Comment by do_not_redeem

Comment by do_not_redeem 5 hours ago

4 replies

They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. They're just doing something they would have done anyway.

You can't claim tortious interference just because someone throws a wrench in your business plans. Sanborn has about as much of a case as Microsoft has against Linus Torvalds for creating Linux and hurting their sales of Windows. (I'll give you this one for free: none.)

Retric 5 hours ago

> They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business.

That’s arguable. They sent him an email concerned about the harm of disclosure with the upcoming auction. They then apparently got offended by the offer of money to sign an NDA which calls their future motives into question as they now had a beef with the guy.

Saying the actions themselves were not improper is also a defense, and could be perfectly viable even if they had beef with the guy.

  • tptacek 5 hours ago

    "To be improper, interference must be wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, such as a statute, regulation, recognized rule of common law, or an established standard of trade or profession."

    They don't need a defense: nobody has yet stated a claim!

    • Retric 4 hours ago

      It was claimed they committed copyright infringement and they admit to photographing his works as part of this discovery.

      It actually being copyright infringement is questionable, but if so it would be improper behavior.

      • tptacek 4 hours ago

        Yep! That'd be a real claim. I hadn't seen that earlier.