History by lawsuit: the “inventor of e-mail” targets Techdirt(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
History by lawsuit: the “inventor of e-mail” targets Techdirt
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/shivas-war-one-mans-quest-to-convince-the-world-that-he-invented-e-mail/
92 comments
I always thought the various email-related RFC's pretty much destroyed Ayyadurai claim.
For example, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc561 is from 1973.
For example, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc561 is from 1973.
For the sake of historical accuracy, and for the sake of honest journalism, this lawsuit needs to bedecided in favor of Techdirt and to impose no financial hardship on Techdirt.
Ideally, Ayyadurai would be ruined as well -- as a cautionary tale for other miscreants.
Ideally, Ayyadurai would be ruined as well -- as a cautionary tale for other miscreants.
> Ideally, Ayyadurai would be ruined as well
Paying the other side's legal fees is enough. The problem with injecting vengeance under a veneer of deterrence into the justice system is it dissuades honest suits. The risk of being "right" but not legally correct (per the court's interpretation) becomes too great.
Paying the other side's legal fees is enough. The problem with injecting vengeance under a veneer of deterrence into the justice system is it dissuades honest suits. The risk of being "right" but not legally correct (per the court's interpretation) becomes too great.
There is plenty of good precedent for allowing countersuits in cases of frivolous litigation.
Not really. The bar is remarkably high, and judges are very reluctant to throw around substantive penalties.
The real solution is to force the lawyers to bear some of the burden when they lose. As it stands, the lawyers win regardless of how good or bad their case was.
The real solution is to force the lawyers to bear some of the burden when they lose. As it stands, the lawyers win regardless of how good or bad their case was.
Wouldn't that just discourage lawyers from taking cases that might not win?
As opposed to right now where they will happily take even completely lost cases as long as they get paid? I'll take that risk, thanks.
First, I'm not talking about criminal cases. I'm a firm believer that someone defending against a criminal conviction needs every single advantage they can get. The government is a well-funded, implacable enemy and you need every bit of help to fight it if you are innocent.
However, I have been part of several civil cases where the judge has basically said "I have rarely seen such horrific behavior from both client and lawyer--I have no real penalty sufficient that I can impose." And this was after the lawyer was blowing off court imposed deadlines and fines.
The American civil legal system is set up for "the truth is somewhere in the middle even if it skews to one side or another." When you have genuinely bad actors on one side, it can be abused very badly, and it doesn't have very good self-correction.
First, I'm not talking about criminal cases. I'm a firm believer that someone defending against a criminal conviction needs every single advantage they can get. The government is a well-funded, implacable enemy and you need every bit of help to fight it if you are innocent.
However, I have been part of several civil cases where the judge has basically said "I have rarely seen such horrific behavior from both client and lawyer--I have no real penalty sufficient that I can impose." And this was after the lawyer was blowing off court imposed deadlines and fines.
The American civil legal system is set up for "the truth is somewhere in the middle even if it skews to one side or another." When you have genuinely bad actors on one side, it can be abused very badly, and it doesn't have very good self-correction.
I hate that he tries to play the victim card. He claims people don't want to agree with him because he is a lower class "brown" person and did the work as a 14 year old.
People don't believe him, because he is just plain wrong. It has nothing to do with his age not heritage. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest he is wrong.
The August 1982 registration discussed in the article was entitled "Computer program for electronic mail system." There are many subsequent registrations for things named "email." The copyright office catalog has 1977 registrations for a newsletter about "electronic mail & message systems" ("covering technology, user, product and legislative trends in graphic and record communications.") There is a 1979 registration for a book about "The Electronic mail market in Europe" and another for "Electronic mail in the 1980’s."
The individual that is the subject of the article is mixing terms, which is curious for one with ready access to counsel. A "copyright" registration does not indicate that one is an "inventor." One way to look at his omission to try to enjoin all from using the term "e-mail," is as an admission that the word was incidental to the registration, is and was not protected, and that it never mattered for the registration whether his use of the word was original.
Brings to mind mismarking of products as being subject to patent protection, which, of course, is against the law. Would be just charmed to see an extension of those principles to improper assertions of copyright protection.
Brings to mind mismarking of products as being subject to patent protection, which, of course, is against the law. Would be just charmed to see an extension of those principles to improper assertions of copyright protection.
