4 ms·

This is just a preliminary injunction and the court has not even heard or ruled on this case. They just allowed HiQ to access the data while they wait for the s

This is just a preliminary injunction and the court has not even heard or ruled on this case. They just allowed HiQ to access the data while they wait for the scheduled court hearing to begin. The court may eventually rule very differently once they have heard all the evidence presented and weighed up existing applicable case law. The judge who issued this injunction - Edward Chen, is also the judge presiding over the Uber drivers as independent contractors class action case.

djsumdog 9y ago
Wow, those are two very big issues, that affect two very large industries, not to mention the implications and precedent for both free speech and workers' rights.
- schoen 9y ago
  There are not that many judges on the Northern District of California https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges and cases involving Silicon Valley companies are very often filed here, so quite a lot of the high-profile industry matters end up getting heard by the same judges!
DannyBee 9y ago
"This is just a preliminary injunction and the court has not even heard or ruled on this case" This is not quite right. One of the requirements to get a PI is a likelihood of success on the merits ;)
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  The order discusses how less is required of the merits (need only raise serious questions) if the consequences are dire (going out of business), then discusses how they depend entirely on LinkedIn. It's also possible that the judge is giving them affordance before killing their business to prevent appeals.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    FWIW: That is actually fairly rare. Usually the answer is "well, the creditors can continue the lawsuit if they think it is valuable"
cookiecaper 9y ago
I agree that we need to be careful not to read too much into this, but in most scraping cases I know about, preliminary injunctions are granted as a matter of routine. The fact that this judge refrained from doing so may signal that the judiciary is finally willing to bring some nuance and rationality to their interpretation of extremely broad statutes like the CFAA. It's a positive signal, even if ultimate victory remains unlikely. /me is not a lawyer
ikeboy 9y ago
Forcing LinkedIn to provide the data and remove any locks is pretty harsh. Imagine I sued a bank under the theory that the locks on their vault doors are illegally preventing me from opening them. As part of the pleliminary injunction, the judge rules that the bank must remove all locks until the case is decided. Point is, it's not just "maintain the status quo", it's "give them your data for free". IANAL but I don't think preliminary injunctions should change the status quo by intruding on what is plausibly someone's private property.
- kakarot 9y ago
  Misleading analogy. Physical goods such as a bank's money are both not reproducible and not normally available for the general public to just take

djsumdog 9y ago

Wow, those are two very big issues, that affect two very large industries, not to mention the implications and precedent for both free speech and workers' rights.

schoen 9y ago
There are not that many judges on the Northern District of California https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges and cases involving Silicon Valley companies are very often filed here, so quite a lot of the high-profile industry matters end up getting heard by the same judges!

DannyBee 9y ago

"This is just a preliminary injunction and the court has not even heard or ruled on this case" This is not quite right. One of the requirements to get a PI is a likelihood of success on the merits ;)

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
The order discusses how less is required of the merits (need only raise serious questions) if the consequences are dire (going out of business), then discusses how they depend entirely on LinkedIn. It's also possible that the judge is giving them affordance before killing their business to prevent appeals.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  FWIW: That is actually fairly rare. Usually the answer is "well, the creditors can continue the lawsuit if they think it is valuable"

cookiecaper 9y ago

I agree that we need to be careful not to read too much into this, but in most scraping cases I know about, preliminary injunctions are granted as a matter of routine. The fact that this judge refrained from doing so may signal that the judiciary is finally willing to bring some nuance and rationality to their interpretation of extremely broad statutes like the CFAA. It's a positive signal, even if ultimate victory remains unlikely. /me is not a lawyer

ikeboy 9y ago

Forcing LinkedIn to provide the data and remove any locks is pretty harsh. Imagine I sued a bank under the theory that the locks on their vault doors are illegally preventing me from opening them. As part of the pleliminary injunction, the judge rules that the bank must remove all locks until the case is decided. Point is, it's not just "maintain the status quo", it's "give them your data for free". IANAL but I don't think preliminary injunctions should change the status quo by intruding on what is plausibly someone's private property.

kakarot 9y ago
Misleading analogy. Physical goods such as a bank's money are both not reproducible and not normally available for the general public to just take