3 ms·
I found this interesting: The defense had argued that not Fredrik, Gottfrid and Peter were not the owners of the site, but a Seychelles based company named Res
by ErrantX 17y ago
I found this interesting:
The defense had argued that not Fredrik, Gottfrid and Peter were not the owners of the site, but a Seychelles based company named Reservella. The Court rejected this defense as the defendants could not name the current owners or provide any documents proving that the site was sold. It concluded that the three defendants are responsible for the site.
That strikes me as really the first time any court has properly, legally, seriously made that distinction and then rules on it. Precedent?
- jacquesm 17y agoQuite possibly. I think the are playing games and that either they are still owners or they have a deal with someone they do not want to name to 'hold' it for them until the heat is of (as if that would ever happen). Not very savvy of them, judges are not as stupid as most techies assume they are.