I personally traced the history of email back to at least 1971: https://eager.io/blog/history-of-email/
After writing that someone let me know about this guy and his claims, and I think I added a somewhat flippant section on it. Of all the people who might have 'invented' email, it certainly wasn't him.
After writing that someone let me know about this guy and his claims, and I think I added a somewhat flippant section on it. Of all the people who might have 'invented' email, it certainly wasn't him.
It's so weird that this guy thinks he invented email in 1982. I wrote one of the first email programs for PC-DOS in 1982 [1] [2], and we certainly didn't think we were "inventing" email. As you note in your article, it had been around for years! (We called it "electronic mail" back then.)
The only novel things about our program were:
1. It used a graphical user interface built with the character mode graphics on the IBM Monochrome Display.
2. We had the ability to connect to multiple email services using a scripting language, along with point-to-point dial-up connections to other users of our program.
But the email services we connected to had been around for quite a while before that. How else would we have gotten the idea of connecting to them - and more than one of them?
We had definitely never heard of this guy and his EMAIL program!
[1] https://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1983-11-rescan/1983...
[2] https://books.google.com/books?id=6i8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=P...
The references are from 1983, but we were working on the program though most of 1982.
The only novel things about our program were:
1. It used a graphical user interface built with the character mode graphics on the IBM Monochrome Display.
2. We had the ability to connect to multiple email services using a scripting language, along with point-to-point dial-up connections to other users of our program.
But the email services we connected to had been around for quite a while before that. How else would we have gotten the idea of connecting to them - and more than one of them?
We had definitely never heard of this guy and his EMAIL program!
[1] https://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1983-11-rescan/1983...
[2] https://books.google.com/books?id=6i8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=P...
The references are from 1983, but we were working on the program though most of 1982.
It's unfortunate, but he's not actually trying to scam anyone. He truly believes that he invented email. Furthermore, he has become paranoid in the belief that there is a huge conspiracy to discredit him.
> he's not actually trying to scam anyone
Consider replacing "actually" with "intentionally"? He's actually trying to sell a lie. Whether he knows it's a lie might be another matter, and I'll grant you the benefit of doubt around his delusion.
Consider replacing "actually" with "intentionally"? He's actually trying to sell a lie. Whether he knows it's a lie might be another matter, and I'll grant you the benefit of doubt around his delusion.
Try this:
Go to Google and ask it "who invented email".
Interestingly, Bing gives a different answer.
Go to Google and ask it "who invented email".
Interestingly, Bing gives a different answer.
remember if you find that an answer that google finds is misleading or inaccurate there's a box right there you can click to provide feedback
If you go to do that, they tell you your input won't affect the ranking of any page. So what's the point of giving feedback?
There is no direct effect on rankings of any page because bad search result does not necessarily mean the web page is bad. Also it is dangerous to leave users affect the results in such a simple way. The point of giving feedback is to help the search team improve their algorithms.
Before you hit enter Bing gives him as well, with a headshot.
It's by definition not a lie if he believes it to be true.
The first step to telling a believable lie is to believe the lie yourself, because then you won't display the subconscious displays of deceit on your face. There's a Seinfeld episode where George tells Jerry that if he wants to get better at lying, he has to convince himself of the lie first.
So I don't entirely think that the teller of the lie needs to believe that it's a lie for it to be a lie. If they believe it, it just means that they're deceiving themselves as well.
So I don't entirely think that the teller of the lie needs to believe that it's a lie for it to be a lie. If they believe it, it just means that they're deceiving themselves as well.
I think for a lie, there needs to be an intent to deceive, at some time. Otherwise, I'm not sure where I'd draw the line between being mistaken and telling a lie.
At some time, yes - but the one telling the lie does not need to be the one intending to lie. One may believe something that is a lie and spread it to other people, without actually lying himself. Like a teacher in elementary/high school who teaches what she believes is true about WWII. At some point, she may get to tell some lie, without being aware of that, hence without lying herself - the lie could be intended by the authors or censors of the curriculum and those would be the ones intending the lie.
The way he's so gone about creating domains/websites to establish legitimacy strongly suggests he knows it not to be true IMO.
