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:14 AM, David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net> > wrote: Dear All: I think it might be wise for you to consider that the SIGCIS Members email discussion archives are published publicly. Dr. Ayyadurai and his lawyers are included in this public. David On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Sarah T. Roberts <sarah.roberts@ucla.edu <mailto:sarah.roberts@ucla.edu> > wrote: It may be an ideal time to publicize this goofiness, given the area of alternative facts and the public' fatigue with them, and the bullies who rely upon them. --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com <http://illusionofvolition.com/> On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Dave Walden <dave.walden.family@gmail.com <mailto:dave.walden.family@gmail.com> > wrote: The reporter is quite a good technology reporter, in my view; and I see the Globe as a pretty high quality newspaper. I suspect that the article was carefully reviewed by the Globe's legal people to cast doubt on Ayyadurai's claims without making it possible for him to sue them for saying his claims are wrong. On 2/14/2017 11:42 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN wrote: Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity... The most objectionable in this paper is the term "skeptics" ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not "skeptic", we know that S.A.'s claims are wrong. Yours truly, Pierre MK _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://sigcis.org/> , the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://sigcis.org> , the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

Do I sense a possible panel for SHOT on this particular episode and the larger issues that Tom so eloquently raises? Jonathan Jonathan Coopersmith Professor Department of History Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-4236 979.845.7151 979.862.4314 (fax) http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/author/42 : latest post is "Academic opposition to Trump's Muslim ban," http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/153892 *FAXED. The Rise and Fall of the Fax Machine* (Johns Hopkins University Press) is the co-recipient of the 2016 Business History Conference Hagley Prize for best book in business history. On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Heyck, Hunter <hheyck@ou.edu> wrote:

An excellent, succinct message, Tom. —Hunter

Hunter Heyck Professor and Chair, Department of the History of Science University of Oklahoma 601 Elm St., PHSC 601 Norman, OK 73019-0315 hheyck@ou.edu 405-556-1145 (M) Author of: Age of System: understanding the development of modern social science <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu_content_age-2Dsystem&d=CwMGaQ&c=ODFT-G5SujMiGrKuoJJjVg&r=xd_h1GnqUOIgUwdyipeynKCpqL76q7QWVzlt1TjNm50&m=utVVfIvdGnqQuZN1TkCIS0hnTG5UwcT2LYkm0iHhLPA&s=KG1lv2yw6GKXdGudPhKw6phoVcDqZVSie74xe7ozEQU&e=>

And, Herbert A. Simon: the bounds of reason in modern America <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu_content_herbert-2Dsimon&d=CwMGaQ&c=ODFT-G5SujMiGrKuoJJjVg&r=xd_h1GnqUOIgUwdyipeynKCpqL76q7QWVzlt1TjNm50&m=utVVfIvdGnqQuZN1TkCIS0hnTG5UwcT2LYkm0iHhLPA&s=Pri_jDtK6eDq_4cG5b98AIRGslRK1YsLL1n53hcMDMo&e=>

On Feb 14, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps the most disturbing thing in the Boston Globe column (which I notice Ayyadurai is already featuring prominently on his own website) is the line “One early innovator declined to be interviewed, fearing litigation from Ayyadurai.” So we now live in a world where Internet pioneers are afraid to tell journalists that electronic mail was widely used in the mid-1970s. That is what is known as a “chilling effect” on free speech.

I have focused my own statements (www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sigcis.org_ayyadurai&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=vv1gYQ7TjFxltGg3bBOCpf2mHu7A8KGwDjw2i9F9R18&e=>) on Ayyadurai’s claims and arguments rather than his ethics and motivations. My expertise is as a historian and technologist, not an ethicist or psychologist. My position is simple:

1) Nobody can invent a technology that already exists, still less one that is in widespread use. 2) “Email” is a contraction of “electronic mail” and refers to the same thing. For example, Abbate’s *Inventing the Internet* (p. 106) notes “The network’s users unexpectedly came up with a new focus for network activity: electronic mail. Email (initially called ‘net notes’ or simply ‘mail’….” 3) Electronic mail systems were in widespread use many years before Ayyadurai developed his “EMAIL” system at some point between 1978 and 1982. For example, Abbate states (p.107) of the early-1970s ARPANET that “Email quickly became the network’s most popular and influential service, surpassing all expectations.” 4) Therefore, Ayyadurai is not “the inventor of email.”

