Slashdot Mirror
Etoy: It's Not Over Yet
It's one thing to drop a lawsuit. It's another to "move away" from it. According to Chris Truax, the lawyer for the Etoy art group, which version the media heard depended on what time they were in touch with the eToys management. The initial version, he claims, was that eToys was dropping the suit. A later version was that they were "backing away" from the suit. A third version reassured the press that a precondition specified in the legal document was never intended to be a demand - only a request.
To see how the coverage changed throughout Wednesday, see the first Wired story, then the NYT/CNET story, the Yahoo/TheStandard story, and then the second Wired story.
The problem was that eToys.legal was not working from the same playbook as eToys.PR. The precondition, clearly a showstopper, also calls into question whether the giant toy firm has a clue about what is really at stake.
That precondition was:
"to give good faith consideration, as our neighbor on the Internet, to concentrating the profanity, nudity and violence that is sometimes part of the etoy corporation message on etoy corporation's other websites."
Asking artists to censor their work, of course, flies like a lead wheelbarrow. At the same time the company spokesman was saying "our intent was never to silence free artistic expression," their legal team was doing precisely that. The entire short letter in which this request was made was focused on finding a resolution to the perceived problem of "profanity, nudity, and violence," and concluded by noting that co-existence was possible if "etoy corporation will respond favorably to this proposal."
The later Wired story quotes eToys management as putting this spin on it:
"This is a simple, straightforward, good-faith effort on our part to resolve this matter. We are asking that they make good-faith efforts to put some of the material that kids and parents might find offensive on another part of the site."
They can repeat the words "good faith" all they like, but that doesn't make this any less censorship. Imagine operating as an artist, knowing that for the rest of your tenure with the Etoy art group you must work very carefully not to put material inappropriate for children too close to your homepage. One use of the F-word already led to this lawsuit; how hair-trigger would the lawyers be the second time around? You'd want to tone down your message, lest you be accused of working in "bad faith."
But maybe this letter was just badly worded; perhaps there was a miscommunication somewhere between the PR and the legal departments.
Or, maybe this whole episode was a cynical attempt to calm down the activist community and get the story out of the public eye.
Think about what eToys is really saying. They have cost the art group a fair amount of money in legal bills and have shut down their website for (to date) a month. Now they say they want to walk away as long as Etoy does the same.
If someone came onto your property, stole your computer - and then a month later, after you'd spent thousands of dollars trying to get it back, offered to return it on the condition that you promised not to sue - would you be inclined to accept that condition?
How would you feel if they asked you to make a "good-faith effort" not to use your computer to write any "profanity"?
Chris Truax stopped short of saying whether Etoy would or would not continue their defensive countersuit if eToys' original suit were dropped, saying only "if the suit is dropped unilaterally, that's a very positive step." In my talks with him, he has seemed committed to finding a way to settle this matter without resorting to a knock-down, drag-out court battle, and he has said he'd like to help eToys management to educate themselves about being good netizens.
But he also pointed out several times that "the devil is in the details." And, of course, he's right. This whole mess won't be over until it's over.
It's a shame that the courts are still seeing issues like these at the end of 1999; those in positions of power should have learned about being good netizens by now. Etoy's story isn't all that unusual. While the art group has been under fire, there have been simultaneous attacks on the scholarly arts organization Leonardo and a computer club which happens to share the same initials as the BBC. Stay tuned.
That web site had a lady's ankle visible! Horrors!
Even if etoy.com was a hard core porn site, etoys should have no moral or legal rights to do what they did. etoy.com is not bound by US laws. At most, US authorities might someday take it upon themselves selectively ban "incoming" material thru filtering techniques etc (which in itself would be a horrendous state of affairs), but there is no justification for suspending registration of the etoy.com domain. THEY HAVE NO FUCKING JURISDICTION. (Now slashdot will have to shut down for offensive language.)
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
Etoy is in a position of strength. eToys' trademark application was overturned, Etoy was there first, eToys is backing down, it's time to fight the hell out of this in many ways. This should go to court, and eToys will almost definitely lose. Then Etoy could proceed with their lawsuit and have eToys by the short hairs. Imagine the dive Etoys' stock would take then. Etoy needs to fight this one to the extent possible. Many good things could come of it. Other corporations may reconsider bullying the little guys, a precedent just might be set, and Etoys would learn that they can't throw their little weight.com around just becaused they've IPO'd.
How many times is a big corperation (the #3 holiday toy seller) true to its word? Very rarely...