Aside: Interesting to reflect on how Google's past domain keyword preferences allow grandfathering in of domain authority.
Aside: Interesting to reflect on how Google's past domain keyword preferences allow grandfathering in of domain authority.
So you're saying he's just insane?
I mean he categorically did not invent email. My friend Dave Crocker was involved in the birth of email and this guy was not participating in that process. it was created before his invention. It's just a lie.
I mean he categorically did not invent email. My friend Dave Crocker was involved in the birth of email and this guy was not participating in that process. it was created before his invention. It's just a lie.
>Gawker paid Ayyadurai $750,000 to settle all claims //
Why? It says they were already battered from another lawsuit, I don't see why that means you should make a pay out to someone else who's lying; what specific claims had Gawker made that were supposedly false?
It keeps saying in the article this charlatan demands recognition. He appears to think having a copyright in a 40 y.o. program listing gives him a current patent?? Supposing he had invented email there seems no legal basis to give him any credit at all.
Ars were hella careful to give the false claims the last word.
Why? It says they were already battered from another lawsuit, I don't see why that means you should make a pay out to someone else who's lying; what specific claims had Gawker made that were supposedly false?
It keeps saying in the article this charlatan demands recognition. He appears to think having a copyright in a 40 y.o. program listing gives him a current patent?? Supposing he had invented email there seems no legal basis to give him any credit at all.
Ars were hella careful to give the false claims the last word.
If I were Gawker and going under because a predatory billionaire was going after me I'd throw as much money in other directions as possible as the ship sunk too.
[deleted]
I felt like I had won something when he got so sick of me telling the truth on Twitter that he blocked me.
He did not invent email as we know it today. He copywrited a term that described something people had already been doing for many years. That is not invention.
He did not invent email as we know it today. He copywrited a term that described something people had already been doing for many years. That is not invention.
There’s no such word as “copywrited”. The closest word is “copyrighted”, but you can’t copyright a term. You can get a trademark for a term, but it seems that’s not what this is about either.
"copywrited" is pretty understandable and definitely a word, it may not be a mainstream dictionary word however.
A section of text produced by a copywriter has been "copywrited". It's ugly and unnecessary use of language IMO, I side with https://www.rensch.com/copywrite.html more.
It has nothing whatever to do with intellectual property _rights_ however.
A section of text produced by a copywriter has been "copywrited". It's ugly and unnecessary use of language IMO, I side with https://www.rensch.com/copywrite.html more.
It has nothing whatever to do with intellectual property _rights_ however.
Given that the past participle of "write" is "written" and the preterite is "wrote", the forms of "copywrite" should be "copywrote" and "copywritten", not "copywrited."
That seems logical, unfortunately the only response which can be made is "English is weird".
(Though people do try to generalise rules like this, I see a lot of foreigners try to write "payed" instead of "paid". Similar idea, and equally logical.)
(Though people do try to generalise rules like this, I see a lot of foreigners try to write "payed" instead of "paid". Similar idea, and equally logical.)
They should be, agreed, but people don't always language in ways we expect.
Well t'internet continues to be disruptive. This seems to be the opposite of eg vacuum cleaners being referred to as Hoovers or ball point pens as Biros.
RFC 822 does not use the term email (nor does RFC 733) and yet I'm fairly sure (I was was only 12 in 1982) that email (e-mail and others) was a regularly used term back then for several message types that involved computers.
A copyright enforcement in just the US does not rewrite history.
RFC 822 does not use the term email (nor does RFC 733) and yet I'm fairly sure (I was was only 12 in 1982) that email (e-mail and others) was a regularly used term back then for several message types that involved computers.
A copyright enforcement in just the US does not rewrite history.
RFC 822 and RFC 733 use "electronic mail", which is clearly meant to be the same term as e-mail and email.
The point about "I got a copyright for EMAIL, therefore the US government recognized me as the inventor of email" belies either a fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright is and isn't or a malicious attempt to deceive and defraud.
The point about "I got a copyright for EMAIL, therefore the US government recognized me as the inventor of email" belies either a fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright is and isn't or a malicious attempt to deceive and defraud.
