| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > I have a copy of Brad's email and I will post it for documentation if he
> > doesn't happen to come forward to explain more.
>
> Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J.
> (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his
> email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row)
> TLC's reasoning behind this request.
Probably not more than another 8 or 9 hours. I sent a polite request to Brad
today asking for his permission to post a verbatim copy of his email, and cc'd
the LSI attorney who he originally cc'd on his request, and also left a phone
message with her. Brad never gave out his phone number of business card so
I sent email instead of calling on the phone. I also wrote to Brad yesterday
that his posting a brief message explaining how/why these were leaks would be
extremely helpful.
If Brad doesn't give permission to repost his messages, or doesn't post
something himself directly which is equivalent, I'll repost it without his
permission (which, AFAIK, would be improper rather than illegal since his
message contained no indication that the message itself was sensitive or was
a privileged legal communication). I've also asked for a more formal legal
request, which I had proceeded yesterd under the good faith assumption that
one would be forthcoming without having to ask.
If LEGO declines to provide a formal legal request stating that the articles
about the 2001 product line contained legally sensitive information, then it
may just come to pass that the articles get restored in their former glory
and LEGO can then politely ask people to voluntarily cancel them or ask that
they be canceled. LUGNET's policy is not to censor messages, but of course
if something specifically has to be removed for clear (and well documented)
legal reasons, then its removal is of course appropriate.
In the future, it would probably be good for us to have a more formalized
system for handling requests of this type. I would feel much less
uncomfortable, for example, if a request came from a LEGO attorney via a
public posting and identified specific messages and justified the request.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Actually, probably a few days. Just spoke with the LSI attorney who Brad consulted with before sending the request, and I got the distinct sense that this is a issue which LEGO wishes to address quickly and devote whatever time and resources (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J. (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row) TLC's reasoning (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
176 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
