3TAPS, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM Case No. CV-12 ...

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627181. For example, shortly after filing this lawsuit against 3taps and PadMapper, craigslistbegan attaching maps to some of its apartment listings. Essentially, craigslist has attempted toadopt an improvement to its site along the lines of the feature PadMapper was sued for introducing.(craigslist’s maps are not as sophisticated as PadMapper’s because craigslist cannot aggregatemultiple listings onto a single map, as PadMapper does.)182. Similarly, craigslist has begun to improve its picture viewer, adopting a viewer akinto that employed by craiggers. craigslist in fact has the temerity to suggest that its alteration of itspicture viewer was craigslist’s idea and that craiggers copied this innovation, but the inverse is true.183. craigslist’s willingness to adopt these improvements indicates that it is aware of itsuser’s demand for innovation and the value that innovators like 3taps and PadMapper provide. Italso reveals that craigslist’s resistance to change is not the result of its professed desire to retainsimplicity as a “public service.” craigslist is happy to embrace innovation, so long as doing so willnot enhance the viability of its competitors or potential competitors.INJURY TO COMPETITION AND CONSUMERS184. craigslist has maintained its monopoly power in the onboarding, indexing, andsearch markets for classified ads to the detriment of consumers.185. 3taps is endeavoring to provide a method whereby specialized search engines canprovide better search services to consumers. 3taps has the capabilities and resources to create anefficient index.186. craigslist’s anticompetitive scheme, taken as a whole, limits the ability of 3taps tooffer this pre-staged, indexed data, which in turn prevents specialized search engines—includingPadMapper, craiggers, JeBoom and others—from offering alternative, attractive products toconsumers that allow for better, more efficient searches across multiple classified ad sites. It alsoinhibits these companies from competing in the onboarding market, as PadMapper has attempted tocompete via PadLister.187. craigslist’s anticompetitive scheme therefore reduces the output of competitiveproducts offered in the onboarding, indexing, and search markets for online classified ads and28thereby limits consumer choice in these markets.3TAPS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM63CASE NO.: 12-CV-3816-CRB