|
Predictably, Ms. Greenberg doesn't want the Court of Appeals to actually
be able to view the websites on which they're going to be ruling. Here's why. (Note that I have not
converted her fax to text, so the "text" below is actually a few graphics.)
A few quick observations:
She claims to be completely baffled about when the sites were archived to CD. If she had
bothered to read the motion to which she's responding, she'd know that the CD represents the sites
exactly as they appeared when I removed them from the Web in response to the injunctions.
She mentions that my link to shirtbiz.com was removed from my site "at some point,"
disingenuously implying that she doesn't know when that happened. The fact is, of course, that she
knows exactly when that happened: the link was present in the exhibits she submitted with her
complaint on August 7, 2001, and I faxed her a letter three days later telling her that I had removed
it. (And she may have also noticed that the link was missing from the exhibits that she submitted with
her motion for a preliminary injunction on September 25.)
Her most blatant misrepresentation is that "in making reference to what an Internet user might
happen upon, the Court was making general reference to the fact that all of these sites are available
to the general Internet market." The fact is that the judge conducted a Google search! Is that a
"general reference"? I don't think so. Does she think that the judge won't remember his own
decision?
|
