Rowling wins copyright infringement case

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

RickyMaveety - now you want me to do some real work! I think you probably agree with me that there is a strong individualist strain in American culture, and also that this country affords a much broader right of judicial remedy for individuals than other countries do (it's the source of many complaints about our lawyer-dominate culture - but lawyers can only do what the courts and legislatures let them do).

With respect, you are wrong in your suggestion in yesterday's post that where you can sue depends on where the injury occurred. You can sue anyone anywhere where you can get personal jurisdiction, at least in the U.S. I can sue you in California for an automobile accident that occurred in France. You can sue me in New York for breaking a contract with you in Turkey. I am confident that I could sue you in a Dutch court for slandering me in Illinois. What law applies may be an open question, but the courts in any jurisdiction are not limited to resolving disputes that arose in that jurisdiction.

I think that there is a very strong individualist strain in Alaska, but no .... I don't think all Americans are gung-ho members of the cult of individuality.

You are correct in that a court must have either subject matter or personal jurisdiction over the parties to a suit. I would be interested to hear how you would go about suing me in a Dutch court for slandering you in Illinois when you reside in Alaska and I reside in Texas. Please provide a citation ... I would be really interested in reading a case like that to see how they pulled personal jurisdiction out of a hat. I was in the Netherlands in 1969 ... are you saying that gives them personal jurisdiction over me for the remainder of my life??

No sarcasm here .... you are a litigator and I am emphatically not, so I'd really like to see where your information comes from.

And, yes .... of course I'm going to make you work. I expect everybody at this forum to work on making their posts understandable and either educational or unutterably silly.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

It is emphatically not true that a court has jurisdiction only over citizens of its country or companies registered there. "Personal jurisdiction" is a concept completely different from citizenship or registration, and much broader.

I was amazed when watching BBC Parliament to hear the case of a constituent of Ann Widdecombe.
He was a business man who'd had (perfectly legal) dealings in Iran in the 1970's.
Recently he sold his house in the UK, and wanted to transfer the money from one UK bank to another. Unfortunately for him, the route the money transfer took was via a US bank. The bank seized the money because his business in Iran had transgressed some US legislation.
He had no control over how his money was transferred; he'd done nothing illegal in UK law - yet Ann Widdicombe was having to plead with the UK government to make representations to the US to reconsider the seizure of his assets.
Scary .

[Ak Mike]

RickyMaveety - I'm sorry, I am enjoying this interchange, but I really don't think this is the right place to conduct a seminar in jurisdiction. Let me note that again you err in saying that a court must have either personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction. A court must have both.

And as far as "pulling personal jurisdiction out of a hat" - maybe it's time to reread the International Shoe case and maybe even your own state's "long-arm" personal jurisdiction statute - I would start with sec. 17.042 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

As far as the individual versus corporation aspect of U.S. law, it goes back at least as far as the early twentieth century with cases such as MacPherson v. Buick and Palsgraff v. Long Island RR, in which the courts approved awards to individuals against big corporations that were not even negligent. Texas, your state, is in the lead in this area.

Sparrow - I agree that this type of thing can be worrying. I note that it flows in both directions - in 2001 the European Competition Commission disallowed a merger between two U.S. companies, General Electric and Honeywell. You may also remember that a Spanish court indicted the late General Pinochet for acts committed in Chile, and nearly got him shipped there for trial from England, where he had gone for medical treatment.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

Sparrow - I agree that this type of thing can be worrying. I note that it flows in both directions - in 2001 the European Competition Commission disallowed a merger between two U.S. companies, General Electric and Honeywell. You may also remember that a Spanish court indicted the late General Pinochet for acts committed in Chile, and nearly got him shipped there for trial from England, where he had gone for medical treatment.

