[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[Thomas Morton]

On 11 September 2012 12:16, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11 September 2012 09:41, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas at 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