by Mike Masnick
Fri, May 2nd 2008 5:41pm
After eBay released its side of the story in the eBay-Craigslist lawsuit, we noted that it looked pretty damning against Craigslist, but we wanted to hear Craig and Jim's side of the story. Well, their initial response isn't all that convincing. At best, it highlights a few points in the lawsuit and claims "but eBay did the same thing!" But, that's not at all accurate, unfortunately. eBay isn't suing Craigslist because it has a poison pill, or because it wants a staggered board or the right of first refusal agreement -- as Craigslist implies. It's suing because Craig and Jim put those provisions in place by themselves, without the wider consent of the board or eBay as a significant shareholder. In other words, Craigslist's response isn't on the meat of the lawsuit, and appears to be missing the point entirely. One would hope that their response in court has more substance.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Split Works Debate Raises Thorny Issues For Music Companies (And For The Rest Of Us)
- Spin Bike EBay Listing Removed Because 'Spin Bike' Is Apparently A Non-Generic Trademark
- Canada Is Still Doing A Half-Assed Job Enforcing Its Net Neutrality Rules, Highlighting Importance of Competition
- Canada Opens Incumbent Fiber Networks To Competition, Cue The Hysteria
- No Craig Newmark Did Not Donate To EFF; He Helped Make CFAA Worse Instead