Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken down. In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month and force the project offline. That's the world you're advocating? No responsibility on the part of the office to even make the slightest attempt to verify the claim? W.J. In a message dated 3/4/2010 6:08:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, swatjester(a)gmail.com writes: You've identified one of the criticisms of OCILLA/DMCA -- that it can be easily abused by copyright holder to keep stuff offline. (This is what the EFF is probably getting involved over). However, the proper response to that is for the alleged infringer to request sanctions against the copyright holder for misrepresentation. It's not the Foundation's place to get involved, nor the proper use of their resources to second and third-guess these decisions. They take the office action, remove whatever it is, and if the underlying legal battle gets fought, they can then go and reverse it. So no, there's no obligation to interject ourselves, but more importantly I think we DO have an obligation to respect the existing legal system as well as protect the entire project from litigation.