3 ms·

Not a mixed judgment in Nov. 22. It was a massive defeat for hiQ Labs. Read the permanent injunction issued by the court.

dontupvoteme 3y ago
>Read the permanent injunction issued by the court. Happen to have a link? The question that matters is if this establishes any precedence.
- KieranMac 3y ago
  I don't. I just have a .pdf. Email me at Kieran(at)McCarthyLG(dot)com if you want a copy.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  https://ia600100.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.406.0.pdf https://ia600100.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...
  - dontupvoteme 3y ago
    Thanks. So you can't be extradited to the states or go to jail there as it doesn't violate the CFAA (as the supreme court sent it back)? I guess 500k and no lawyer fees sounds like it isn't punitive given it's, i assume, decently sizeable company? I'm wondering if we're looking at another MPAA/RIAA situation where they threaten 6 figure sums at individuals. I lived through that, but this time it's not some 32kbps mp3s of metallica, it's just the entire future of human thought and power itself. You never really know how a common law justice system is going to act.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
    This case never went to trial but it could have. The Court denied LinkedIn's motion for summary judgment as to hiQ's waiver and estoppel defenses to LinkedIn's breach of contract claims. Calling this Order on the parties' motions for summary judgment "precedent" would be a mistake. Nor is the Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction "precedent". The Ninth Circuit decision is precedent. People in this thread are stating that hiQ was "defeated". Of course. However if "defeat" means a party settling, paying a large sum and agreeing to refrain from certain conduct in the future, then Google and Facebook have been "defeated" many times. Having "web scraping" remain a "gray area" by limiting the number of final decisions and thereby the amount of precedent might be beneficial to so-called "tech" companies. Putting aside hiQ's predicament, if more of these cases went to trial instead of settling, then we might have some clarity. We should be thanking whomever funded hiQ's litigation costs. Getting the Ninth Circuit decision was something every web user can be thankful for.
Klonoar 3y ago
Interesting. You appear to be a lawyer or in that realm, so I'm curious your take on it - though I also understand if you don't want to publicly make statements or anything. i.e is the common take that people have of "scraping is legal after HiQ vs LinkedIn" just completely wrong? Edit: oh, I didn't realize you wrote quite a bit here: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-web-scraping-laws-guest-blog-post-part-2-of-2.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

dontupvoteme 3y ago

>Read the permanent injunction issued by the court. Happen to have a link? The question that matters is if this establishes any precedence.

KieranMac 3y ago
I don't. I just have a .pdf. Email me at Kieran(at)McCarthyLG(dot)com if you want a copy.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
https://ia600100.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.406.0.pdf https://ia600100.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...
- dontupvoteme 3y ago
  Thanks. So you can't be extradited to the states or go to jail there as it doesn't violate the CFAA (as the supreme court sent it back)? I guess 500k and no lawyer fees sounds like it isn't punitive given it's, i assume, decently sizeable company? I'm wondering if we're looking at another MPAA/RIAA situation where they threaten 6 figure sums at individuals. I lived through that, but this time it's not some 32kbps mp3s of metallica, it's just the entire future of human thought and power itself. You never really know how a common law justice system is going to act.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  This case never went to trial but it could have. The Court denied LinkedIn's motion for summary judgment as to hiQ's waiver and estoppel defenses to LinkedIn's breach of contract claims. Calling this Order on the parties' motions for summary judgment "precedent" would be a mistake. Nor is the Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction "precedent". The Ninth Circuit decision is precedent. People in this thread are stating that hiQ was "defeated". Of course. However if "defeat" means a party settling, paying a large sum and agreeing to refrain from certain conduct in the future, then Google and Facebook have been "defeated" many times. Having "web scraping" remain a "gray area" by limiting the number of final decisions and thereby the amount of precedent might be beneficial to so-called "tech" companies. Putting aside hiQ's predicament, if more of these cases went to trial instead of settling, then we might have some clarity. We should be thanking whomever funded hiQ's litigation costs. Getting the Ninth Circuit decision was something every web user can be thankful for.

Klonoar 3y ago

Interesting. You appear to be a lawyer or in that realm, so I'm curious your take on it - though I also understand if you don't want to publicly make statements or anything. i.e is the common take that people have of "scraping is legal after HiQ vs LinkedIn" just completely wrong? Edit: oh, I didn't realize you wrote quite a bit here: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-web-scraping-laws-guest-blog-post-part-2-of-2.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]