@hydrosam Before I comment on the specifics, I just need to be clear that this is not legal advice. I’m commenting purely for my own personal amusement and for what I hope is some measure of entertainment for others.
- Can you determine that, based on public code, that the accusation against Saddle is valid and a case can be made?
Rather than comment on any specific example, let’s look at a hypothetical copyright infringer of Curve’s IP which is the only thing I’m interested in. We need to establish and agree an approach for what will likely be a recurring problem. All comments below relate to such a hypothetical case.
So, does it matter if we have a iron-clad case against the infringer? And why discuss that here in full view of everyone? My point is simple: any suggestion that copyright has been infringed should be met with an immediate response.
The correct approach is to immediately send a cease and desist and prepare for interlocutory relief. We can worry ourselves about the merits of the case while we are taking the urgent action necessary.
- Will a court recognize Curve despite no regulation, legal status, or legal precedent for handling DAOs?
We only need to find one person who can claim legitimate rights over the IP in question. Based on the GitHub repository, that currently falls to @iamdefinitelyahuman
Failing that, I see no reason why the veCRV stakeholders couldn’t file as a class even if that’s on a basis that’s beyond potential IP claims.
There are lots of intermediary steps to take that will definitely make an impact:
-
Curve raises the issue with GitHub and requests closure of the relevant repo along with the accounts of any devs involved for breaching GitHub’s (read Microsoft’s) Acceptable Use Policy:
-
Curve could also issue cease and desist on the host of the infringer. Their terms of use make it relatively simple to alert them of the issues and force a shutting down of the account (see for example cl 6.2 here. The infringer might relocate but if they’re thinking of running a multi-million DeFi platform and keep going offline or moving to sketchy jurisdictions, their users will start thinking twice about the platform. Very few users are going to interact with the smart contracts directly - ultimately, this is about liquidity and trade volume. Without that, they’re dead.
-
If the infringer has just started and is thinking of listing on a CEX, then even the possibility of messy litigation will definitely make the CEX nervous and potentially put the infringer on a blacklist.
-
Then approach Medium and ask for their Medium account to be shut down.
-
Send formal notices to Discord and Telegram and request closure of the channels as they would likely be in breach of Acceptable Use Terms.
Where does this leave the infringer: no CEX on the horizon - disrupted social media channels - website offline - uncertain roadmap - peeved community - buh bye…
Apologies for the gory details - this is how the sausage is made. Actually, this is how corporate chess is played - small tactical victories over many years that produce network effects and coalesce into an overwhelming advantage.
For clarification I should add here that litigation isn’t my main interest and I can’t wait till we see the back of the securities issues in this space. My main focus is protecting the long-term viability of DeFi projects as well as exploring the exciting stuff (for me, anyway) that is coming including likely mergers, acquisitions and strategic partnerships, DeFi as a Service, commoditised/retail DeFi products, interfaces into trad-fi etc etc.
- In what jurisdiction would a case be brought forth?
It depends on a number of factors such as where the infringer is located. It’s surprisingly easy to solve this problem because there are 2 classes of potential infringers:
A. Pure scammers who will happily steal code and then vanish once they’ve rugged their investors.
B. “Legitimate” operators who want to build a business and be around for a long time and either messed up or pushed their luck a bit too far.
Class B projects are easy to deal with. You simply pick off the devs who are publicly known. Or if the project is incorporated, you go after the company (and the devs too for good measure).
Side benefit: good devs will quickly re-align to projects that want to do the right thing rather than expose themselves to litigation and personal damages suits.
But that’s down the road. For now, we simply need appropriate representation, a plaintiff and we’re ready to initiate action.
- What outcomes would Curve hope to achieve with a case?
Please refer to my original post.
- What’s the likelihood of getting favorable outcome from a court?
I won’t comment on that here as we’re talking hypotheticals. This is about protecting legitimate business interests and IP by exercising all legal rights available to Curve.