Thank you, that's certainly more in-depth than my understanding was. Very helpful to read.
Who's the rich benefactor?
So does that mean the conclusion is that scraping is bad? Or did the 9th circuit establish that scraping is OK and hiQ suffered defeat on some other basis?
Re:Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee
by beardedwizard on Saturday August 26, 2023 @02:45AM
(#37270410)
It seems to me they were defeated on the terms of some other contract they had with LI, not the scraping?
Re:Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee
by beardedwizard on Saturday August 26, 2023 @02:51AM
(#37270440)
Clarification: it's the breach of terms of service that meets this bar for breach of contract in this case
Re:Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee
by Klonoar on Saturday August 26, 2023 @04:40AM
(#37270857)
If this is the case, I guess what I'm really wondering is: does the existence of the EULA cause this, or was it HiQ having "turks" sign in to do it - thus accepting the EULA?
Re:Web Scraping for Me, but Not for Thee
by beardedwizard on Saturday August 26, 2023 @05:59AM
(#37271254)
I think that's exactly it, they had automation logging in, which meant they accepted the tos, then violated it. The govt has sided with business in these cases (it seems)
-hiQ sues LinkedIn for injunctive relief in the ND Cal., win on its CFAA claim.
-LinkedIn appeals to 9th Circuit, which sides with hiQ on CFAA claim
-hiQ loses its antitrust claims at the motion to dismiss stage
(somewhere in here hiQ goes out of business, but rich benefactor keeps paying its legal bills)
-LinkedIn continues with breach of contract and other claims, wins at motion to dismiss
-LinkedIn appeals to the Supremes, who vacates and remands back to 9th Circuit after Van Buren
-9th Circuit sides with hiQ a 2nd time on the CFAA claim
-injunction is dissolved
-hiQ suffers near-total defeat at summary judgment
-hiQ waves the white flag, agrees to permanent injunction agreeing to nearly all of LinkedIn's demands and pays LinkedIn 500k