A man has won damages of £750 from an internet company after he was sent a single unsolicited email.

Gordon Dick, an electronic marketing specialist, launched a civil case against Transcom after it sent him an unwanted email on an address that was known only to one company. His case is the first time a British court has set a level of compensation for spam.

It is also the first time that a court in Britain has awarded compensation to an individual complaining about spam, which accounts for three quarters of all emails sent in the UK.

'The courts have shown they are sensitive to putting right these misdemeanours, and the small claims procedures are ideally suited to take low-cost legal action,' said Dick.

Dick, 30, says he was confident of winning the case because he knew the offending spammer had his email address on a mailing list and he had not given permission for it to be handed out.

He says he would have been happy with an apology from Transcom, the firm that breached the anti-spam laws. But he says it responded to his complaint in bullish fashion and told him to go to court if he was not happy.

He did, and was awarded damages in a small claims case at Edinburgh sheriff court.

When he returned to court recently after Transcom failed to pay him, he was also awarded expenses of more than £600.

Dick is now planning to enforce collection of the sum, and urged other people irritated by unwanted emails to take the same action.

He began the case last summer, and has since set up his own web site, www.scotchspam.org.uk, offering advice on how to take legal action, and including a pro forma letter of complaint to send to the spammers.

Dick told the court that his address had been harvested from an email group of which he was a member. The message he received was sent to 72,000 people.

The justices rejected without comment Ebbers' bid for review of his 2005 conviction based on his contention that he was denied a fair trial.

Hearing the news, Thomas Harris of Brandon, a former WorldCom accountant, who at one time thought he might be able to retire at age 40, said, "I don't harbor any ill feelings against Bernie, but when we make decisions we have to live by them."

Harris, a 13-year employee, left the company, then known as MCI, to open a business with his wife when it appeared he would have to move to stay with the company.

"Hopefully all of this will be a deterrent to other executives making decisions not good for a company," Harris said.

Ebbers began serving his sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution in Oakdale, La., in September, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons Web site lists July 4, 2028, as the 65-year-old Ebbers' projected release date.

Absent a presidential pardon -which was less likely than Supreme Court intervention - Ebbers will serve his sentence, said Matt Steffey, a professor at Mississippi College School of Law.

Steffey said he wasn't surprised the Supreme Court rejected Ebbers' appeal.

"Other than Mr. Ebbers' status as a businessman, there was nothing noteworthy from a legal perspective," he said. "It seems he got a fair trial, he was ably represented and he had his conviction reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Everything went according to form.

"Cases like this rarely get reviewed by the Supreme Court. If Mr. Ebbers weren't famous, there would be little public interest."

Ebbers argued in court papers the trial judge improperly allowed prosecutors to use testimony from witnesses who had been given immunity but denied immunity to potential defense witnesses.

The judge also instructed jurors they could find Ebbers guilty if they believed he suspected a crime was being committed but intentionally looked the other way.

A federal appeals court upheld the conviction last year while acknowledging Ebbers' sentence for a white-collar crime was longer than sentences routinely imposed by many states for violent crimes. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Ebbers' actions to hide WorldCom's financial problems were substantial and had cost investors dearly.

Stacey Wall, president and chief executive officer at Pinnacle Trust Wealth Management in Ridgeland, said he sympathizes with investors who lost money but thinks Ebbers' sentence was too harsh. "Relative to other corporate scandals and executives involved, he got very unfair treatment," he said.

Ebbers was convicted of fraud and conspiracy in March 2005 for his role in the scheme that drove the former telecommunications giant into bankruptcy in 2002.

Investigators uncovered $11 billion in fraud, much of it because accountants were classifying regular expenses as long-term capital expenditures. The company re-emerged under the name MCI and moved the headquarters to Virginia. Verizon later bought MCI.

The jury presiding over the perjury trial of former vice-presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby returned a guilty verdict Tuesday after 10 days of deliberation in the case that began January 23. Libby faced perjury and obstruction of justice charges in connection with the investigation into the leak of the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame. He was found guilty on four of five counts.

US District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed a juror last week after finding she had been exposed to information about the CIA leak case over the previous weekend. Deliberations continued with just 11 jurors, despite the availability of two alternate jurors. Earlier this week, Walton refused to answer a jury question on the level of proof that would have to be met to find Libby guilty. The jury wanted to know whether in order to satisfy the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt they had to find it would not be "humanly" possible" for Libby to completely forget conversations which witnesses had testified took place. Walton determined the question was too vague to be properly answered.

