Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 301 posts

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#291

Post by shakna »

dahart wrote: post #290
shakna wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The ruling in this case, has said it isn't > No it didn't. True. I should have said, "the ruling in this case, has said it isn't clear if the agreement should be binding". > HiQ is claiming they should be able to take LinkedIn's copy because the data is "public" data. Nobody is taking anybody's data. LinkedIn are providing copies of the data to anybody who views the page. You can't take something from somebody els…

> I should have said, "the ruling in this case, has said it isn't clear if the agreement should be binding". The injunction didn't say that either. The only thing it said is that LinkedIn can't block HiQ for the time being. This is common in lawsuits that both parties be prevented from action until a decision is actually made. The decision has not been made yet. > Nobody is taking anybody's data. I think I used a poo…

> It's (a EULA's) main purpose is for communicating expectations, which I'm arguing is relevant even if it's not binding. If the EULA says "we can refuse service to you", and then service is refused, then it's not a surprise.

Also not a surprise when a judge orders you to restore access because your agreement is invalid.

> The site can say "we posted the rules, this person broke the rules" and the person may not have any legal support in favor of getting the service after they broke the site's arbitrary rules.

Absolutely. Sites are largely free to enforce rules arbitrarily, by modifying their HTTP responses.

However, you are not free to exclude individuals whilst including their competitors.

Google has been under the hammer for that recently, though that is the EUs anti-trust laws. [0][1][2]. Of particular interest to this case, you might find this quote telling:

> we believe that Google's behaviour denies consumers a wider choice of mobile apps and services and stands in the way of innovation by other players, in breach of EU antitrust rules.

LinkedIn are accused of standing in the way of innovation by other players, in this case, hiQ, whilst simultaneously allowing other players to innovate, such as Google. One can copy the data, the other can't.

> It's (a EULA's) main purpose is for communicating expectations, which I'm arguing is relevant even if it's not binding.

I can expect the rain to move upwards, but that's irrelevant to how gravity actually acts. Unrealistic or false expectations are not taken into account with the rule of law.

A police officer might let you off with a warning for speeding, if you hadn't noticed the speed change. However, if it went to court, your false expectation of a different speed is not a mitigating factor.

If LinkedIn was wrong to prevent access in this case, their liability will not be reduced, if precedent is followed. They will still be responsible for the actions they took, in full, as Intel [3], Microsoft [4], Google and Apple [5] before them have been.

If however, LinkedIn are seen by the court as acting correctly, hiQ may be asked to pay legal costs, or counter-sued for damages.

If the EULA is non-binding, then it may as well not exist, because it has no legal relevancy.

[0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm

[1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2532_en.htm

[2] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#292

Post by tortasaur »

devmunchies wrote: post #208
mtokunaga wrote: post #207

This type of decision might also impact Yelp or any others in similar businesses. Currently their API limits a top few reviews per business via their API, and also prohibits "scraping" of data in other means. I was going to do some experiments with larger datasets from businesses in a region, but quickly found that's not possible.

And Google search results as well. Search results are publicly accessible but if you try to crawl them, Google will block it. If it becomes illegal to block crawlers, then Google is gonna get hammered with bot traffic. It will also mean that google won't have to be the front-end to search results, and anyone can build on top of it, which could kill google ad revenue because then you could create anonymous google sear…

Google already isn't the only frontend to their search. Look at Startpage, for example.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#293

Post by dahart »

shakna wrote: post #291
dahart wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I should have said, "the ruling in this case, has said it isn't clear if the agreement should be binding". The injunction didn't say that either. The only thing it said is that LinkedIn can't block HiQ for the time being. This is common in lawsuits that both parties be prevented from action until a decision is actually made. The decision has not been made yet. > Nobody is taking anybody's data. I think I used a poo…

> It's (a EULA's) main purpose is for communicating expectations, which I'm arguing is relevant even if it's not binding. If the EULA says "we can refuse service to you", and then service is refused, then it's not a surprise. Also not a surprise when a judge orders you to restore access because your agreement is invalid. > The site can say "we posted the rules, this person broke the rules" and the person may not have…

> Also not a surprise when a judge orders you to restore access because your agreement is invalid.

That's not what happened here, there has been no ruling on any agreement, and the injunction order that was given only applies to HiQ, only temporarily, and nobody else. It is not a statement on the validity of EULAs or of LinkedIn's EULA, and it is not a statement on whether LinkedIn is being anti-competetive. It is an injunction and nothing else.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#294

Post by shakna »

dahart wrote: post #293
shakna wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's (a EULA's) main purpose is for communicating expectations, which I'm arguing is relevant even if it's not binding. If the EULA says "we can refuse service to you", and then service is refused, then it's not a surprise. Also not a surprise when a judge orders you to restore access because your agreement is invalid. > The site can say "we posted the rules, this person broke the rules" and the person may not have…

> Also not a surprise when a judge orders you to restore access because your agreement is invalid. That's not what happened here, there has been no ruling on any agreement, and the injunction order that was given only applies to HiQ, only temporarily, and nobody else. It is not a statement on the validity of EULAs or of LinkedIn's EULA, and it is not a statement on whether LinkedIn is being anti-competetive. It is an…

> That's not what happened here, there has been no ruling on any agreement, and the injunction order that was given only applies to HiQ, only temporarily, and nobody else.