It's not just a misunderstanding of copyright itself, but also a misunderstanding of what copyright registration means. US copyrights have been automatic since 1978: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register. You get it the moment you write something down on paper, or otherwise "fix [it] in a tangible medium." He is probably talking about copyright registration, which is a requirement before suing someone in the US for infringement. It's just a rubber stamp.
Good catch - para 1.1 from RFC 822:
"This standard specifies a syntax for text messages that are sent among computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail"."
"This standard specifies a syntax for text messages that are sent among computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail"."
It is interesting that he claims he invented it, yet ages that the RFC predates worh, but it's only a standard. Yet he implemented email therefore he invented it. Ignoring his "no true scottsman" argument, I don't see how he has a key to stand on.
So his claim is entirely based on the fact he copyrighted a program he called "email" and the usual redefinition of terms and playing the victim?
And his father is a black belt in ikebana and will beat us up if we don't agree, I guess...
And his father is a black belt in ikebana and will beat us up if we don't agree, I guess...
Correct. And that despite not having anything to do with what we now call email, he copyrighted his program. So despite people using the term before his program, owning the copyright was more powerful.
He needs to lose badly and soon, before those people die and can't testify against him.
He needs to lose badly and soon, before those people die and can't testify against him.
Wow, this is just like that dude running around calling himself the inventor of the chromebook.
It seems that he is using the tactic of racial conspiracy to muddy the waters. When you can't win on facts alone, make it about race and conspiracies.
Sounds like a scam. Can government prevent such open scams?
Wow. Ayyadurai won $750,000 in a lawsuit from by-then-bankrupt Gawker Media. In fact it was billionaire Peter Thiel, who just wanted to ruin Gawker and was behind this result. Duh. What a waste of $750k.
"Denton wrote that "we expected to prevail" in the Ayyadurai and Terrill lawsuits, "but all-out legal war with" billionaire Peter Thiel, who financially backed Harder, was untenable in terms of cost, time and human toll.[37]" . Wikipedia.
"Denton wrote that "we expected to prevail" in the Ayyadurai and Terrill lawsuits, "but all-out legal war with" billionaire Peter Thiel, who financially backed Harder, was untenable in terms of cost, time and human toll.[37]" . Wikipedia.
Another lunatic with an Alex Jones connection.
Im assuming he has not watched Mike Judges Silicon Valley.
I rarely comment, but the article, until the last page was great. It felt very bait and switch -- pull you along with the story, then, oh yeah... you could vote for this guy, and be just as terrible as he is.
While the article is very biased against him, which I would usually feel is fine (and without further researching the topic, I'd agree he seems pretty terrible), but if there's a possibility that this is politically motivated let people know up front. Why not add his political affiliation early in the first page, instead of waiting until the very the end?
And to be clear, I don't believe that he "invented email."
While the article is very biased against him, which I would usually feel is fine (and without further researching the topic, I'd agree he seems pretty terrible), but if there's a possibility that this is politically motivated let people know up front. Why not add his political affiliation early in the first page, instead of waiting until the very the end?
And to be clear, I don't believe that he "invented email."
His political affiliation isn't terribly relevant. The problem is that he wants to rewrite history and claim fame that's not his. He may want to run as a Republican now, but he's also convinced Noam Chomsky to support his claim. Politics isn't the point. Here's a guy who's very effective at scamming people into believing his lies and supporting his false claims.
There's not a chance that he will get elected to represent MA. We are the bluest of the blue states.
I think his political motivations aren't really that relevant to the story, they are in the correct position in the sticks. He sued gawker and even tech dirt before deciding to run for office.
Shiva is a great guy. I strongly encourage readers to watch or listen to him actually speak, rather than get that third-hand.
I'm glad that he won against Gawker and am cheering for him to defeat Elizabeth Warren for Senate. He is the kind of smart, wise, and experienced technocrat that we could use in government, with an actual numerical sense and experience staffing teams and making payroll.
I'm glad that he won against Gawker and am cheering for him to defeat Elizabeth Warren for Senate. He is the kind of smart, wise, and experienced technocrat that we could use in government, with an actual numerical sense and experience staffing teams and making payroll.
I'm not going to dispute your assertions regarding his character, politics, or technical competence.
