FT2, 12/09/2012 11:13:
1) Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members
of the public (in
the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their
fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking
beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information? [...]
In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community
writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two
are not.
Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members
of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone
with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people and
regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub
Xb" across the street instead. Or that a clerk of "Y bookshop" used the
list of all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them
saying to send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb
bookshop".
Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say...
Nemo