Of course eToys will continue to attack eToy. The reasoning behind that statement is simple - The Calendar. eToys, does not want eToy active during the Holiday season because newbies on the internet may acidentally go there... So they will try and shut it down once and for all rather than just knock it out during every big sale period.
Am I missing something?
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
Things like this will just keep popping up if we don't make an example of eToys. We need to raise such a big stink that the media picks up on it and eToys gets bad publicity. If they start loosing customers left and right they will listen, believe me. The unofficial rules of the net are made by us users as a whole.
It is not enough that they drop the lawsuit. They have gotten what they wanted, to have etoy.com down for the xmas season. Next year they'll find some other excuse.
The root of this whole mess are the facts that EToys has money, NSI has control over DNS, and the US justice system has more than its reasonable share of ignorant jurisdiction over the Internet. It's a fact that if Etoy's and EToys' positions were reversed, that EToys' domain name would not have been impounded. This needs to be publicized outside of regular Internet news outlets to inform the public of yet another area of activity where money and influence yields undeserved/unnecessary/unethical power.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
Protest.net's overview of this mess
RTMarks's etoy page
ETOYS stock value in the past month accoring to Alta Vista
A better stock picture from yahoo.
At this rate, ETOYS will be worthless soon enough. How low does it have to fall before it simply ceases to exist in it's current form? In this age of internet stocks being so highly valued how can ETOYS not realize the damage this has caused them? How can they be so blind?
Perhaps they have forgotten that we talk to each other. Perhaps they have forgotten that we can hear all sides of the stories. perhaps they have forgotten that we could have been their market and their investors had they not done this.
Perhaps they're just blind.
No Zen is good zen
I'd ask if anyone was surprised at this, but judging from the posts yesterday, ("Oh yay, EToys has changed their mind, they're good guys again") I guess the answer is yes.
EToys never claimed to be dropping the suit--only "backing off," which means, precisely, whatever they want it to. Trying to censor in good faith is apparently what they meant by backing off.
If this is ever resolved satisfactorily, I urge everyone who has been boycotting EToys to _continue_ the boycott. They deserve (and have from the beginning) punitive measures brought against them for the damage they've done to the etoy group.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
It really is unfortunate that things went in this direction. We all know that Etoy was there first, and the case should be very clear; things don't always work out the way you expect them.
How so?
I'd imagine that the claims of conspiracy (the Xmas fiasco) have quite a bit of merit, but somehow I predict that this will ring the same responses. Who's to say that EToys didn't *say* they were backing off to fix their public image, all while their legal department had a field day with Etoy. It is a possibility.
Since this is an old issue, isn't there something we can do about it? Contacting Etoys with nice well-thought-out responses would always be nice, but I mean a more "fit to print" solution. We're a pretty big community, but the fact of the matter is that we're a specific group that is no target. But we do have access to other people. Why not have our own publicity campaign that actually releases the facts of this case, and tell as many friends as we can about what is going on.
Our power will be completely wasted if we don't use it to hit them where it counts, and why they started this whole thing: In their pocketbook. The proposed boycott isn't enough if it's only us... we need more. This is enough indication that at least their legal department just doesn't get it.
So make them.
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
How about a countersuit claiming product recognition problems and trademark dilution? If the domain name was there first, and the trademark status favors etoy, they should just go for the jugular and bring down etoys.com altogether.
good. fast. cheap. (pick any two, you can't have all three)
IF eToys argument is "hey, do what you like, but can you keep the stuff that's age-inappropriate off the public pages", then I don't see the problem. Anyone capable of setting up a web page is more than capable of setting up an .htaccess file, and anyone capable of thought is capable of deciding if something is "age-inappropriate".
That's not censorship, as it doesn't tell anyone what they can do or say, it merely says "uh - can everyone agree to be mature about this?" I don't see anything the matter with that. It doesn't hurt to use your noggin.
But that's a BIG "if", and the implication of the article was that their legal department didn't necessarily think the same way.
If the eToys argument is that "you show what we say, and nothing more", then they deserve to be forced to eat Haggis, Black Pudding and mushy peas, with HP sauce. On National Television. Without throwing up. Even after being told what goes in them.
I don't agree with censorship, but I don't have any problem with two web sites trying to find some kind of common ground so that they can talk this over like human beings.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
ETOYS DROPS SUIT AGAINST ARTISTS. Public outcry led toy site to abandon action against artists using eToy.com.