The implication of Ayyadurai’s recent lawsuits is that anyone who acknowledges that 1, 2 and 3 are true, and that 4 is their inescapable corollary, risks a hugely expensive legal ordeal. Here is what his press release of Jan 4 said. “There is no reasonable dispute that Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email. The full press kit contains more than 20 testimonials from leading technology experts and numerous Ph.D.s. The press kit also includes two extensive research papers prepared by well-respected academic university professors and scientists explaining why Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email, and how the few doubters are wrong.” The next sentence announces the lawsuit against Techdirt. ( http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gawker-media- pays-dr-shiva-ayyadurai-inventor-of-email-750000-settlement-300385899.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.prnewswire.com_news-2Dreleases_gawker-2Dmedia-2Dpays-2Ddr-2Dshiva-2Dayyadurai-2Dinventor-2Dof-2Demail-2D750000-2Dsettlement-2D300385899.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=Hp0fhd1r6YHg4CUnL402IRJJ7IcSabArSWcea7X15Mg&e=> )

I hope that members of this community will not allow themselves to be intimidated, though as David warns it may be prudent not to say anything one would not feel comfortable defending in court. If Ayyadurai’s legal campaign succeeds then what would happen to books like Abbate? Will anyone who uses Abbate’s work in the classroom run the risk of a multimillion dollar lawsuit? Ayyadurai has also shown himself willing to exploit open records laws to obtain my university emails, perhaps in a hunt for discrediting or actionable materials. http://www. tomandmaria.com/Tom/emailgrab <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tomandmaria.com_Tom_emailgrab&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=Wi4sM8AmGU0qA7IXZpmSNaKLT3Ax8YeXXxwqUHE0ANY&e=>. Other such requests have been harshly criticized by scholars as an assault on academic freedom.

A few weeks ago Christopher Leslie asked whether this case is really so important to us, versus say defending net neutrality from the Trump administration. I would argue that it is, because the challenge that the post-fact world poses to academic freedom (and to so much else) is something that we are all called to fight in our own little corners of the world. Netflix and other tech firms will fight for net neutrality, but who will fight for history? If the SIGCIS community doesn’t stand up for the integrity of the historical record, against such a concerted campaign to undermine it, then who will?

Best wishes,

Tom

*From:* Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] *On Behalf Of *Sarah T. Roberts *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:15 PM *To:* David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net> *Cc:* members@lists.sigcis.org *Subject:* Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL

I mean I certainly don't intend to be silenced about either the record or my take on this situation, or engaging with others about it. That's rather the aim of suing, right?

--Sarah ---

S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D.

Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__is.gseis.ucla.edu_&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=qpIiy4UB71Lmn13ZvEskRb58_UhPDkcjt8294_ukeVo&e=>

Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__illusionofvolition.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=4CamuoOoksX8qNMO0s7W6eu12wHHtd3zD0UU2Ea2pJA&e=>

On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:14 AM, David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net> wrote:

Dear All:

I think it might be wise for you to consider that the SIGCIS Members email discussion archives are published publicly.

Dr. Ayyadurai and his lawyers are included in this public.

David

On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Sarah T. Roberts <sarah.roberts@ucla.edu> wrote:

It may be an ideal time to publicize this goofiness, given the area of alternative facts and the public' fatigue with them, and the bullies who rely upon them.

---

S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D.

Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__is.gseis.ucla.edu_&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=qpIiy4UB71Lmn13ZvEskRb58_UhPDkcjt8294_ukeVo&e=>

Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__illusionofvolition.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=4CamuoOoksX8qNMO0s7W6eu12wHHtd3zD0UU2Ea2pJA&e=>

On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Dave Walden <dave.walden.family@gmail.com> wrote:

The reporter is quite a good technology reporter, in my view; and I see the Globe as a pretty high quality newspaper. I suspect that the article was carefully reviewed by the Globe's legal people to cast doubt on Ayyadurai's claims without making it possible for him to sue them for saying his claims are wrong.

On 2/14/2017 11:42 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN wrote:

Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity... The most objectionable in this paper is the term "*skeptics*" ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not "*skeptic*", we know that S.A.'s claims are *wrong*. Yours truly, Pierre MK

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sigcis.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=hhzotBaDN-2-Ro1LF7dH9behb1btPAlFflBNyXNO1R8&e=>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/ pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_pipermail_members-2Dsigcis.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=BB8lCR7Oro4oUdwqeG51ic-pWD-h_wWNSb3URxnvcXc&e=> and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_listinfo.cgi_members-2Dsigcis.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=CB_rgaeossnrKkkdyVFTYepO9MEqpXZjfi0KtsxFr2g&e=>

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sigcis.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=APWtiLAzT0VV1HwI3rnBzvcDs7KopZBoTnsJ0hhTdio&e=>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/ pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_pipermail_members-2Dsigcis.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=BB8lCR7Oro4oUdwqeG51ic-pWD-h_wWNSb3URxnvcXc&e=> and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_listinfo.cgi_members-2Dsigcis.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=BM0VlL6M9YOYuQiIBopsWA&m=4cwWCDpBnWaKHuMF0UgEaaz3mxYabQa7bDXFiqMGlYY&s=CB_rgaeossnrKkkdyVFTYepO9MEqpXZjfi0KtsxFr2g&e=>

