Craigslist's CEO Jim Buckmaster believes that eBay's lawsuit is an exercise in hypocrisy, in no small part because the online auction giant has taken many of the same measures Craigslist did in order to protect itself. Buckmaster made yet another post to the Craigslist Blog over the lawsuit, addressing some of the points that eBay raised in its recently-unsealed complaint. While Buckmaster's points may be true, though, his post seems to dance around the overall point of the lawsuit—that Craigslist has diluted eBay's stake in the popular classified site through its actions.

Buckmaster's most recent blog post came not long after details about eBay's lawsuit against Craigslist were made public. In the suit, eBay alleges that Buckmaster and Craigslist founder Craig Newmark breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in a series of transactions that would ultimately benefit themselves "to the detriment of eBay." This included holding a series of meetings without eBay's knowledge, despite eBay's ownership of more than a quarter of the company. During these meetings, the two implemented measures that would prevent eBay from selling its shares to anyone but Craigslist, gave themselves more decision-making power, and appointed a new board designee.

Buckmaster immediately shot back by saying that every measure was taken in order to protect "the long term well-being of the Craigslist community," accusing eBay of being "obsessed with dominating online classifieds." Buckmaster promised at the time that Craigslist would file a formal response through the court system, but couldn't keep himself from responding himself.

In his latest blog post, Buckmaster starts out by noting that eBay opposes Craigslist's implementation of a "poison pill" policy that was meant to prevent eBay from using its shares to make decisions that could hurt the company. However, eBay itself has implemented similar policies that allow the company to shift around shares with the intent of protecting company interests.

Buckmaster also says that eBay is suing Craigslist because it offers its other shareholders the right to first refusal to purchase additional shares in the company. eBay no longer has that privilege because it engaged in competitive activity when it launched Kijiji in the US, and Buckmaster believes the auctioneer is unhappy about this unbalance. Additionally, Buckmaster claims that eBay is suing over Craigslist's indemnification agreement that lets the company pay legal fees for Craigslist directors in the event that they are sued, and for Craigslist's holding of staggered board elections. Both of these things are policies that eBay itself has implemented in the past.

Of course, these are all points that dance around the ultimate objection that eBay has. eBay isn't suing over the fact that Craigslist now has a poison-pill policy or that eBay has lost its right of first refusal—it's suing because Buckmaster and Newmark made all of these decisions themselves without the knowledge or consent of the only other significant shareholder in the company. One has to wonder, though, why Buckmaster is airing the companies' dirty laundry in the public. Is he looking to gain public support? To intimidate eBay into dropping the case (and perhaps its shares in Craigslist)? Either way, Craigslist is probably best served by fighting the case through the legal system and laying off on the blog rants.