I didn't say it was.

> It is not a statement on the validity of EULAs or of LinkedIn's EULA, and it is not a statement on whether LinkedIn is being anti-competetive. It is an injunction and nothing else.

An injunction is not given without merit. It has meaning.

Injunctions are regularly denied when the arguments are clearly in one direction or another.

The injunction strongly suggests that the judge finds hiQ's argument, that LinkedIn's public pages are not bound by the EULA, to "not be without merit".

No precedent has been set, but the conversation is definitively in the opening stages.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#295

Post by sbarre »

bogomipz wrote: post #180
School-Cotton wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I publicly distribute posters about a party in my apartment and leave the door unlocked, do I still have the right to kick out anyone I don't like?

That's a pretty diengenuous strawman. A more accurate comparison would be that you put up an advertisement on a billboard along a busy street and then decided to tell people who passed by that they weren't allowed to take a picture of it. And to continue with this absurdity you feel entitled to enforce who can or can not look at your billboard because despite it being publicly viewable its your advertisement on the b…

That's also not accurate.

There is no "public space" on the Internet.. There's no un-owned territory or resource that is free to use or metaphorically "stand around" in to take those pictures from.

You are consuming privately-owned resources in all your online activities, and as such some will argue that they can decide to limit your consumption of those resources at their own discretion.

Again, I am not siding with either party here, just trying to dispel this notion that "public space" - in the way we understand public space to exist in the physical world - exists on the internet.

In your example, no one is controlling your right to take photos or stand around and look in any direction you choose.

When you use the Internet, a private entity is allowing you to transit through their network and access sites, a different entity is allowing you to access and receive their content, etc..

LinkedIn owns the server you are accessing when you (or others) go to their site, and they are spending resources servicing those requests, and - they claim - can decide how and when they choose to do that..

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#296

Post by sbarre »

smegel wrote: post #44
sbarre wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call it the "public internet" but it's most definitely not a public space or anything like it. Private entities own and operate all(most of) the servers, services and conduits, and that does need to be paid for and maintained. I'm not saying I agree with Linkedin in this particular scenario, but this is about two commercial for-profit entities arguing over money, so let's not make it about something it's not.

> Private entities own and operate all(most of) the servers, services and conduits, and that does need to be paid for and maintained And are MORE than happy to send the content of their servers to unsolicited, uninvited, anonymous guests on mere request. No-one is forcing them to do so!

And that's exactly LinkedIn's position here.

No one should be forcing them to send their content to anyone.

They claim they should be allowed to discriminate at their discretion who they respond to, since they own and operate the servers.

This "no one is forcing you to send your content" goes both ways..

If one side is going to say they're entitled to receive the content on request, the other side wants to be able to say they're entitled to refuse to answer that request..

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#298

Post by mariushn »

dahart wrote: post #102
redial wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Public means everybody can do whatever they want with it, no exceptions ( except , as with all things, by law). If you want to restrict the information, then do it, but don't make it public and then when a competitor uses it claim it wasn't public 'for them'.

Linked in never made it "public". Use of their site is and always has been licensed. https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement

Dahart, would you please add your email in profile? Would like to followup on your older health-related comments. Thanks!

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#299

Post by dheera »

rootlocus wrote: post #252
dheera wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time there is a case about whether or not information is free to use in some way, it doesn't sit well with me. As of now deep down in my heart I don't really believe in intellectual property. I do believe in respect, and in giving credit where credit is due. But when all is said and done, I don't believe in copyrighting a number. I don't believe that it is anyone's right to dictate how bits that enter devices I…

> But when all is said and done, I don't believe in copyrighting a number. I don't believe that it is anyone's right to dictate how bits that enter devices I own are used. Numbers can and are used to represent anything and everything. This has implications far beyond DRM. For instance: I don't believe you have the right to use my photo to make a defamatory Facebook account in my name.

In this case, I say the crimes are:

- defaming

- claiming that I am you

and not in copying numbers.

Re: U.S. judge says LinkedIn cannot block startup from public profile data

#300

Post by rootlocus »

dheera wrote: post #299
rootlocus wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But when all is said and done, I don't believe in copyrighting a number. I don't believe that it is anyone's right to dictate how bits that enter devices I own are used. Numbers can and are used to represent anything and everything. This has implications far beyond DRM. For instance: I don't believe you have the right to use my photo to make a defamatory Facebook account in my name.

In this case, I say the crimes are: - defaming - claiming that I am you and not in copying numbers.

If you stick a knife in someone's chest the crime is murder not wielding a knife.

To paraphrase:

> I don't believe that it is anyone's right to dictate how the knives I own are used.

And yet the law still dictates you keep your knives away from my chest. Point being: your freedom of using your bits is dictated by the same laws that dictate your freedom of using knives.

Post reply on HN