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
I just posted this to commons-l:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2012-September/006660.html
Please answer on that list if you have ideas :-)
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
13 matches
Mail list logo
