Reading through the IB filing, they aren't even bothering to structure
a good case. It's all blather and no substance (claiming, for
instance, that the defendants have been unjustly enriched by
establishing a website with a name confusingly similar to WikiTravel;
when of course no such site exists, and there is no possible way for
the named defendants to have been enriched at all, unjustly or
otherwise).
I can see why the WMF described it as a transparent attempt at
intimidation. The conduct IB is trying to deter has primarily
consisted of criticizing IB and encouraging the development of an
alternative; viewed from that angle, and since there is no actual
underlying business conduct, I wonder if the complaint falls afoul of
California's strong anti-SLAPP statute. I suppose you'd have to find
some way of arguing that criticizing IB is in the public interest.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:26 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%…
It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_Willi…
Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF.
My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-f…
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l