On 11 September 2012 12:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2012 09:41, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Reading through it now I have had time, and with my legal cap on..
IB probably have a strong enough case to win some of their claims (which
is
how civil suits often work).
The behaviour they describe,* if true*, is disappointing (on a personal note) to see. I don't want to see our guys sued over it - but even so..
not
pleasant to see our lot acting like this.
Which claims in particular? I haven't read through their allegations thoroughly, but on a quick read through they are mostly complaining about people conspiring against IB. Since what they were planning on doing (forking the project) wasn't illegal, it can't be a conspiracy.
The particular thing that stands out is the allegation that Ryan emailed Wikitravel members in a way that implied he represented Wikitravel, and telling them the site was migrating to the WMF. (#29 onwards)
Of course; the argument hinges on the wording of the email and whether the intent was to mislead the community.
Also; count IV is interesting. IB seem to be contending that the two (and perhaps others) conspired to fork the community by undermining IB's business (i.e. Wikitravel). Obviously the content is freely licensed, but the community carries no license! What they would have to prove is that e.g. the email intentionally tried to redirect the WT community to a forked version by confusing people as to the official status of WT. (you can commit a civil conspiracy if your ultimate aim is legal, but the way you go about reaching it is illegal etc.).
No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.
Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel site wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it via lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).
Tom