Anonymous re: Anthony Batt, thanks for commenting!

it's just that it sounds a bit libelous without giving the details... D.

(independent observers) Janine Benedet: "There is an argument they are really sort of pimping"

re (4th paragraph from bottom) : "Craigslist itself could face criminal charges for aiding in communication for the purpose of child prostitution, said University of B.C. associate law Prof. Janine Benedet"

Delia

craigslist's response to ebay's complaint: pretty much meaningless

boilerplate... (1st comment by Hedda) D.

Delia

P.S. I did take a quick look at some reports and got disappointed quickly (e.g. Associated Press: last line: "ebay, owns a 28% stake in craigslist?" what? how clueless is that? ebay bought 28.4 % back in 2004, got diluted to just above 25% in 2005 and subsequently further diluted to under 25% -- if AP doesn't get this, they have no business reporting on this story... pretty sad...) D.

(ebay and craigslist) alright... the fight is on!

errata (please read!) the complaint does NOT claim that calling kijiji "craigslist killer" violated the trademark (at least not specificaly, there is some vague language towards the end but nothing specific). So what made me think that? the article! :(4th paragraph) " Craigslist accuses eBay of calling Kijiji a 'Craigslist killer' inside the company and using the Craigslist moniker to confuse the public and 'illegally divert' Internet traffic from Craigslist to eBay and the Kijiji site." --> they should have really explained how the traffic diversion was accomplished, otherwise it stands to reason that it was the result of calling kijiji a "craigslist killer" --> this was NOT done just inside the company, the press used it at the time also... alright! I need to ignore the articles and just go to the source when that is an option... D.
...

craigslist counter sues... some of their claims sound perfectly ridiculous! how could calling kijiji a "craigslist killer" violate their trademark? what kind of confusion could that create? who in their right mind would think... it's the same company! by the same ridiculous idea, there could be no "craigslist watch" (or "craigslist criticism" for that matter...); way to let the judge know who he is dealing with...

Delia

P.S. Jim does little more than give the laundry list of complaints this time...

P.P.S. right Jim! it was so "unfair and unlawful" that you did nothing about it until ebay sued you... D.

(three times in a row) The New York Times misses it...*again*...

MORE: most comments appear clueles but not all...

e.g. (5th comment) Lou:" It appears that plain and simple Buckmaster and Newmark have attempted to dilute the interest of eBay, possibly to increase their share of any dividend, profit interest, or proceeds of sale of the company at the expense of eBay and eBay’s shareholders".
...
no mention of the first (uncontested) dilution of ebay's share to just above 25% in 2005 (one year AFTER the 2004 purchase by ebay) or the fact that ebay now says they bought 28.4% back in 2004 while craigslist/Craig has been assuring people it was ONLY 25%... D.

(independent observers) Steve Diamond: what's *really* driving Craig & Jim?

re: (5th paragraph from bottom) "Independent observers such as Steve Diamond, a business law professor at Santa Clara University, suggest Newmark and Buckmaster are driven mostly by self-interest. If they don't care about making more money, Diamond says, why are they attending investment conferences?"

alright! maybe I finally get my wish and somebody does take this out of my hands :) ... Steven Diamond sounds like a good replacement if he keeps it up...

Delia

(the contradiction is dispelled?) let's hope Anonymous is not just bragging...

EVEN MORE: well, you are right -- I *am* disappointed:)...

Delia

P.S. may I remind you that in 2004 when ebay acquired 28.4% of craigslist according to their most recent press release and only 25% according to craigslist/Craig, craigslist employees did NOT have stock options (the "stock incentives plan")? -- according to the footnote at the bottom of page two of ebay's complaint, stock options were given to employees ONLY in 2005, a year *after* ebay's purchase... this diluted eBay’s share to 25.01%, in a "fully diluted" form (if all outstanding options were exercised)

ebay did nothing about this dilution, the law suit was prompted by subsequent further dilution to under 25% apparently as a result of Craig& Jim issuing more shares to *themselves*...

So... the contradiction remains...

P.P. S. thanks for telling me what you thought, though... take care! D.

MORE: please read the comments to this entry!
...
Hi Anonymous! (1st comment)

you better know what you are talking about:) because I'm going to hold you to your end of the bargain... anyways, I can certainly tell you what got me to start this blog if you are curious -- hate to disappoint you but it wasn't anything Craig did or didn't do to me... *lol*... He just kept bullshitting all sorts of people that should have known better and getting away with it... (as far as I could see...) I thought putting down what I was seeing was going to be interesting and entertaining... and it was... (for the most part...)

Delia

P.S. your turn!:) D.