Alphax wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
If Mr. Wollmann thinks that he has a case let him go ahead with it, and show us that he means more than simply to intimidate. We can easily promise that when we receive the court documents in the case we will reconsider our position in the matter. This may or may not result in a removal of what he finds offensive from the site. Meanwhile it will have been very costly for him to mount his case with no prospects of recovering those costs.
Well, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be vulnerable, but where individuals are involved he could get a default judgement in a plaintiff-friendly UK court for a no-show defendant in the US, with costs awarded (which is very common in UK cases), and then use that as leverage in the US. This technique has been tried against Usenet posters and worked well. Since Wikipedia content is produced by individuals who are often identifiable it would probably work as well on Wikipedia. He may have to demonstrate standing to sue in UK courts, but that could be as simple as selling books through Amazon.co.uk--which Wollmann does, as it happens.
By the same token, why hasn't Wikipedia been sued by the Church of Scientology for revealing its top secret information, which church members can only access after a certain degree of financial support of the church? Couldn't they sue Wikipedia for lost income?
Interesting observation. Whatever the merits of their cases Scientology is probably in a much better position than Wollmann when it comes to the experience and funding needed to carry on a suit. Maybe that experience has also taught them when not to sue. ;-)
Ec