Tulsa World and tortious interference

Phelps may not be a lawyer, but he sure can write like one. And he puts forth a pretty good argument as to why The Tulsa World may be guilty of tortious interference, to go along with its general alienation of the entire blogosphere.

As written about here and on scores of other blogs, the World (aka "the Whirled") started down this self-destructive path when it decided to harass the Tulsa-based blog BatesLine over what the newspaper alleged was infringement of copyright and improper linking (whatever that means). The Whirled's net was cast wide enough to include another organization, unrelated to BatesLine, called "Tulsans for Election Integrity," which opposes the Whirled-supported recall of two city councilmen. The Whirled leveled some threats that apparently succeeded in causing TFEI's internet service provider to break its contract with the group to avoid being caught up in the controversy.

Having some firsthand knowledge of tortious interference claims (via my oil bidness experience), the Whirled's actions appear egregious enough to warrant a closer look by TFEI's legal counsel. Blogger outrage over some patently ridiculous accusations may not get the Whirled's proper attention, but a court appearance as a defendant might.

Comments

I write like a lawyer because I do litigation support for high-value cases, and end up helping write a lot of the arguments. As for tortious interference -- well, as they say, "this isn't my first rodeo."

Posted by: Phelps at February 17, 2005 12:18 PM

You know, you could have clued me in about some of this before entangling me in that French Google lawsuit thing! ;-)

Posted by: Eric at February 17, 2005 12:24 PM

Here's hoping TFEI nails "the whirled". They truly deserve a dose of their own lawsuit-happy medicine. At the very least, they'd develop a first-hand appreciation of Matthew 7:12.

Posted by: Mr. Freen at February 17, 2005 01:08 PM

Well, I hope that by the end of it you at least understood my argument (even if you didn't agree.) I also tend to see the far-reaching downside of that sort of thing, having dealt with copyright and IP in my litigation travels too.

Posted by: Phelps at February 17, 2005 02:50 PM

You know, I don't think we ever disagreed about the points of law and the legal implications; I think we were just dealing with different sets of facts (or different understandings of the same facts). Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion.

Posted by: Eric at February 17, 2005 03:45 PM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]









Remember personal info?