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sigcis.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c=ODFT-G5SujMiGrKuoJJjVg&r=xd_h1GnqUOIgUwdyipeynKCpqL76q7QWVzlt1TjNm50&m=utVVfIvdGnqQuZN1TkCIS0hnTG5UwcT2LYkm0iHhLPA&s=yazcVXzsbeLaBriM62HZlKIg0mzICIVR4c4FH9lxqag&e=>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/ pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_pipermail_members-2Dsigcis.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c=ODFT-G5SujMiGrKuoJJjVg&r=xd_h1GnqUOIgUwdyipeynKCpqL76q7QWVzlt1TjNm50&m=utVVfIvdGnqQuZN1TkCIS0hnTG5UwcT2LYkm0iHhLPA&s=NIIOsxkACY-AqwmqG4H92yBIY3CCedpczK_anyvmVlM&e=> and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_listinfo.cgi_members-2Dsigcis.org&d=CwMGaQ&c=ODFT-G5SujMiGrKuoJJjVg&r=xd_h1GnqUOIgUwdyipeynKCpqL76q7QWVzlt1TjNm50&m=utVVfIvdGnqQuZN1TkCIS0hnTG5UwcT2LYkm0iHhLPA&s=m2QtJVC6gdgVJSa4JWeeezcwJ-PrggeYckHG0lrhESY&e=>

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

Might SLAPP lawsuits be relevant if one is attacked for presenting facts and rational arguments in support of or opposition to a public claim? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation - Bill ________________________________ From: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of Thomas Haigh [thomas.haigh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:54 PM To: 'Sarah T. Roberts'; 'David C. Brock' Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL Perhaps the most disturbing thing in the Boston Globe column (which I notice Ayyadurai is already featuring prominently on his own website) is the line “One early innovator declined to be interviewed, fearing litigation from Ayyadurai.” So we now live in a world where Internet pioneers are afraid to tell journalists that electronic mail was widely used in the mid-1970s. That is what is known as a “chilling effect” on free speech. I have focused my own statements (www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai<http://www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai>) on Ayyadurai’s claims and arguments rather than his ethics and motivations. My expertise is as a historian and technologist, not an ethicist or psychologist. My position is simple: 1) Nobody can invent a technology that already exists, still less one that is in widespread use. 2) “Email” is a contraction of “electronic mail” and refers to the same thing. For example, Abbate’s Inventing the Internet (p. 106) notes “The network’s users unexpectedly came up with a new focus for network activity: electronic mail. Email (initially called ‘net notes’ or simply ‘mail’….” 3) Electronic mail systems were in widespread use many years before Ayyadurai developed his “EMAIL” system at some point between 1978 and 1982. For example, Abbate states (p.107) of the early-1970s ARPANET that “Email quickly became the network’s most popular and influential service, surpassing all expectations.” 4) Therefore, Ayyadurai is not “the inventor of email.” The implication of Ayyadurai’s recent lawsuits is that anyone who acknowledges that 1, 2 and 3 are true, and that 4 is their inescapable corollary, risks a hugely expensive legal ordeal. Here is what his press release of Jan 4 said. “There is no reasonable dispute that Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email. The full press kit contains more than 20 testimonials from leading technology experts and numerous Ph.D.s. The press kit also includes two extensive research papers prepared by well-respected academic university professors and scientists explaining why Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email, and how the few doubters are wrong.” The next sentence announces the lawsuit against Techdirt. (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gawker-media-pays-dr-shiva-ayyadurai...) I hope that members of this community will not allow themselves to be intimidated, though as David warns it may be prudent not to say anything one would not feel comfortable defending in court. If Ayyadurai’s legal campaign succeeds then what would happen to books like Abbate? Will anyone who uses Abbate’s work in the classroom run the risk of a multimillion dollar lawsuit? Ayyadurai has also shown himself willing to exploit open records laws to obtain my university emails, perhaps in a hunt for discrediting or actionable materials. http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/emailgrab. Other such requests have been harshly criticized by scholars as an assault on academic freedom. A few weeks ago Christopher Leslie asked whether this case is really so important to us, versus say defending net neutrality from the Trump administration. I would argue that it is, because the challenge that the post-fact world poses to academic freedom (and to so much else) is something that we are all called to fight in our own little corners of the world. Netflix and other tech firms will fight for net neutrality, but who will fight for history? If the SIGCIS community doesn’t stand up for the integrity of the historical record, against such a concerted campaign to undermine it, then who will? Best wishes, Tom From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Sarah T. Roberts Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:15 PM To: David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net> Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL I mean I certainly don't intend to be silenced about either the record or my take on this situation, or engaging with others about it. That's rather the aim of suing, right? --Sarah --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com<http://illusionofvolition.com/> On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:14 AM, David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net<mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>> wrote: Dear All: I think it might be wise for you to consider that the SIGCIS Members email discussion archives are published publicly. Dr. Ayyadurai and his lawyers are included in this public. David On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Sarah T. Roberts <sarah.roberts@ucla.edu<mailto:sarah.roberts@ucla.edu>> wrote: It may be an ideal time to publicize this goofiness, given the area of alternative facts and the public' fatigue with them, and the bullies who rely upon them. --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com<http://illusionofvolition.com/> On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Dave Walden <dave.walden.family@gmail.com<mailto:dave.walden.family@gmail.com>> wrote: The reporter is quite a good technology reporter, in my view; and I see the Globe as a pretty high quality newspaper. I suspect that the article was carefully reviewed by the Globe's legal people to cast doubt on Ayyadurai's claims without making it possible for him to sue them for saying his claims are wrong. On 2/14/2017 11:42 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN wrote: Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity... The most objectionable in this paper is the term "skeptics" ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not "skeptic", we know that S.A.'s claims are wrong. Yours truly, Pierre MK _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org/>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

