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

[Deryck Chan]

One possibility lies within their terms of use:
"If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals but
refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach
consensus<http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensus>or make
concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this
Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we
reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal --
to prevent you from disrupting our work together."

The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals)
does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a
travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the
fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on
Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that
they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which is
a form of breach of contract.

I'm glad that WMF has decided to file a counter-suit and help James and
Ryan defend their cases.
Deryck

On 12 September 2012 10:13, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>