This looks like a job for the ACCC.

Meanwhile ITNews.com.au quotes 2Clix MD David Morgan as saying that the case had been dropped and Turnbull and Co had been notified.

But Whirlpool’s legal people haven’t yet seen the notice of discontinuance, and have been unable to contact 2Clix’s legal people, and have therefore concluded that until they see it formally in writing, and it’s still in the court records, it’s not over. Indeed, there’s speculation from sources close to Whirlpool that it might just be a ploy to make them let down their guard.

Watching with interest.

Essentially it appears Whirlpool’s users have been critical of 2Clix in various threads, with such gems as:

As a user of 2Clix for over 2 years, and the primary IT support person for my company – I would advise you to AVOID this program at all costs.
and
We installed 2clix and ended up throwing it out two weeks after going live. This company has many problems and I would strongly recommend that any potential users look else where.

While 2Clix had a go at defending themselves on the forum, it seems they’ve also decided to sue the forum’s owners. Maybe they got angry that one of the threads is the top hit in Google. If the case gets anywhere, it could obviously have repercussions for other online communities, so it’ll be interesting to see where it goes.

Update Thursday: This story has hit the MSM.
The Age: Firm sues forum to silence critics
ZDNet: 2Clix scores own goal with Whirlpool case
Computerworld: 2Clix sues broadband forum for “false and malicious” threads
…and and more

Update Wed 2007-09-19: Media reports that 2Clix drops the lawsuit, but it’s not official yet.

09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0

It’s a set of numbers that’s being spread around by a few people at the moment. According to this post:

…it is the HD-DVD processing key for most movies released so far, published on the net by the AACS (Advanced Access Content System) a couple of days ago by mistake.

…and the legality of even publishing it, at least in the US under the DMCA, is apparently in doubt.

This page quotes a Wikipedia article about it which, intriguingly, has been deleted from Wikipedia itself. It’s also caused a ruckus at Digg.

Interesting stuff. Though it’s not like 99.99% of people would have any idea how to apply the number to anything… though I suppose that could change rapidly.

Google Inc today lost a copyright fight launched by Belgian French-language newspapers which demanded the web search service remove their stories, claiming it infringed copyright laws. … They complained that the search engine’s “cached” links offered free access to archived articles that the papers usually sell on a subscription basis. It was unclear if Google would have to pay a fine.

— Wire story: Google loses case against Belgian papers

That’s just stupid. You don’t need to go around suing search engines to stop your stuff getting into their databases. Every web developer who knows anything about this knows you just need to drop a robots.txt file onto your web site and it stops all search engines and archivers stone dead.

To ignore that, and send the lawyers in instead just looks like you’re not looking for a solution, you’re looking for money.