I note that he claims his system is the first to bring together all the functionality of email. That much i think is definitely not true. in 1972 one our programmers at OEP wrote a message system that allowed message lists where you could send to the group or to individuals and it could be operated synchronous or asynchronous so it could be a written "conference call." it was put out in teh shared software for UNIVAC 1108 machines and i know the university of Wisconsin used it for some number of years for all the students to communicate with the software support group at the university. it probably had more features than the later "email" system as it could tell you when a user left a simultaneous discussion or entered it. the discussion could be left on for asynchronous use as well and the ability to send between any two or more individuals was a part of it. The crazy twist here is there were user communication systems already that were more powerful than the email system. On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> wrote:

I am by no means a legal expert, but according to Fortune ( http://fortune.com/2017/01/11/techdirt-libel-lawsuit/)

Many states, including Massachusetts, have so-called anti-SLAPP statutes, which offer a quick and cost-efficient means to defeat frivolous lawsuits intended to censor or intimidate defendants. But the anti-SLAPP law will likely be of no avail to TechDirt because the statute is largely restricted to cases involving the government, and because the law may not apply in federal court.

As such, TechDirt's legal bill could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars or even more if the case is subject to numerous procedural motions and appeals.

Fortune links to this page: http://www.dmlp.org/legal- guide/anti-slapp-law-massachusetts.

Best wishes,

Tom

-----Original Message----- From: McMillan, William W [mailto:william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 4:12 PM To: Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: RE: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL

Might SLAPP lawsuits be relevant if one is attacked for presenting facts and rational arguments in support of or opposition to a public claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_ public_participation

- Bill

________________________________

From: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of Thomas Haigh [thomas.haigh@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:54 PM

To: 'Sarah T. Roberts'; 'David C. Brock'

Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org

Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL

Perhaps the most disturbing thing in the Boston Globe column (which I notice Ayyadurai is already featuring prominently on his own website) is the line “One early innovator declined to be interviewed, fearing litigation from Ayyadurai.” So we now live in a world where Internet pioneers are afraid to tell journalists that electronic mail was widely used in the mid-1970s. That is what is known as a “chilling effect” on free speech.

I have focused my own statements (www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai< http://www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai <http://www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai%3chttp:/www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai>>) on Ayyadurai’s claims and arguments rather than his ethics and motivations. My expertise is as a historian and technologist, not an ethicist or psychologist. My position is simple:

1) Nobody can invent a technology that already exists, still less one that is in widespread use.

2) “Email” is a contraction of “electronic mail” and refers to the same thing. For example, Abbate’s Inventing the Internet (p. 106) notes “The network’s users unexpectedly came up with a new focus for network activity: electronic mail. Email (initially called ‘net notes’ or simply ‘mail’….”

3) Electronic mail systems were in widespread use many years before Ayyadurai developed his “EMAIL” system at some point between 1978 and 1982. For example, Abbate states (p.107) of the early-1970s ARPANET that “Email quickly became the network’s most popular and influential service, surpassing all expectations.”

4) Therefore, Ayyadurai is not “the inventor of email.”

The implication of Ayyadurai’s recent lawsuits is that anyone who acknowledges that 1, 2 and 3 are true, and that 4 is their inescapable corollary, risks a hugely expensive legal ordeal. Here is what his press release of Jan 4 said. “There is no reasonable dispute that Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email. The full press kit contains more than 20 testimonials from leading technology experts and numerous Ph.D.s. The press kit also includes two extensive research papers prepared by well-respected academic university professors and scientists explaining why Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email, and how the few doubters are wrong.” The next sentence announces the lawsuit against Techdirt. ( http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gawker-media- pays-dr-shiva-ayyadurai-inventor-of-email-750000-settlement-300385899.html )

I hope that members of this community will not allow themselves to be intimidated, though as David warns it may be prudent not to say anything one would not feel comfortable defending in court. If Ayyadurai’s legal campaign succeeds then what would happen to books like Abbate? Will anyone who uses Abbate’s work in the classroom run the risk of a multimillion dollar lawsuit? Ayyadurai has also shown himself willing to exploit open records laws to obtain my university emails, perhaps in a hunt for discrediting or actionable materials. http://www.tomandmaria.com/ Tom/emailgrab. Other such requests have been harshly criticized by scholars as an assault on academic freedom.

