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

[FT2]

The more interesting legal line:

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?

2) Does IB believe it is tortious to discuss or offer a service to members
of the public, or for a member of the public to suggest to other
potentially interested members of the public, that a different venue or
provider of services might please them more than their present one?

3) Is IB aware of any litigation based upon that very novel theory? For
example,



   - In the commercial world, does case law suggest it is tortious for
   Apple to either target PC users, or suggest PC users might prefer a Mac, or
   a store to state they price compare and are cheaper than another store, or
   a conference centre to state it has facilities better suited than a
   competitor for the needs of an inquirer and their peers?
   - In the social world does case law suggest it is tortious for a member
   of a tennis-playing peer group to suggest that in light of changed rules at
   the current venue a different venue might be better, or to propose to
   explore moving the tennis club to play at that venue?
   - Can you sue users of your bar (absent a contract) to force them to
   continue using your bar if you hear them planning to shoot pool elsewhere?

This would be very odd, and novel.


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.

FT2




On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> 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...).
>>
>>
>>  I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued.
>
> Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of
> the legal points that will be clarified.
>
> It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has
> "tortuously" caused injury. (Para 1).
>
> Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a
> party to it?
>
> Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki
> may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence.
>
> Ray
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>