From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 10:32:55 -0400

The short answer is that, because Sci-Hub did not respond, the court's
findings are based solely on Elsevier's allegations.  Elsevier, of course,
as do all litigants, argues one-sidedly that the public interest is wholly
conterminous with its own interests.  Because Sci-Hub did not reply, the
Court has no other facts or arguments with which to reason.  So their
findings are basically Elsevier's allegations.

Laura

----------------------------------
Laura Quilter / [log in to unmask]



On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:48 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:51:40 +0000
>
> Reading the Nature article I see:
>
> "The defendants’ “unlawful activities have caused and will continue to
> cause irreparable injury to Elsevier, its customers and the public,”
> Elsevier’s New York-based attorneys, DeVore & DeMarco, told the
> court."
>
> I can understand how one might make a case for harm to the publisher
> (although proving it might be tricky) - but I’m struggling to think
> what the case might be for harm to customers and the public. Am I
> missing something obvious?
>
> David