Uh huh... "dropped" the lawsuit eh? Ya don't say. I wonder how much this "ad space" cost Etoys? :)
---
I have been to a few sites that basically have similar urls to a major company (plus or minus a few letters) and they have a little message saying that basically "are you looking for blah.com? well go there) and such with a link in bold. Then all you have to do is to have another large link that allows for the people who really wanted to go to etoy or whatever to go there if they want with just one more click. This would have solved the problem without the need for lost revenue. I don't know about you people but after the first few days of no utilities and no food in a cold dark house I would be looking at any solution.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Now, If someone told you that in 1997, Etoys bought every domain name they could muster with the letter E and the phrase "toy" or "toys", would it surprise you? No, perhaps not - It seems like a reasonably self-preserving business practice. However, If you knew you owned the domain E-toy.com and made efforts to shut down Etoy.com, Would it seem unreasonable for you to gain traffic to your own site by visitors mistyping E-toy instead of Etoy?
:>
Making gains off of another group's losses (that you created) seems incredibly unreasonable and dishonest to me. Perhaps we ought to encourage some kind of countersuit falling along these lines... Even with no chance to beat the financial backbone of Etoys' legal team, it would at least get the press riled up and put the spotlight on Etoys...
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
As someone else has already said (in this post, even) this has nothing to do with US jurisdiction. The courts didn't force the closure of www.etoy.com. eToys called up NSI, complained, and NSI brought down the site. They have every right, since they are the ones who registered www.etoy.com, but it is a horrible, tacky, spineless, etc. thing to do. NSI != USA
etoy.com *was* registered before etoys.com, but the original basis of the lawsuit is that eToys bought the (since invalidated) TM from a company that registered said TM in 1990. In eToys' twisted reality, this was reason enough to pursue these actions. Thankfully, the courts are beginning to see just how silly this case is... so far.
God, I hate playing devil's advocate...ick!
BTW, the judge's reason for invalidation of the TM is just great: adding e to the front of a common word is not grounds for a TM. I hope this sets a good precedent to thwart all the other evil-minded companies out there!
Eric
So basically just pick another domain registering company and get etoy up again. If the NSI wants to be vile about it then just go somewhere else. Exactly where is etoy operating from anyway?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
eToys apparently still doesn't get it. Internet was never meant to be a shopping mall. Yes, commerce can succeed in this medium, but that does not neccesarily make this a shopping mall.
Internet is a neighborhood. This means that there's a great variety of resources here. Sure, there's stores, and some of them make a lot of money. There are also gathering places, theatres (some of them pretty bleeding-edge, like etoy), workshops, and homes. This neighborhood has been here, and has grown, long before eToys ever came on the scene. Now, eToys is saying, "We want this neighborhood to become a shopping mall." And they'll tear down the whole damn neighborhood to do it.
Ultimately what these companies want is not a bazaar, not a whole new world, not a new medium of communication; but a virtual suburb. Where everything is clean (or else), there are no angry people, no controversial opinions or expressions, and everyone is free, so long as what they want to do is make money. A virtual suburb that is safe for sheltered suburban children raised in good Mayburyish homes, where they can learn that Internet is safe, inoffensive, secure, protected. A virtual suburb where you don't find anything that might even vaguely disturb you. Where the music is soothing, the pictures are pretty, and you can make your dreams come true by entering your credit card number and expiration date. Don't worry, that information, along with all your other information, won't be handed off to anyone who might hurt you (just to other people who want to sell to you).
There's just one problem. Even if they get their way, it's all pure bullshit. Internet is not secure, will never be secure. Real life is full of controversey, different ideas, and shocking truths. If they get shoved off of Internet, they'll just move to another network, albeit perhaps a more exclusive one (think back to the BBS days). Moreover, the information you hand out is not safe. The difference is, today, if it's not safe, you'll find out quickly. Tomorrow, if it's not safe, you may never find out. Not unless you're on one of those BBS'es. Or unless it's already too late.
It doesn't have to turn out this way. We can win this fight. We're smart enough; together, we're rich enough; and we have enough to lose to keep us motivated in this fight.
As a note, I noticed today that eToys stock is at a 52-week low. Maybe it's time eToys figured out a new strategy?
Finding God in a Dog
No-one sues anyone.
EToys gives Etoy an apology and a large sum of money.
In return, Etoy puts a prominent link to Etoys on their homepage, away from any "I-led-far-too-sheltered-a-life" material.
Everybody gets on with their lives.