Libby's defense team rested February 15, one week after the prosecution finished presenting its evidence against Libby. Lawyers subsequently made their closing arguments February 20 in which the defense argued that Libby was a scapegoat for presidential aide Karl Rove's disclosures, while the prosecution argued in its final remarks that Libby was merely trying to a cover up a potentially illegal intelligence leak.

A New Jersey superior court judge Monday upheld a Friday jury verdict  for Merck & Co, finding that the company had given adequate warning to physicians of the risks associated with its painkiller Vioxx. Judge Carol Higbee rejected a motion by plaintiffs attorney Mark Lanier disputing a finding that the drug company had warned doctors prescribing Vioxx that a 2004 study showed the drug doubled the risk of heart attack or stroke in patients who took it for longer than 18 months; Lanier represents the estate of a deceased man whose fatal heart attack is alleged to have been caused by the drug.

Merck faces more than 27,000 lawsuits from people who say they were harmed by the once $2.5 billion-a-year drug before it was pulled from the market in September of 2004. Merck has set aside $1 billion to fight every Vioxx court challenge. In November 2006, a federal judge declined to certify a national class action suit, ruling that it made more sense to try the cases in their respective states of origin.

Merck & Co. won't have to defend against claims that the painkiller Vioxx caused a Wisconsin man's fatal heart attack during the second phase of a trial that begins today.

Judge Carol Higbee in Atlantic City on Monday rebuffed a request by Brian Hermans' family to let jurors consider whether Vioxx caused the accountant's death. The jury ruled on Friday that Hermans had been adequately warned of the drug's risks.

 
The jury also found that Merck, the third-largest U.S. drugmaker, didn't properly warn another man, Frederick Humeston. Humeston's attorney will present evidence in the trial's second phase that Vioxx caused his client's September 2001 heart attack. Merck faces 27,000 lawsuits over Vioxx, which was pulled from the market in 2004.

"We're pleased with the judge's decision," said Kent Jarrell, a Merck spokesman. "We are preparing for the second phase of the trial, where we believe the evidence will show Vioxx did not cause Mr. Humeston's heart attack."

Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, has won eight verdicts and lost four on the question of whether Vioxx caused patients' heart attacks. In the latest Atlantic City trial, jurors found that Merck warned Hermans of the risk by changing Vioxx's label in 2002.

The panel also concluded in both the Hermans and Humeston cases that Merck misrepresented the risks in marketing Vioxx, and that its handling of the drug violated New Jersey consumer laws, entitling the families to triple reimbursement for their expenses for Vioxx, plus payment of legal fees.

In a unanimous decision, the justices said that the four Republicans were not entitled to sue in an effort to replace a redistricting plan ordered by a court with one passed by a Republican-controlled state legislature.

A Democratic state judge drew up the first redistricting plan in 2002, while the Republican Legislature drew one up in 2003.

The court plan had been put in place when a divided Colorado General Assembly was unable to agree on one in time for the 2002 election.

In their lawsuit, the Republican voters say the court-imposed map violates a right of citizens under the U.S. Constitution to vote for congressional candidates in districts created by state legislatures.

In an unsigned opinion, the justices said that the only injury the Republican voters allege is that the Elections Clause had not been followed.

"This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past," the court stated.

Citing earlier rulings, the justices said the Republicans must have more than a general interest common to all members of the public in order to pursue the case.

Last year, a U.S. District Court in Colorado had ruled that the Republicans could proceed with their lawsuit asserting an Elections Clause violation.

The Colorado case is the Supreme Court's latest foray into congressional redistricting battles. Last year, the justices addressed a messy redistricting fight in Texas, ruling that the Constitution does not bar states from redrawing political lines in mid-decade when one party or the other senses an advantage.

The decision grew out of a court review of a Texas redistricting plan orchestrated in 2003 by Tom DeLay, who was a Republican congressional leader at the time.

The Colorado dispute also involved a lawsuit brought by the Democratic state attorney general. It led to a Colorado Supreme Court decision against the Republican legislative plan in 2003. The Colorado Supreme Court said the state constitution restricts congressional redistricting to once per decade and that the legislature's plan was the second plan.