However, it is clear that he did not invent email as we know it today. This claim has repeatedly been debunked. He wrote an interoffice memo system called EMAIL which is, to my knowledge, unrelated to the development of SMTP and the ARPANET systems that preceded it. Those ARPANET systems predated Ayyadurai's EMAIL program(s).
He did not win against Gawker. Gawker happened to go out of business due to a separate defamation lawsuit while Ayyadurai's lawsuit was still pending. Gawker decided to settle the lawsuit instead.
However, it is clear that he did not invent email as we know it today. This claim has repeatedly been debunked. He wrote an interoffice memo system called EMAIL which is, to my knowledge, unrelated to the development of SMTP and the ARPANET systems that preceded it. Those ARPANET systems predated Ayyadurai's EMAIL program(s).
He did not win against Gawker. Gawker happened to go out of business due to a separate defamation lawsuit while Ayyadurai's lawsuit was still pending. Gawker decided to settle the lawsuit instead.
Correct, and those systems were even referred to as "email" before this date. Just not in published specifications.
> [Ayyadurai] is a great guy
Great people don't sue news outlets to claim credit for things they say they did decades ago. They sue for royalties, or better yet, shut up and do things. This guy checks all the boxes for a sociopathic fraud.
Great people don't sue news outlets to claim credit for things they say they did decades ago. They sue for royalties, or better yet, shut up and do things. This guy checks all the boxes for a sociopathic fraud.
He really comes off as a sociopath if you check his Twitter, where he calls someone a moron, keeps attacking Elizabeth Warren, and treats Alex Jones/Info Wars as a serious media outlet [0]. Also, it's hilarious that he considers himself the target of a racist conspiracy but goes to great lengths to deny that Trump's and Bannon's racist politics. And this is a guy who is running for senate.
[0] https://twitter.com/va_shiva
[0] https://twitter.com/va_shiva
Treating Alex Jones as a serious media outlet is honestly the worst offense here. This guy has stated on multiple occasions in great detail that he believes that the Newtown shooting was faked and everyone was hired actors, that there is some great deep state conspiracy and other fear mongering shit about how the various politicians are the devil and will destroy the world.
The thing that bugs me most about your comment is that it introduces fallacious groupthink (argument based on authority I guess) that makes it difficult for anyone with a different opinion to speak out: "if you trust such and so (i.c. Alex Jones), you're a moron a priori." This type of reasoning should be discouraged on HN in the same way that "did you even read"-type comments should be (and are) discouraged, because I think that both stifle civil and open discussion. And both of these things can be said in better, less excluding, and less hostile ways.
> "if you trust such and so (i.c. Alex Jones), you're a moron a priori." This type of reasoning should be discouraged
A fine position on its face in the general case, but let's be real here: if you trust Alex Jones specifically, you really are a moron.
A fine position on its face in the general case, but let's be real here: if you trust Alex Jones specifically, you really are a moron.
This is getting off topic, but Popehat calls this the "Nazi Exception"[0]
> Yes, rights are important, and we must offer them generously. But surely we can agree that Nazis don't have rights?
[0]: https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...
> Yes, rights are important, and we must offer them generously. But surely we can agree that Nazis don't have rights?
[0]: https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...
Well, in this particular case, it seems "Nazis" do have rights, because Alex Jones is apparently having a profitable business and nobody's throwing him into jail.
We don't have time to dissect everyone's arguments on merit and perform deep analysis. It helps sometimes to filter based on obvious criteria. Like if someone is a young earth creationist or believes the moon landing was faked. This belief so clearly denotes a lack of critical thinking that dissecting the rest of their arguments that follow is not worth the effort.
The world is so massively full of such low hanging fruit that you can often save a massive amount of time this way as it turns out the majority of people aren't worth listening to outside of narrow areas of knowledge they directly interact with. Its a completely valid strategy. The danger of course is that you risk ignoring useful proof if what you assumed was obvious was incorrect.
The world is so massively full of such low hanging fruit that you can often save a massive amount of time this way as it turns out the majority of people aren't worth listening to outside of narrow areas of knowledge they directly interact with. Its a completely valid strategy. The danger of course is that you risk ignoring useful proof if what you assumed was obvious was incorrect.
I suppose so, but I'm biased against Alex Jones now only because of hearing so that so many dubious people like him.
Yet, I don't know anything about Alex Jones himself. It'd be nice if that were included in the critique.