After all, nothing compromises artistic integrity like a huge wad of cash...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
I just would like to wonder why anyone actually bother with toys anyway? If you are involved with computers you most likely are not playing with that new Pikachu action figure instead of writing that new device driver for that video card you boss wants anyway.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Speaking frankly, and keep in mind I'm not a securities trader or a financial analyst or a lawyer or whatever...for a long time, eToys was worth more than Mattel and Hasbro combined. That's the two largest toy makers in the US. As of today, eToys is worth less than either Mattel or Hasbro, even if only by a little. This makes more sense. eToys's income is far, far less than that of either company, and eToys is less established. If you ask me, this is probably just a correction, and a much-needed one.
It's true that their stock is almost at a 52-week low. But this doesn't necessarily mean that they're mishandling the business. I would be very surprised if investors started suing them over this.
Finding God in a Dog
If I operate a convent bestiality porn site or I operate a site for Barney and his little friends makes no difference. If you give money to someone for a service then you are obgligated by law to give them that service or give a total refund. If a person is refused from being able to get a service that is open to others and the others are not under similar restrictions then you are in fact descriminating against them and that is also against the law and you can file a suit. I would also be suing NSI for their predatory and descriminatory actions.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
And when i wrote my protest mail to eToys.com, that's exactly what i told them... i am a parent of five year old twins, our family is well within the top 10% income bracket, and we regularly purchase goods online. And if they want a share of the hundreds of dollars a year i spend on toys, they need to drop their complaints against etoy.
Which reminds me... i should send them another letter telling them that i won't be satisfied until they have unilaterally and unconditionally dropped everything against etoy.
---
120
chars is barely sufficient
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
I think a little trip over to lego would do just nicely or maybe toys r us. I don't know what to do about the "bright and shiny" part maybe some furniture polish on a oak cofee table might do the trick or perhaps pyrite I hear that works well for shiny and fooled a great deal of people :)
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Hmmm...I own an avant garde theatre for a couple of years. You move in next door, open a toy store and then ask me to stop producing radical plays because it frightens some of the toystore customers.
If eToys didn't want to be associated with etoy, they should have thought of that before spending millions marketing their asinine name.
of course, that to shoud be a from.
Please consider demanding a public apology from Etoys as well.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
According to eToys' stock history, they've dropped from almost $80/share to ~$25.50/share.
Does anyone have a really credible analysis on this? I found some ideas over at the Red Herring. Toys R Us is down to $14.13, $10 off its yearly high. The entire online toy purchasing industry is suffering from a lack of confidence, resulting (reportedly) from their inability to fill toy orders on time.
While customers of other toy makers (Toys R Us) and KBKids professed (at a rate exceeding 40%) they wouldn't shop there again, the rate of terminal dissatisfaction with eToys is 12%.
My prediction is that eToys' stock will rebound. The eToys death watch will be an excruciatingly slow event and will suffer quite an ugly setback as eToys (in my non-investor prediction) gets out of the hospital bed around early Spring, the time by which eToys will most likely have gotten their butts in gear with regards to meeting customer orders. They will either have more efficient fulfillment techniques, or customers will buy earlier, but in either case this major depressant upon their stock value will be lifted away by April.
So is there cause for despair? Yes and no. Surely we cannot avoid eating a few crow feathers here and there when eToys' stock rebounds. But the way to keep the whole crow from being stuffed down, i.e. the way to keep their stock from rebounding too far, and perhaps even drag it down to sub-$20 levels, is rather clear.
1) If you know of any online artist groups, inform them about the eToy vs eToys issue. The artist community does not suffer this crap very easily.
2) If you know of any non-online artist groups of any sort - stores, galleries, you name it - let them know, also.
There is the more drastic and difficult theory, also:
3) Gather donations and fund an ad in USA Today, documenting the tragedy of eToys' attack on etoy.com. Express it as an attack on artistic free expression by means fraudulent legal tactics (false patent claims, etc.), under an atmosphere of judicial ignorance favoring the biggest-mouthed, deepest-pocketed lawyers. Call for a boycott on eToys.com.
You have to find ways to create massive tides of bad press for eToys - this and this alone will create a major dampener on their stock value. This should start right now, while their stock is down, so as to depress the upcoming rebound as eToys prepares a mission plan to prevent their previous customer fulfillment failures from happening again.
Now I've checked USA Today for their information on the costs of a full page ad, and the rates are almost $11,000 for a 1/16 page ad, up to $81K for a full pager. It ain't cheap. Of course the bigger the ad the more people are going to notice it, but I think even at 1/16th page it is still going to cause major press, and grab the attention of a lot of people.