A few weeks ago Christopher Leslie asked whether this case is really so important to us, versus say defending net neutrality from the Trump administration. I would argue that it is, because the challenge that the post-fact world poses to academic freedom (and to so much else) is something that we are all called to fight in our own little corners of the world. Netflix and other tech firms will fight for net neutrality, but who will fight for history? If the SIGCIS community doesn’t stand up for the integrity of the historical record, against such a concerted campaign to undermine it, then who will?

Best wishes,

Tom

From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] On Behalf Of Sarah T. Roberts

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:15 PM

To: David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net>

Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org

Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL

I mean I certainly don't intend to be silenced about either the record or my take on this situation, or engaging with others about it. That's rather the aim of suing, right?

--Sarah

---

S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D.

Assistant Professor

University of California, Los Angeles

Department of Information Studies

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/

Blogging periodically at

http://illusionofvolition.com<http://illusionofvolition.com/ <http://illusionofvolition.com%3chttp:/illusionofvolition.com/>>

On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:14 AM, David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net<mailto:dcb@ dcbrock.net>> wrote:

Dear All:

I think it might be wise for you to consider that the SIGCIS Members email discussion archives are published publicly.

Dr. Ayyadurai and his lawyers are included in this public.

David

On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Sarah T. Roberts <sarah.roberts@ucla.edu< mailto:sarah.roberts@ucla.edu>> wrote:

It may be an ideal time to publicize this goofiness, given the area of alternative facts and the public' fatigue with them, and the bullies who rely upon them.

---

S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D.

Assistant Professor

University of California, Los Angeles

Department of Information Studies

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/

Blogging periodically at

http://illusionofvolition.com<http://illusionofvolition.com/ <http://illusionofvolition.com%3chttp:/illusionofvolition.com/>>

On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Dave Walden <dave.walden.family@gmail.com< mailto:dave.walden.family@gmail.com>> wrote:

The reporter is quite a good technology reporter, in my view; and I see the Globe as a pretty high quality newspaper. I suspect that the article was carefully reviewed by the Globe's legal people to cast doubt on Ayyadurai's claims without making it possible for him to sue them for saying his claims are wrong.

On 2/14/2017 11:42 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN wrote:

Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity...

The most objectionable in this paper is the term "skeptics" ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not "skeptic", we know that S.A.'s claims are wrong.

Yours truly,

Pierre MK

_______________________________________________

This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org/>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________

This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

-- *please send messages to murray.turoff@gmail.com <murray.turoff@gmail.com> do not use @njit.edu <http://njit.edu> addressDistinguished Professor EmeritusInformation Systems, NJIThomepage: http://is.njit.edu/turoff <http://is.njit.edu/turoff>*