Yet, I don't know anything about Alex Jones himself. It'd be nice if that were included in the critique.
Given his history of incendiary garbage-spewing, if you trust Alex Jones, you're a moron.
If there's something you hear from Alex Jones that seems like it might be true, double-check it with knowledgeable sources before you adopt it as a fact.
Better yet, go find more reliable sources for your information.
If there's something you hear from Alex Jones that seems like it might be true, double-check it with knowledgeable sources before you adopt it as a fact.
Better yet, go find more reliable sources for your information.
In fact the time required to vet anything he says against more objective sources is such that listening to him entirely wasted effort. I know no more after hearing him speak than I did before. If he says its raining outside I necessarily must spend just as much time opening a window and looking outside as if he hadn't spoken. To be clear I'm agreeing with you.
This would make a nice template text.
Alex Jones literally thinks that alien Satanist lizardmen run the world. That's not hyperbolic mockery; he has actually expressed those opinions.
I absolutely agree that automatically dismissing anyone whose news sources don't completely agree with yours is a big problem. But I think intelligent people can agree that some people have proven themselves utterly unworthy of trust.
I absolutely agree that automatically dismissing anyone whose news sources don't completely agree with yours is a big problem. But I think intelligent people can agree that some people have proven themselves utterly unworthy of trust.
Wright Brothers thought they could fly.
Have you ever looked into his claims or reasons why he believes that?
I have spoken to him at length myself.
If you don't think Infowars is a serious news outlet, maybe you haven't watched them? In about 20 years they have had I think 3 retractions, which a propaganda rag like CNN or the Washington Post has to do weekly.
I would wish that HN would have more people who care about primary sources - that is what my academic training taught me. Perhaps if you listened to any of Bannon's speeches rather than malicious rumor and hearsay, you would have a different opinion.
If you don't think Infowars is a serious news outlet, maybe you haven't watched them? In about 20 years they have had I think 3 retractions, which a propaganda rag like CNN or the Washington Post has to do weekly.
I would wish that HN would have more people who care about primary sources - that is what my academic training taught me. Perhaps if you listened to any of Bannon's speeches rather than malicious rumor and hearsay, you would have a different opinion.
They don't have retractions because they don't care about accuracy, whereas places like CNN will issue retractions or corrections for anything as simple as a spelling error. Your argument is like saying a football team is the best team in baseball because they've never lost a baseball game.
>I would wish that HN would have more people who care about primary sources
>If you don't think Infowars is a serious news outlet, maybe you haven't watched them
Sometimes the comments write themselves.
>If you don't think Infowars is a serious news outlet, maybe you haven't watched them
Sometimes the comments write themselves.
They had to do one a month or so ago because they were peddling an insane theory involving yogurt.
Again, Alex Jones has literally claimed that the world is controlled by Satanists and lizard men from space. It is not to his credit that he hasn't retracted those claims.
He isn't sueing for something he did, he is sueing for what they said about him. He is claiming that they are running his reputation.
The problem here is that when a reporter accidentally gave him more credit than was warranted and subsequently retracted that statement, he seems to have gone on a crusade to reobtain that credit. Rather like a certain unnamed political figure, he seems to be obsessed with seeking vindication, even when the facts do not match up with his story.
The basic fact is this: RFC 821 and 822 are the current email infrastructure (the most fundamental changes to the infrastructure are MIME and DNS routing, neither of which his system I suspect had any equivalent to). If I were to write you an email, my client would box it up in an RFC 822 formatted message and send it over a protocol described in RFC 821 to make sure that you receive it. Any definition of email that precludes this system is therefore fundamentally dishonest.
The second major issue is that Ayyaduri's invention has had no demonstrable influence on the development of email. This makes it hard to stomach the fine parsing of definitions. By contrast, for example, I consider the B&O railroad to be the first railroad in the US, a claim which does require a bit of contorting (it's the first one that opened for business on a common carrier principle). However, the B&O railroad undoubtedly had a major impact on US railroading history, even if you want to define the Mohawk & Hudson or the Granite Railway or somebody else as the first railroad.
Rather than merely be content to be known as a precocious inventor of an email program, he's trying his damnedest try to be known of the inventor of email in general even when the facts don't really support such a claim.
