This was nothing more than a shakedown attempt by the government. There is little doubt that Fedex was approached with numerous offers to make this go away in exchange for a hefty fine. In this case, Fedex should sue for malicious prosecution and be awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. I wonder if Fedex shareholders might have a claim against the government as well, as this looming trial had to have damaged the stock price.
They are like UPS has given us 40 million, why has FedEx not paid the Lord this tax. FedEx is in for a smiting.
So they are faced with the challenge of trying to identify which packages (of which they don't know the details of the contents) are legal and illegal. Quite difficult, so they ask the gov't to tell them which ones are the bad actors and the gov't refuses.
Good for them for fighting the charges.
The biggest example is likely Bank of America's mortgage fines being guided into political advocacy groups with a $2 credit for every $1 donated. Relief for actual victims only gets a $1 credit for every $1. Harder to be more corrupt than that.
I once got a tour of the building that ran uu.net (owned by MCI) before it became the domain of spamlords. There was the control center of practically the entire internet backbone of 1993 right in front of me.
In 1989 the only internet connections I was aware of were via universities or government agencies. Maybe The World was offering copies of Usenet or mail forwarding prior to 1990, as were the people behind UUNet, but I would guess they must have first downloaded the bits from a university or government agency.
Can a company provide "internet service" before it is connected to the internet? :)
Their bosses, too.
> FedEx says it repeatedly asked the government to supply a list of shippers it considered illicit so that it could cut off service, but that the government refused; the Department of Justice contends that circumstantial evidence should have been enough to alert the package shipment company.