After Jarkoff posted an entry about the security risks he sees with the login mechanism of the Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) website on his blog, TechMiso, he received an e-mail from the RSA Anti Fraud Command Centre.  RSA Security Inc. is  an encryption and network security company, and the RSA Anti Fraud Command Centre helps the NFCU with online fraud prevention.

The RSA email claimed that Jarkoff's post infringed on NFCU's copyright and trademark rights, and it expressed concern that Jarkoff's site could become a host of phishing attacks against NFCU's clients. The email then proceeded to ask for various kinds of information from Jarkoff, including the tar/zip file of the site's source code. After Jarkoff replied to the email, clarifying the purpose of his post and maintaining that there was no fraudulent activity involved, RSA replied that Jarkoff's post may confuse NFCU's customers and stating that NFCU had asked RSA to take down Jarkoff's blog.

A month later, Jarkoff received an email from Rackspace, his web host, regarding a trademark infringement complaint it received from RSA. Jarkoff replied to the email from Rackspace, explaining that there was no trademark infringement. Soon afterwards, Jarkoff received another email from Rackspace letting him know that RSA had requested that Rackspace disregard the shut down request.

On September 15, 2008, Dan Duran, CEO of the U.S. Soybean Export Council, sued two former Council employees and several anonymous Internet users over emails that allegedly defamed him.  Christopher Andrew, one of the former employees, allegedly sent several emails containing defamatory statements about Duran and manufactured a photo of Duran "posing in a friendly manner with Kim Jong-Il, a dictator of an enemy country."

Duran's original complaint sought a permanent injunction against the defendants preventing them from "[p]ublishing and re-publishing by any means, including electronic mail, any further defamatory, scandalous, desultory, false statements concerning Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s personal life, and Plaintiff’s professional activities."  Duran also sought damages in excess of $75,000.

On October 6, 2008, Andrew made a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that Duran had not properly filed service of process and failed to state a valid claim.  The court found that Duran had properly stated claims for defamation and injurious falsehood and that Andrew's statements were not opinion protected by the First Amendment.  The court did find that the doctored photos "clearly represent[ed] imaginative expression, rather than assertions of objective fact" and dismissed the claims related to its publication.  

In mid April 2009, Duran made a motion to dismiss the Doe defendants and Tom Nishio.

Update:

5/20/2009 - Jury trial scheduled to begin April 5, 2010.