[WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)

Fri May 13 09:06:45 UTC 2005

Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Ray Saintonge said:
>  
>
>>If Mr. Wollmann thinks that he has a case let him go ahead with it, and
>> show us that he means more than simply to intimidate.  We can easily
>>promise that when we receive the court documents in the case we will
>>reconsider our position in the matter.  This may or may not result in a
>> removal of what he finds offensive from the site.  Meanwhile it will
>>have been very costly for him to mount his case with no prospects of
>>recovering those costs.
>>    
>>
>Well, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be vulnerable, but where individuals are
>involved he could get a default judgement in a plaintiff-friendly UK court
>for a no-show defendant in the US, with costs awarded (which is very
>common in UK cases), and then use that as leverage in the US.  This
>technique has been tried against Usenet posters and worked well.  Since
>Wikipedia content is produced by individuals who are often identifiable it
>would probably work as well on Wikipedia.
>He may have to demonstrate standing to sue in UK courts, but that could be
>as simple as selling books through Amazon.co.uk--which Wollmann does, as
>it happens.
>
I'm not familiar with the Usenet cases, so I can't comment on what they 
mean.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I thought that Wohlmann was a UK 
resident.  If so his selling books through Amazon.co.uk should only be a 
secondary issue. 

Defaulting would not be a preferred option, but that too would depend on 
just what he is asking.  Assuming that the defendant is a US person, he 
too should be able to receive an award of costs including travel costs.  
Perhaps he could be asked to pay conduct money or post a bond for costs 
of attending.  It would be refundable to him if he wins the case.

Ec