Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!looking!brad From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: logistar (logistan?) and Revlon Keywords: legal precedent?? Message-ID: <1990Oct27.065504.25303@looking.on.ca> Date: 27 Oct 90 06:55:04 GMT References: Distribution: na Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Lines: 27 We had a story about this in clari.tw.computers. Revlon is suing for lost business. They paid only 400K of a 1.2 megabuck contract, claiming the software is not up to spec. (Sound familiar?) They were shut down for 3 days, then the software house brought the system back up to limit their worst case loss, having made their point. I doubt the contractors will get away with this. Doesn't reposession in the real world require a court order? Particularly if it involves entering the premises of the debtor without permission? Now these folks no doubt used authorized logins and system permissions to do what they did. There is probably no system cracking involved. If there were, I expect they would be in the same boat as a person who breaks into your house without a court order to repossess your stereo. Still, it's pretty clear that deleting the work was not an activity they had permission to do even though their accounts might have been authorized. If I happen to leave write permissions on a file, that still doesn't imply an invitation to stomp on it. (A recent case here had a lawn service 'repossess' a seeded lawn for non-payment. They bulldozed it.) The concept of repossession of services is one the courts have probably dealt with before. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473