DISQUS

just to clarify: according to ebay's complaint, craigslist did subsequent dilutions of ebay's share of craigslist: the dilution to 25.01% came about in 2005 when employees were given stock options; further dilution to under 25% happened more recently and prompted ebay's law suit.

oops! that way *ebay* (NOT craigslist): Craig& Jim diluted ebay's share of craigslist D.

little detail: ebay hasn't *always* claimed they got 28.4 % (which is closer to 30% 30% than 25%) , they initially claimed it was "approimatively 25%" (ebay press release at the time), which fit Craig's//craigslist's story. I find it intriguing that according to the complaint, Craig&Jim deluted craigslist to 25.01% (which definitely qualifies as "approximately 25%" as ebay initially said...) D.

why on earth aren't people pointing this out? I mean, The New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press... they must have noticed the difference, no? D.

Matthew,

I'm just curious... how do you suppose ebay got more than 25% of craigslist? that wasn't Craig's / craigslist's story was it?

Delia

Matthew,

Caigslist shouldn't have any claim to the craigslistblog.org and should have lost all claims to the craigslist.org domain when they turned for profit, *way back*, (unfortunately the dot org domain remains unregulated so craigslist still gets away with redirecting traffic from craigslist.com to craigslist.org continuing to give the appearance that craigslist is still a non-profit).

Delia

Mathew,

that's vague and ambiguous: what's "generally" doing in that statement? re: "we *generally* don’t view information submitted by our users as data to be used for other purposes" (my emphasis); as usual, I think you are taken for a ride...

Delia

P.S. take care, anyways! D.

Mathew, I think Craig is an *investor* in Daylife (saying that he "has helped financially" gives the wrong idea that he is a *donor* of some sort...) D.