Basically, on what legal grounds could SA sue historians? As long as historians do not write insults or claim intellectual property on "email", but just present facts (like Tom's 4 points), there is no ground for litigation. Best, Pierre De: "Julie Cohn" <cohnconnor@comcast.net> À: "Murray Turoff" <murray.turoff@gmail.com> Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Envoyé: Mercredi 15 Février 2017 15:35:08 Objet: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL I would be very enthusiastic about a SHOT session on this topic! Not my area of expertise, but if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know! -Julie ***************************** Julie Cohn, Ph.D. Research Historian Center for Public History University of Houston 315 McElhinney Hall Houston, TX 77204-3007 cohnconnor@comcast.net On Feb 14, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Murray Turoff < murray.turoff@gmail.com > wrote: I note that he claims his system is the first to bring together all the functionality of email. That much i think is definitely not true. in 1972 one our programmers at OEP wrote a message system that allowed message lists where you could send to the group or to individuals and it could be operated synchronous or asynchronous so it could be a written "conference call." it was put out in teh shared software for UNIVAC 1108 machines and i know the university of Wisconsin used it for some number of years for all the students to communicate with the software support group at the university. it probably had more features than the later "email" system as it could tell you when a user left a simultaneous discussion or entered it. the discussion could be left on for asynchronous use as well and the ability to send between any two or more individuals was a part of it. The crazy twist here is there were user communication systems already that were more powerful than the email system. On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Haigh < thomas.haigh@gmail.com > wrote: BQ_BEGIN I am by no means a legal expert, but according to Fortune ( http://fortune.com/2017/01/11/techdirt-libel-lawsuit/ ) Many states, including Massachusetts, have so-called anti-SLAPP statutes, which offer a quick and cost-efficient means to defeat frivolous lawsuits intended to censor or intimidate defendants. But the anti-SLAPP law will likely be of no avail to TechDirt because the statute is largely restricted to cases involving the government, and because the law may not apply in federal court. As such, TechDirt's legal bill could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars or even more if the case is subject to numerous procedural motions and appeals. Fortune links to this page: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-massachusetts . Best wishes, Tom -----Original Message----- From: McMillan, William W [mailto: william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu ] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 4:12 PM To: Thomas Haigh < thomas.haigh@gmail.com > Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: RE: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL Might SLAPP lawsuits be relevant if one is attacked for presenting facts and rational arguments in support of or opposition to a public claim? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation - Bill ________________________________ From: Members [ members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org ] on behalf of Thomas Haigh [ thomas.haigh@gmail.com ] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:54 PM To: 'Sarah T. Roberts'; 'David C. Brock' Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL Perhaps the most disturbing thing in the Boston Globe column (which I notice Ayyadurai is already featuring prominently on his own website) is the line “One early innovator declined to be interviewed, fearing litigation from Ayyadurai.” So we now live in a world where Internet pioneers are afraid to tell journalists that electronic mail was widely used in the mid-1970s. That is what is known as a “chilling effect” on free speech. I have focused my own statements ( www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai<http://www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai >) on Ayyadurai’s claims and arguments rather than his ethics and motivations. My expertise is as a historian and technologist, not an ethicist or psychologist. My position is simple: 1) Nobody can invent a technology that already exists, still less one that is in widespread use. 2) “Email” is a contraction of “electronic mail” and refers to the same thing. For example, Abbate’s Inventing the Internet (p. 106) notes “The network’s users unexpectedly came up with a new focus for network activity: electronic mail. Email (initially called ‘net notes’ or simply ‘mail’….” 3) Electronic mail systems were in widespread use many years before Ayyadurai developed his “EMAIL” system at some point between 1978 and 1982. For example, Abbate states (p.107) of the early-1970s ARPANET that “Email quickly became the network’s most popular and influential service, surpassing all expectations.” 4) Therefore, Ayyadurai is not “the inventor of email.” The implication of Ayyadurai’s recent lawsuits is that anyone who acknowledges that 1, 2 and 3 are true, and that 4 is their inescapable corollary, risks a hugely expensive legal ordeal. Here is what his press release of Jan 4 said. “There is no reasonable dispute that Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email. The full press kit contains more than 20 testimonials from leading technology experts and numerous Ph.D.s. The press kit also includes two extensive research papers prepared by well-respected academic university professors and scientists explaining why Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email, and how the few doubters are wrong.” The next sentence announces the lawsuit against Techdirt. ( http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gawker-media-pays-dr-shiva-ayyadurai... ) I hope that members of this community will not allow themselves to be intimidated, though as David warns it may be prudent not to say anything one would not feel comfortable defending in court. If Ayyadurai’s legal campaign succeeds then what would happen to books like Abbate? Will anyone who uses Abbate’s work in the classroom run the risk of a multimillion dollar lawsuit? Ayyadurai has also shown himself willing to exploit open records laws to obtain my university emails, perhaps in a hunt for discrediting or actionable materials. http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/emailgrab . Other such requests have been harshly criticized by scholars as an assault on academic freedom. A few weeks ago Christopher Leslie asked whether this case is really so important to us, versus say defending net neutrality from the Trump administration. I would argue that it is, because the challenge that the post-fact world poses to academic freedom (and to so much else) is something that we are all called to fight in our own little corners of the world. Netflix and other tech firms will fight for net neutrality, but who will fight for history? If the SIGCIS community doesn’t stand up for the integrity of the historical record, against such a concerted campaign to undermine it, then who will? Best wishes, Tom From: Members [ mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org ] On Behalf Of Sarah T. Roberts Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:15 PM To: David C. Brock < dcb@dcbrock.net > Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL I mean I certainly don't intend to be silenced about either the record or my take on this situation, or engaging with others about it. That's rather the aim of suing, right? --Sarah --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com<http://illusionofvolition.com/ > On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:14 AM, David C. Brock < dcb@dcbrock.net<mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net >> wrote: Dear All: I think it might be wise for you to consider that the SIGCIS Members email discussion archives are published publicly. Dr. Ayyadurai and his lawyers are included in this public. David On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Sarah T. Roberts < sarah.roberts@ucla.edu<mailto:sarah.roberts@ucla.edu >> wrote: It may be an ideal time to publicize this goofiness, given the area of alternative facts and the public' fatigue with them, and the bullies who rely upon them. --- S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D. Assistant Professor University of California, Los Angeles Department of Information Studies Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/ Blogging periodically at http://illusionofvolition.com<http://illusionofvolition.com/ > On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Dave Walden < dave.walden.family@gmail.com<mailto:dave.walden.family@gmail.com >> wrote: The reporter is quite a good technology reporter, in my view; and I see the Globe as a pretty high quality newspaper. I suspect that the article was carefully reviewed by the Globe's legal people to cast doubt on Ayyadurai's claims without making it possible for him to sue them for saying his claims are wrong. On 2/14/2017 11:42 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN wrote: Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity... The most objectionable in this paper is the term "skeptics" ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not "skeptic", we know that S.A.'s claims are wrong. Yours truly, Pierre MK _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org < http://sigcis.org/ >, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org < http://sigcis.org >, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org , the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org -- please send messages to murray.turoff@gmail.com do not use @ njit.edu address Distinguished Professor Emeritus Information Systems, NJIT homepage: http://is.njit.edu/turoff _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org , the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org BQ_END _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

