So this is where I was profoundly foolish. I told them about the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto. And in doing so, Aaron would explain to me later (and reporters would confirm), I made everything worse. This is what I must live with.Journalist, and close friend of Aaron Swartz, Quinn Norton • Discussing her role in the case, during a long article she wrote for The Atlantic. Read the whole thing. This one quote does not do the story justice. But we recommend starting with the editor’s note from Alexis Madrigal. It’s a tough one to read, and shows how the federal government can break people down in federal cases.
I decided to resign from Square so my colleagues could continue to do great work without the distraction that a lawsuit would most certainly bring. I deeply regret that I let my personal and professional lives to become intertwined, and I apologize to my colleagues and friends (at Square and elsewhere) who I’ve let down, and who will bear the brunt of some of the unnecessary, negative attention this situation will likely bring.Former Square chief operating officer Keith Rabois • Discussing why he chose to resign from the company. To put it simply, Rabois faced a lawsuit over his relationship with a former employee of the company, one who Rabois claims he had a consensual relationship with. With the prospect of a sexual harassment lawsuit claiming otherwise hanging over his head, and also threatening Square’s business, Rabois was clear that he was innocent of the allegations he faced. “While I have certainly made mistakes, this threat feels like a shakedown, and I will defend myself to the full extent of the law,” he said. The company, in a statement, did not find any evidence of misdeeds on the part of the departing executive but admitted his departure was the right move. ”Keith exercised poor judgment that ultimately undermined his ability to remain an effective leader at Square,” a spokesperson said.
It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.
Inman sparked a flood of charity donations, and yet Carreon still tried to punish him for making fun of his baseless legal threats by dragging him through the court system. We’re very pleased that Carreon has seen that his lawsuit had no merit, and hope that this is the end of his abuse of the legal system.EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry • On the decision by Charles Carreon, the lawyer for FunnyJunk, to quit his legal battle against Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal and everyone indirectly touched by their spat — from fundraising sites to those whom the funds were being raised for. The EFF was pulled in to fight Carreon’s lawsuit, and he almost immediately folded. Talk about Independence Day.
As your client should know, the internet does not like censorship, and does not react kindly to it. Bringing a lawsuit against The Oatmeal is ill advised. Not only are FunnyJunk’s claims meritless, FunnyJunk will surely lose in the court of public opinion and cause itself reputational harm. We are also deeply skeptical that a nameless, faceless, business that hosts third party content will be able to demonstrate much if anything by way of damages as a result of The Oatmeal’s allegedly defamatory statements. At the end of the day, a lawsuit against The Oatmeal in this situation is just a really bad idea.The Oatmeal’s laywer, Venkat Balasubramani • In a legal response to FunnyJunk, which is different than their successful comic/charity push. You can read the full document over here. Meanwhile, the lawyer who filed the original document, Charles Carreon, isn’t backing down.