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...
- FCC Makes It Clear It Thinks Some Net Neutrality Abuses Are 'Innovative' And 'Pro Competition'
- Permission Culture Infects Texas: Rodeos Or A Mexican Restaurant, Who Can Tell Them Apart?
- Time Warner Promises To Adapt To Cord Cutting With Fewer TV Ads, Gets Punished By Wall Street For It
- Med Express Ordered To Pay $20k In Sanctions For Frivolous Lawsuit Over A Negative eBay Review
- Spin Bike EBay Listing Removed Because 'Spin Bike' Is Apparently A Non-Generic Trademark