The basic fact is this: RFC 821 and 822 are the current email infrastructure (the most fundamental changes to the infrastructure are MIME and DNS routing, neither of which his system I suspect had any equivalent to). If I were to write you an email, my client would box it up in an RFC 822 formatted message and send it over a protocol described in RFC 821 to make sure that you receive it. Any definition of email that precludes this system is therefore fundamentally dishonest.
The second major issue is that Ayyaduri's invention has had no demonstrable influence on the development of email. This makes it hard to stomach the fine parsing of definitions. By contrast, for example, I consider the B&O railroad to be the first railroad in the US, a claim which does require a bit of contorting (it's the first one that opened for business on a common carrier principle). However, the B&O railroad undoubtedly had a major impact on US railroading history, even if you want to define the Mohawk & Hudson or the Granite Railway or somebody else as the first railroad.
Rather than merely be content to be known as a precocious inventor of an email program, he's trying his damnedest try to be known of the inventor of email in general even when the facts don't really support such a claim.
One thing I don't get... He keeps claiming that X isn't real email, because it doesn't mimic the inner office system... OK, so what did his software do that software at the time didn't?
He's the kind of person who wrote a program called EMAIL in 1978 and claims that means he invented email. Meanwhile:
a) email already existed b) inter-computer email already existed c) there were hundreds or thousands of ARPANET email users by 1978
So he might be very smart, but he also appears to be thoroughly dishonest.
a) email already existed b) inter-computer email already existed c) there were hundreds or thousands of ARPANET email users by 1978
So he might be very smart, but he also appears to be thoroughly dishonest.
His explanation for that is the definition of "email" by wikipedia is wrong, and only him know the right one.
I'm not sure what seem worse : He using trolling tactics and expecting people to buy it, or him being so caught up in his own redefinition of reality he now believe it...
I'm not sure what seem worse : He using trolling tactics and expecting people to buy it, or him being so caught up in his own redefinition of reality he now believe it...
If he claims to have invented email after it has been invented, he does not seem very smart.
No other claims can make him win the case if this condition does not stand, can he?
No other claims can make him win the case if this condition does not stand, can he?
I interacted with Shiva at MIT multiple times while he was pursuing his PhD. He was just a dick of a guy, arrogant , prickly etc. But the most telling was his neediness and need to have his ego massaged. Several of his colleagues at MIT and other spots all loathed the guy.
> I strongly encourage readers to watch or listen to him actually speak
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went to his various social media outlets. He openly attacks Elizabeth Warren and constantly retweets and comments about how great InfoWars is.
So yeah, nah.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went to his various social media outlets. He openly attacks Elizabeth Warren and constantly retweets and comments about how great InfoWars is.
So yeah, nah.
> Shiva is a great guy.
There's not much evidence this is true and plenty of evidence it is not.
There's not much evidence this is true and plenty of evidence it is not.
But promoting a fictitious claim to wrongly acquire money from victims is only one step up from mugging people on the street. How can you promote a bad person with such questionable ethics. How on earth does being a bad person not undermine is credibility or qualifications.
Do you believe what I've said is incorrect? Do you believe that ethics aren't a requirement for public service? Do you think its OK to mug people so long as you only mug people you don't like?
Do you believe what I've said is incorrect? Do you believe that ethics aren't a requirement for public service? Do you think its OK to mug people so long as you only mug people you don't like?
[deleted]
And the IBM VM 370/CMS system also had email. People on that system developed a way to interconnect mainframes across the globe using a system called BITNET that was an email predecessor of the Internet proper.
On the 'bun we had the MAIL command which was either part of Honeywell's GCOS TSS or perhaps was one of the enhancements that we got from Bell Labs. When the University started setting up UNIX systems using the software from BELL Labs, we interconnected the UNIX email systems with the 'bun. Then by 1976 Waterloo folk had built an enhanced email system call Space Mail (because the command to invoke it was to type one space by MAIL) which had almost all the features of modern email systems such as revoking a message that you had sent by deleting it from the recipient's mailbox.
I suspect that no single person invented email. We lived in a world surrounded by paper mail delivery systems so at the earliest possible moment, anyone who could, was writing code to emulate mail systems in the computer. It's that simple.