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
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
consensushttp://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensusor make
concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this
Web
FT2, 12/09/2012 11:13:
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
On 12 September 2012 08:45, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party
to it?
That's what tortuous interference is all about. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
To tackle both these at once:
*@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: *
1. WT's mission is stated clearly, *Wikitravel is a project to create
a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide.* I
don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not
FT2, 12/09/2012 13:09:
2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty.
Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved.
Nobody except IB of course.
Deryck Chan, 12/09/2012 12:42:
I'm glad that WMF has decided to file a counter-suit and
Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform
for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the
better place... that would be a problem.
This is what IB appear to be alleging.
All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not
On 12 September 2012 12:27, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote:
[...] fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
Tom
Oh they do. That's precisely what case law is. Inaccurate metaphors are the
reason that courts worldwide have a ridiculous view on what constitutes a
On 12 September 2012 12:29, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote:
On 12 September 2012 12:27, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
[...] fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
Tom
Oh they do. That's precisely what case law is. Inaccurate metaphors are the
*@Nemo: *IB haven't claimed an IB insider broke their contract with IB in
any of this.
Agree +1 as well :)
*@Tom:* Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very
much.
The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to
be an employee or official
On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
*@Tom:* Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very
much.
The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to
be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to
be),
It would probably be hard to sustain a claim of deceit. As best I can
tell, long before any wider discussion, all roles were clear or known. The
email cited by IB clearly itself attempts to ensure roles and principals
are not mistaken.
The test of deceit would be whether persons who are or have
On 11 September 2012 12:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2012 09:41, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@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
On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay k...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
suithttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf
I urge everyone to
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 14:48, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 September 2012 01:46, Kelly Kay k...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
suit
Good luck to everyone concerned from the UK Chapter! James in particular
has been doing some very interesting things in the UK recently, which we're
very grateful for.
As to the trademark infringement, I think it stems not from Wikivoyage,
but instead from James' alleged use of the phrase Wiki
Reading through the IB filing, they aren't even bothering to structure
a good case. It's all blather and no substance (claiming, for
instance, that the defendants have been unjustly enriched by
establishing a website with a name confusingly similar to WikiTravel;
when of course no such site
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:26:06PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an
attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content:
Your blog post somehow made its way to slashdot.
Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
of this new project.
Is this a valid announcement from the WMF board before the official
On 6 Sep 2012, at 07:38, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
of this new
The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
On 6 September 2012 08:18, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.
Just to follow up
Just to note:
Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins
having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
Wiki Travel content.
It seems intellectually dishonest to
Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.
So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is
basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement
dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.
Tom
On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard
In contrast to Tom's opinion, I believe that WMF has done the right thing -
write the blog post in a way so as to create the biggest PR impact within
the limits of factual accuracy; and link to the PDF and discussions for the
sake of transparency.
On 6 September 2012 15:12, Thomas Morton
The Wikitravel site seems to be declining in a hurry, even from what
was evidently a sad state just several months ago. The main remaining
administrator, an employee who goes by IBobi (IB as in Internet
Brands), has limited his actions almost exclusively to arguing with
other community members and
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
entity under Section 230? It
Forwarding to Wikimedia-l since it does not appear to have come over
naturally.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kelly Kay k...@wikimedia.org
Date: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:46 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory
Relief in response to Legal
A few moments ago we posted this to the Wikimedia Foundation Blog, it is
self explanatory.
Today the Wikimedia Foundation filed a
suithttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_complaint_for_declaratory_judgement_September_2012.pdf
in
San Francisco against Internet Brands seeking a judicial
Would it be inappropriate for community members to express their
displeasure with the actions of Internet Brands, perhaps by mass or
organised boycott? I expect Wikimedia Foundation itself cannot
encourage any sort of action, but can the actions of editors have
negative repercussions on the
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:09:29AM +, Max Harmony wrote:
Would it be inappropriate for community members to express their
displeasure with the actions of Internet Brands, perhaps by mass or
organised boycott?
The latter is pretty much already happening by default.
sincerely,
Kim
32 matches
Mail list logo