The comments (mostly civilized with correct spelling, which is refreshing) are filled with recollections of 'how I was using email back in the days when'. Apart from a few mockings of Al Gore for inventing the Internet (which he actually contributed to politically), refreshing compared with the usual ad hominem attacks. Jonathan Jonathan Coopersmith Professor Department of History Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-4236 979.845.7151 979.862.4314 (fax) http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/author/42 : latest post is " ​Obama's legacy in science, technology, and innovation," *http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/153872 <http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/153872>* *FAXED. The Rise and Fall of the Fax Machine* (Johns Hopkins University Press) is the co-recipient of the 2016 Business History Conference Hagley Prize for best book in business history. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Ian S. King <isking@uw.edu> wrote:

One upon a time I worked for a large technology corporation. One of the lawyers mentioned to me that it cost us $15,000 every time someone sued us, regardless of whether the suit had merit. One of the greatest liabilities of the American legal system is that only in certain cases, as explicitly specified by law or contract, can one compel the losing party to pay the winner's attorney fees and costs. I have been involved in cases in which the fees and costs were an order of magnitude larger than the amount being litigated. -- Ian

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN <mounier@msh-paris.fr

...

wrote:

...

Basically, on what legal grounds could SA sue historians? As long as historians do not write insults or claim intellectual property on "email", but just present facts (like Tom's 4 points), there is no ground for litigation. Best, Pierre

------------------------------ *De: *"Julie Cohn" <cohnconnor@comcast.net> *À: *"Murray Turoff" <murray.turoff@gmail.com> *Cc: *members@lists.sigcis.org *Envoyé: *Mercredi 15 Février 2017 15:35:08 *Objet: *Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL

I would be very enthusiastic about a SHOT session on this topic! Not my area of expertise, but if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know! -Julie

***************************** Julie Cohn, Ph.D. Research Historian Center for Public History University of Houston 315 McElhinney Hall Houston, TX 77204-3007 cohnconnor@comcast.net

On Feb 14, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Murray Turoff <murray.turoff@gmail.com> wrote:

I note that he claims his system is the first to bring together all the functionality of email. That much i think is definitely not true. in 1972 one our programmers at OEP wrote a message system that allowed message lists where you could send to the group or to individuals and it could be operated synchronous or asynchronous so it could be a written "conference call." it was put out in teh shared software for UNIVAC 1108 machines and i know the university of Wisconsin used it for some number of years for all the students to communicate with the software support group at the university.

it probably had more features than the later "email" system as it could tell you when a user left a simultaneous discussion or entered it. the discussion could be left on for asynchronous use as well and the ability to send between any two or more individuals was a part of it.

The crazy twist here is there were user communication systems already that were more powerful than the email system.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I am by no means a legal expert, but according to Fortune ( http://fortune.com/2017/01/11/techdirt-libel-lawsuit/)

Many states, including Massachusetts, have so-called anti-SLAPP statutes, which offer a quick and cost-efficient means to defeat frivolous lawsuits intended to censor or intimidate defendants. But the anti-SLAPP law will likely be of no avail to TechDirt because the statute is largely restricted to cases involving the government, and because the law may not apply in federal court.

As such, TechDirt's legal bill could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars or even more if the case is subject to numerous procedural motions and appeals.

Fortune links to this page: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid e/anti-slapp-law-massachusetts.

Best wishes,

Tom

-----Original Message----- From: McMillan, William W [mailto:william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 4:12 PM To: Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: RE: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL

Might SLAPP lawsuits be relevant if one is attacked for presenting facts and rational arguments in support of or opposition to a public claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ ic_participation

- Bill

________________________________

From: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of Thomas Haigh [thomas.haigh@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:54 PM

To: 'Sarah T. Roberts'; 'David C. Brock'

Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org

Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL

Perhaps the most disturbing thing in the Boston Globe column (which I notice Ayyadurai is already featuring prominently on his own website) is the line “One early innovator declined to be interviewed, fearing litigation from Ayyadurai.” So we now live in a world where Internet pioneers are afraid to tell journalists that electronic mail was widely used in the mid-1970s. That is what is known as a “chilling effect” on free speech.

I have focused my own statements (www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai<http ://www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai <http://www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai%3chttp:/www.sigcis.org/ayyadurai>>) on Ayyadurai’s claims and arguments rather than his ethics and motivations. My expertise is as a historian and technologist, not an ethicist or psychologist. My position is simple:

1) Nobody can invent a technology that already exists, still less one that is in widespread use.

2) “Email” is a contraction of “electronic mail” and refers to the same thing. For example, Abbate’s Inventing the Internet (p. 106) notes “The network’s users unexpectedly came up with a new focus for network activity: electronic mail. Email (initially called ‘net notes’ or simply ‘mail’….”