I wouldn't have described that as 'pulling jurisdiction out of a hat.' There was some evidence that the General had had Spanish citizens tortured in Chile. A Spanish court might well have an interest in the violation of its citizens' human rights.
To my mind, it was a pity that the UK government of the time did not extradite the General to answer the Spanish charges.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

RickyMaveety - I'm sorry, I am enjoying this interchange, but I really don't think this is the right place to conduct a seminar in jurisdiction. Let me note that again you err in saying that a court must have either personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction. A court must have both.

And as far as "pulling personal jurisdiction out of a hat" - maybe it's time to reread the International Shoe case and maybe even your own state's "long-arm" personal jurisdiction statute - I would start with sec. 17.042 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

As far as the individual versus corporation aspect of U.S. law, it goes back at least as far as the early twentieth century with cases such as MacPherson v. Buick and Palsgraff v. Long Island RR, in which the courts approved awards to individuals against big corporations that were not even negligent. Texas, your state, is in the lead in this area.

Sparrow - I agree that this type of thing can be worrying. I note that it flows in both directions - in 2001 the European Competition Commission disallowed a merger between two U.S. companies, General Electric and Honeywell. You may also remember that a Spanish court indicted the late General Pinochet for acts committed in Chile, and nearly got him shipped there for trial from England, where he had gone for medical treatment.

It's not the wrong place. I think a lot of people would enjoy knowing a little more. OK .... so a court must have both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Again .... how does that get a resident of Alaska and a resident of Texas with a slander that occurred in Illinois into a Netherlands court?? You're the one that said it would be easy .... I'm just not seeing where jurisdiction would lie.

My practice is in California, so I don't take much notice of Texas codes. However, I would happily read International Shoe or any other case you care to cite ... if .... it will actually explain the jurisdictional question in the hypothesis you posed.

OK .... Alaska resident, Texas resident, slander in Illinois, and the suit is going to be in the Netherlands. Please ... just tell me how that is supposed to work??

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

RickyMaveety - now you want me to do some real work! I think you probably agree with me that there is a strong individualist strain in American culture, and also that this country affords a much broader right of judicial remedy for individuals than other countries do (it's the source of many complaints about our lawyer-dominate culture - but lawyers can only do what the courts and legislatures let them do).

With respect, you are wrong in your suggestion in yesterday's post that where you can sue depends on where the injury occurred. You can sue anyone anywhere where you can get personal jurisdiction, at least in the U.S. I can sue you in California for an automobile accident that occurred in France. You can sue me in New York for breaking a contract with you in Turkey. I am confident that I could sue you in a Dutch court for slandering me in Illinois. What law applies may be an open question, but the courts in any jurisdiction are not limited to resolving disputes that arose in that jurisdiction.

Now, just to be clear .... this is where my question lies .... just with the red highlighted portion. I want to know where either or both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would lie with the Dutch court.

Just that .... nothing more. Either your confidence in being able to do that is based in reality, or you were just talking off the top of your head. I'm just curious to know which it is.

Just re-read International Shoe, but it doesn't seem to deal with the courts of the Netherlands and slander in Illinois. I'm not even sure there is anything in there that is particularly on point.

[Ak Mike]

Tell you what, RickyMaveety - I just cited three U.S. court decisions, a Texas statute, and a European Competition Commission decision. You stated five propositions yesterday and so far have produced zero authority to support any of them. With due respect, you do not seem to have a firm grasp on how personal jurisdiction works.

You will recall that the claims I made were in response to Harry's assertion that a court has no power over non-citizens, and your assertion that a case can be brought only where the injury occurs. I'll make you this deal: If you provide me with any court case or other authority that states that a case can be brought only where the injury occurs, I'll go ahead and spend some time to look up authorities on the subject matter jurisdiction of Dutch courts. Deal?

[axel77]

Well in europe i can sue you for everything, I can sue because I do not like your face. I'm not going to win that case, and I will have to pay it in the end. But there is not limitations in opening cases...

In a company I worked at we had this problem, another company sued us, because of redicolous reasons. Of course they eventually lost. However it was hugh problems for us along the way, because investors, customers always asked, whats about that case running against you?