What do y'all think?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
We represent the interests of CrashDot.org Inc. & Co. It has come to our attention that your site, slashdot.org, may be willfully infringing upon our trademark(s) and intentionally misleading the public.
CrashDot.org Inc. & Co. is an established e-commerce firm (as of Dec. 30th, 1999) with market capitilization of over $259.6 billion USD. As the premiere retailer of konkey widgets online, we have an obligation to our shareholders to protect our intelectual property from unlawful individuals such as yourself.
We request that you take your website, slashdot.org, offline immediately and delete any and all files relating to the site in any manner whatsoever. You will also be responsible for removing each and every link on the Internet that points to slashdot.org or any of its pages. Failure to comply will result in a mega-huge monster of a lawsuit -- don't fuck with us, we've got more money than you do.
If slashdot.org is not disabled within 12 seconds of this posting, we will contact Network Solutions Inc. and have them pull the plug. Then we will procede with the lawsuit.
Please contact your legal department if you have any questions. (Don't bother with the PR department, they know nothing. Buncha monkeys think we've been keeping good relations with you folks for months, and have even offered to buy your domain name for a huge sum of cash. Ha, what morons.)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
The CrashDot.org Inc. & Co. Legal Team.
IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
(310) 277-1010
Bruce A. Wessel (116734)
phone (310) 203-7045
fax (310) 203-7199
email bwessel@irell.com
Grrr.
I would imagine that Etoys probably thinks that having Etoy shock art just one character away from the Etoys childrens section is like having Howard Stern come on the TV right after Sesame Street.
No, it's much more like having Howard Stern come on MTV (or whatever channel he's on) at the same time that Sesame Street is on PBS, and then PBS shuts MTV down because a few kids press the wrong buttons on the remote.
Should anything be allow on Main Street in the metaverse, or should there be some zoning bylaws to seperate childrens toys stores from adult performance art?
It is eToys that should have to work around this problem. They "moved in next to" Etoy, they have to live with what was already there. Following your analogy, they moved into the area that was zoned "adult performance art" and now want it to be changed to "childrens". If they want this problem solved, they really need to move out of the zone they're in, not change how their current location is zoned.
Many Internet companies, in fact, buy confusable domains outright. eToys should have tried to acquire the etoy.com domain name before they got started.
Either eToys didn't do their homework, or they decided early on that they didn't care about the confusability issue. Either way, it's the responsibility of eToys, not etoy.com, no matter what etoy.com content is.
Besides, the etoy.com content doesn't seem "adult" by European standards. Why should US hangups and prudishness dictate what the rest of the world can see on the Internet?
I really don't see how cyber squatting comes into play here. Etoy was the first and therefore if anyone is squatting it is Etoys, but Etoys is the major name in this debate so it would seem highly unlikely that they are squatting to gain recognition from etoy.
No editorial bias on Slashdot? Excuse me? This is one of the most biased ``news'' outlets you'll ever see!
And that's fine.
People, even people who write for the news, should have opinions. That's their job. If their job was ``just the facts'' then we might as well all just read press releases instead.
This notion of ``journalistic neutrality'' was invented by the wire services late last century in order to be able to sell their stories to both Democratic and Republican papers. They found that stories that didn't express opinions were saleable to a wider market, and so if they kept up the charade that both sides of an argument had merit, they made more money.
Sometimes both sides of an argument don't have merit. Some times one side is just wrong. Analysis of current events is the most important part of journalism, and yet today people treat it like it's a bug rather than a feature.
Getting the facts right is an important part of journalism, but so is spelling. Explaining what the facts mean is the most important part, and that usually can't be done without expressing an opinion. (Opinions being what is pejoratively refered to as ``bias'' by people who hold opposing opinions.)
A friend of mine asked me if I was a bit obsessive about the etoys vs etoy issue.
No.
Try not to take the following quote out of context, I am not advocating anybodys demise, I am making a point about your business practices.
Robert Heinlein wrote in the "Notebooks of Lazurus Long": "Don't ever scare a small man, he will kill you! "
You are scaring me. I build websites for a living.
I am betting my life and that of my family, on my ability to make a living communicating my clients needs and desires to the web.
To that end, over and above what I must know to build and promote my customers sites effectively, to keep fresh as new technologies arrive, as my skills improve, devoting more time to litigation than to creation is not an option.