3) Electronic mail systems were in widespread use many years before Ayyadurai developed his “EMAIL” system at some point between 1978 and 1982. For example, Abbate states (p.107) of the early-1970s ARPANET that “Email quickly became the network’s most popular and influential service, surpassing all expectations.”

4) Therefore, Ayyadurai is not “the inventor of email.”

The implication of Ayyadurai’s recent lawsuits is that anyone who acknowledges that 1, 2 and 3 are true, and that 4 is their inescapable corollary, risks a hugely expensive legal ordeal. Here is what his press release of Jan 4 said. “There is no reasonable dispute that Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email. The full press kit contains more than 20 testimonials from leading technology experts and numerous Ph.D.s. The press kit also includes two extensive research papers prepared by well-respected academic university professors and scientists explaining why Dr. Ayyadurai is the inventor of email, and how the few doubters are wrong.” The next sentence announces the lawsuit against Techdirt. ( http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gawker-media-pays- dr-shiva-ayyadurai-inventor-of-email-750000-settlement-300385899.html)

I hope that members of this community will not allow themselves to be intimidated, though as David warns it may be prudent not to say anything one would not feel comfortable defending in court. If Ayyadurai’s legal campaign succeeds then what would happen to books like Abbate? Will anyone who uses Abbate’s work in the classroom run the risk of a multimillion dollar lawsuit? Ayyadurai has also shown himself willing to exploit open records laws to obtain my university emails, perhaps in a hunt for discrediting or actionable materials. http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom /emailgrab. Other such requests have been harshly criticized by scholars as an assault on academic freedom.

A few weeks ago Christopher Leslie asked whether this case is really so important to us, versus say defending net neutrality from the Trump administration. I would argue that it is, because the challenge that the post-fact world poses to academic freedom (and to so much else) is something that we are all called to fight in our own little corners of the world. Netflix and other tech firms will fight for net neutrality, but who will fight for history? If the SIGCIS community doesn’t stand up for the integrity of the historical record, against such a concerted campaign to undermine it, then who will?

Best wishes,

Tom

From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] On Behalf Of Sarah T. Roberts

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:15 PM

To: David C. Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net>

Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org

Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] In today's Boston Globe, re developer of EMAIL

I mean I certainly don't intend to be silenced about either the record or my take on this situation, or engaging with others about it. That's rather the aim of suing, right?

--Sarah

---

S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D.

Assistant Professor

University of California, Los Angeles

Department of Information Studies

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/

Blogging periodically at

http://illusionofvolition.com<http://illusionofvolition.com/ <http://illusionofvolition.com%3chttp/illusionofvolition.com/>>

On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:14 AM, David C. Brock < dcb@dcbrock.net<mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>> wrote:

Dear All:

I think it might be wise for you to consider that the SIGCIS Members email discussion archives are published publicly.

Dr. Ayyadurai and his lawyers are included in this public.

David

On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Sarah T. Roberts < sarah.roberts@ucla.edu<mailto:sarah.roberts@ucla.edu>> wrote:

It may be an ideal time to publicize this goofiness, given the area of alternative facts and the public' fatigue with them, and the bullies who rely upon them.

---

S a r a h T. R o b e r t s, P h. D.

Assistant Professor

University of California, Los Angeles

Department of Information Studies

Graduate School of Education & Information Studies https://is.gseis.ucla.edu/

Blogging periodically at

http://illusionofvolition.com<http://illusionofvolition.com/ <http://illusionofvolition.com%3chttp/illusionofvolition.com/>>

On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Dave Walden <dave.walden.family@gmail.com< mailto:dave.walden.family@gmail.com>> wrote:

The reporter is quite a good technology reporter, in my view; and I see the Globe as a pretty high quality newspaper. I suspect that the article was carefully reviewed by the Globe's legal people to cast doubt on Ayyadurai's claims without making it possible for him to sue them for saying his claims are wrong.

On 2/14/2017 11:42 AM, Pierre MOUNIER-KUHN wrote:

Well, the article – and even more the readers' comments – are far from providing our self-proclaimed hero with the best publicity...

The most objectionable in this paper is the term "skeptics" ("The skeptics say that by the 1970s, e-mail as we know it today was routinely used"). We are not "skeptic", we know that S.A.'s claims are wrong.

Yours truly,

Pierre MK

_______________________________________________

This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org/>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/piperm ail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________

This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/piperm ail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

--

*please send messages to murray.turoff@gmail.com <murray.turoff@gmail.com> do not use @njit.edu <http://njit.edu/> addressDistinguished Professor EmeritusInformation Systems, NJIThomepage: http://is.njit.edu/turoff <http://is.njit.edu/turoff>* _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

-- Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate The Information School <http://ischool.uw.edu> Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical Narrative Through a Design Lens

Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal <http://tribunalvoices.org> Value Sensitive Design Research Lab <http://vsdesign.org>

University of Washington

There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/ listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org