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...
- When Analyzing Cord Cutting Options, Most TV Analysts Continue To Pretend Piracy Simply Doesn't Exist
- Accidentally Revealed FTC Document Details Some Questionable Google Practices, But Not The Ones Most People Focused On
- AT&T Is Fine With Title II -- When It Protects AT&T From Anti-Competitive Behavior
- Patent Troll Sues eBay For Daring To Ask Patent Office For Patent Re-Exam
- Judge's Overly Broad Discovery Order About Online Critics Allows Ubervita To Bully More Authors Of Critical Reviews