As much as I hate to admit it, they have a point this time.
No, actually they don't have much of a point at all.
You admit lower down that things weren't handled ideally, so they did have point. Yes, they blew that point out of all proportion, they're Register writers, it's what they get paid for, but they did have a point.
We can't just accept every demand to take down a page and leave it down for a fortnight.
But see, this is exactly what happens when you trust the Register to report on anything accurately. We certainly do NOT "accept every demand to take down a page" nor is it normal or usual for a page to be "down for a fortnight".
Every case is different, and while it is of course sensible to always be vigilant for ways to improve the OTRS system and practice, the Register was completely unfair in their "reporting".
Ok, "every" was a gross exaggeration, sorry. It does seem to happen a little more often than I'm happy with. I doubt OTRS hardly ever receives legitimate complaints that require blanking the entire article. Even if there is a marginally questionable legal issue with the article, it's likely only to be in one small section, and that small section is the part that should be blanked (and the article protected).
That's right, but real legal threats from real lawyers have to be taken seriously. I think this case could have been handled differently, and that's worth talking about. But the hysteria of the Register is well known, and should be taken into account here.
IANAL, but as far as I'm aware, the only kind of legal complaint that we need to worry about is libel. Real legal threats from real lawyers about libel need to be taken seriously. Other legal threats can, and should, be ignored. This legal threat was, apparently, about trademarks - just because the person complaining was a real lawyer doesn't mean they aren't talking complete nonsense.
I'm glad you agree that things weren't handled ideally. Could you elaborate on what you think should have been done in this case?