On this Blog, we have previously written about Shiva Ayyadurai’s claim of being the inventor of email and have also noted how Ayyadurai’s story is emblematic of the manner in which our society and legal institutions have a way of systematically erasing into oblivion individuals significantly contributing to human progress only because they lack power or influence.
Readers who have been following Ayyadurai’s story closely would be interested in finding out that Ayyadurai has recently sued Techdirt, an online news portal publishing news stories and opinion pieces in the realm of technology policy, for libel because of the latter’s comments about Ayyadurai’s claim that he invented email.
An excellent summary of the complaint can be found here.
According to Ayyadurai, Techdirt has falsely claimed in as many as 14 articles that Ayyadurai’s claim is ‘bogus’ and has falsely characterized him as being a ‘fraud’, ‘liar’ and a ‘fake’.
The complaint begins by noting how Ayyadurai was the first person to develop a digital equivalent for the interoffice mail system in 1978 which he decided to call email and obtained copyright protection for the same.
It then quotes a number of relevant experts in support of Ayyadurai’s claim.
According to the complaint, from 2nd September, 2014, Techdirt’s CEO, Mike Masnick, began publishing a series of articles which criticized the Huffington Post for endorsing Ayyadurai’s claim. The complaint points out, in a systematic fashion, how each of these articles contained false and defamatory assertions about Ayyadurai. Most articles described Ayyadurai as the ‘fake inventor of email’ and accused him of fooling gullible reporters with his misleading assertions.
Further, they blamed Ayyadurai for conflating copyright and patent law by using the copyright protection granted to him for his email programme as the legal basis for his claim that he has been recognized by the US Government as the inventor of email.
On the basis of these assertions, Ayyadurai claims that he has suffered significant reputational loss and emotional distress and is entitled to compensatory damages to the tune of $15 million along with punitive damages.
As David Post of the Volokh Conspiracy notes, Ayyadurai’s case stands on a weak legal footing, in light of the fact that most of the assertions made by Techdirt constitute protected speech. Further, since Ayyadurai is a public figure, he not only needs to show that what Techdirt stated is defamatory and false, but also that the comments that form the subject matter of the lawsuit were published in reckless disregard of the truth as per the NYTimes versus Sullivan precedent.
As Post notes, Ayyadurai is represented by Charles Harder, the same lawyer who represented Hulk Hogan in his landmark lawsuit against Gawker that resulted in the latter being slapped with damages worth $140 million and an eventual settlement worth $31 million.
Further, as Eugene Volokh notes, Ayyadurai makes several misleading assertions in his complaint. More specifically, Ayyadurai claims that the fact that the US Government granted copyright protection to him for the word ‘email’ essentially amounts to the American Government endorsing his claim of being the inventor of email. This claim cannot pass muster, in light of the fact that copyright law, unlike patent law, is not designed to recognize inventions, so a person obtaining copyright protection cannot claim to be the true and first inventor of the subject matter of protection.
Further, relying on the Online Etymology Dictionary, Ayyadurai claims that the word email first entered the English language in 1982 owing to his invention. However, as Volokh notes, ‘email’ found a place in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a more authoritative source, in 1979 – before Ayyadurai had obtained copyright protection for his programme.
Worryingly, Ayyadurai had also sued Gawker on virtually identical grounds last year and eventually settled the lawsuit after obtaining $750,000.
This being the case, Techdirt’s claim that Ayyadurai’s lawsuit is designed to chill free speech and prevent media houses such as Techdirt from fostering robust and uninhibited debate on issues of public significance seems justified and appropriate.
Indeed, there can be no gainsaying the fact that, if lawsuits such as these are allowed to go forward, it will become much harder for the press to critically question and examine the statements and claims made by public figures and persons in positions of power, no matter how ludicrous they may be.
That said, I think it would also be fair to describe Techdirt’s reaction as being a bit extreme – it has characterized this legal battle as being a ‘fight for its life’ and has contended that this lawsuit could very well sound the death knell for the company.
I don’t think we will ever know with certainty whether or not Shiva Ayyadurai is the actual inventor of email. What one can say with certainty, however, is this: Public figures such as Ayyadurai would do well to develop thicker skin when it comes to grappling with views and opinions about their contributions to society that are not to their liking and companies such as Techdirt would do well to ensure that their coverage is fair but respectful; objective but not defamatory. If they don’t, public discourse on issues of critical significance will be the poorer for it.
