Subject:
|
Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:46:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2898 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 23:32:56 GMT, mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller)
wrote:
> Not so -- there was no ruling, just a preliminary injunction. Furthermore,
Ah. Okay, I should have paid more attention, I guess. The US judicial
system is about as clear to me as #1200 SiO grit mud, though.
> (If the original documents hadn't been in violation, then there wouldn't
> have been a problem.) Hopefully, sanity will prevail and the final judgement
> in this case will go the other way.
Indeed.
> Contrary to my earlier claim, I've actually found a case about linking which
> was thrown out of court:
> <URL:http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19980922S0008>
> This case was obviously more ridiculous than what the Lego Company is
> claiming, but it illustrates how absurd this could get.
Jesus. The linked to the imdb, and another random page on imdb linked
to a (c) photo? "No accident" indeed. Completely ignoring the fact the
imdb is managed by totally different people and Penney and Varden
don't have any control over what appears there.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| (...) Not so -- there was no ruling, just a preliminary injunction. Furthermore, they aren't accused of publishing the copyrighted information illicitly, but of being engaged in "contributory copyright infringement". I'm not a lawyer, so I can't (...) (27 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