Your 'offer of settlement' is at best a delaying tactic, giving etoys time to recap some shareholder value by getting you off the radar screen.
Well it's not going to work.
You are not the first company to try to use checkbook litigation to have it your way, but I am devoting my time and energy to make you the last. Unlike a lot people that fill your email box with their thoughts, I am spreading word of your actions across the web in every venue I can find and can get access.
A number of people are calling for the resignation of Toby Lenk. That is a call for the board of directors to make.
The internet is unlike snug little publications, old boy networks, or the evening news. The internet offers immediacy and community. The majority of links below[1] all were created in less than thirty days since the TRO was issued.
If the internet is going to develop, having a place for all, including lawyers and toy companies, allowing everyone the ability to grow and prosper, we must not be hostage to anyones checkbook.
Since I am on the subject of checkbooks, the following suggestions may get your site off the top of the Internet Fecal Roster.This is MY Opinion. This does not constitute an offer to settle, nor does it in any way represent the views of any other than myself. This may help however.
In the real world, settlements are desirable things to reach. It is naive and foolish to believe that either side would completely capitulate unless and until they are clearly lost. Accordingly, in the real world, settlements don't happen unless both sides are holding their stomachs, hating the settlement; but hating the alternative even more.
Despite much I have seen written here on slashdot, it appears to me objectively, that there exists a litigable case, and that neither side has anything close to a slam-dunk. Talk about counterclaims based upon malicious prosecution or abuse of process on these facts is the kind of talk in which only people unfamiliar with these causes of actions would engage.
While I agree that the particular language described here is out of line, there are some obvious solutions that, in the real world, work to solve many close or too-expensive-to-litigate domain name cases:
Use a "selection page." Have the "home page" be essentially devoid of substantive content promoting either party, but serve solely as an index to guide browsers to the intended web sites. Each party is free to place anything they want on their respective web sites -- the only limitation is that the first page offer a plausible description (they would negotiate the nature of the page among themselves) of each site, and provide links thereto.
While this approach doesn't resolve all of the problems raised here on slashdot, it would be arrogant beyond belief for us to insist that etoy fight to the last inch at their own expense when other solutions might be available. Obviously, there are aesthetic issues and considerations at stake here, but IMHO, such a solution (or something like it) may be the only meaningful alternative to litigating to the bitter end. While I think we would all like to see closure and clear legal precedent regarding these issues, neither of the parties in interest really benefit from paying to test THEIR commitment to OUR principles.
In short, I agree that the EToys position is probably a show-stopper. But something like it is probably not. A case that can settle should settle, and we, particularly as spectators, should not treat meaningful efforts to find a middle ground with derision.
Apparently they're enjoying the situation and getting ready to launch an online game. There's a lot of really enjoyable things in this article. It brought a smile to my face to see the chaos that they have planned. A new web site, games, a music CD. I'm liking it!
No Zen is good zen
My question is what happens if etoy winds up winning a court battle between the two. I remember that a judge said there was a $10,000/day fine for etoy.com if they left their site up... will eToys be made to compensate etoy for the downtime? ($10,000 per day of downtime, plus all of etoy's legal fees seems like a fair deal)
:)
I'm just glad I don't have any stock in eToys.
Here's a spoiler... You will die a lonely man.
Hear hear! I, for one, would definitely contribute to a etoy.com legal defense fund. The general consensus I'm seeing about this case is that eToys doesn't have a particularly good legal case, and that their likelihood of winning at this point is mostly based on having more money. A legal defense fund, if large enough, could tip the scales just enough...
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I'm sorry, but on what exactly is e-toys case based? I don't see it.
There are four families of possible causes of action. From what I've read in the papers (I have NOT seen any of the actual court documents) none of them works:
I think the judge was wrong to grant the injunction. Some combination of talk about securities fraud, other bad things, the xmas rush, the home town advantage, judicial error, whatever, produced the injunction. I don't see how it could have survived an appeal. Or am I missing some fact somewhere? Anyone seen the actual court papers?
To my eye it's no wonder etoys is trying to drop the case.
A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
I have a blog.
"Logically, then, the world is a cube."
TOYWAR, etoy's new site is up! See it to see why you should see it!
No Zen is good zen
Etoys moved in next to an art-shop. Now they complain that some people may not like the art made by (or show on) Etoy.com... well.. they knew what thewy were getting into, it's their own bloody fault. P.S. anyone heard anything about a southafrican company sueing etoys?
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587