|
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category: Published On: Sep 20, 2007 07:02 PM |
2Clix backs downAccording to the Age, 2Clix has decided to withdraw from its attempt to sue the Whirlpool forum operator for injurious falsehood ... Go back here to see where we were. Now, as the Age notes: Ironically, the negative word of mouth and worldwide media coverage criticising 2Clix for trying to silence its critics seems to have damaged the firm's reputation far more than the forum threads that were the subject of the lawsuit. 2Clix sent a letter to Whirlpool last Thursday saying it had withdrawn all proceedings in the matter that was to have been heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. In the letter, obtained by smh.com.au, 2Clix accused its competitors of criticising its software on the Whirlpool forums while pretending to be customers. It did not name those competitors. 2Clix claims it was not trying to harm Whirlpool or stifle free speech, just trying to stop competitors making untrue accusations. If it were trying to identify who was making the statements, it could presumably have tried preliminary discovery (like the record companies did in Federal Court under the Copyright Act against the Universities (and here and here) to identify peer to peer file "sharers") although it seems in Queensland the proceeding would need to be brough in equity under Norwich Pharmacal principles - although 2Clix, it might be thought, was operating in other States and allegedly suffered damage there, where more convenient procedural rules apply. Whirlpool itself is reported to be waiting for official word (i.e., filing of a notice of discontinuance?). This of course still leaves the larger issue of Australia's piecemeal approach to the liability of internet service providers unresolved. Lid dip: the eclectic Peter A Clarke. Posted: Thursday - September 20, 2007 at 06:21 PM | |