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 exists, and there is no possible way for the named defendants to have been enriched at all, unjustly or otherwise).
I can see why the WMF described it as a transparent attempt at intimidation. The conduct IB is trying to deter has primarily consisted of criticizing IB and encouraging the development of an alternative; viewed from that angle, and since there is no actual underlying business conduct, I wonder if the complaint falls afoul of California's strong anti-SLAPP statute. I suppose you'd have to find some way of arguing that criticizing IB is in the public interest. On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:26 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://static.ibsrv.net/ibsite/pdf/2012/2012_9_4_Internet%20Brands%20Files%20To%20Protect%20Its%20Wikitravel%20Trademark%20From%20Deliberate%20Infringement.pdf > > It does indeed look the same as the copy served on Ryan: > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Internet_Brands_v_William_Ryan_Holliday.pdf > > Compare and contrast with the Wikimedia PDF. > > > My blog post, in which I emphasise that this is fundamentally an > attack on CC by-sa and the freedom of free content: > > http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/09/06/internet-brands-sues-people-for-forking-under-cc-by-sa/ > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
