On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:58:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:11:15AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > Glenn L McGrath writes: > > > hmm, so if parts of the license arent enforcable in the licencees > > > jurisdiction, then a "choice of venue" clause could be used to drag > > > people into a jurisdiction that they are enforcable... > > > > Yes, "choice of venue" clauses could drag someone into a jurisdiction > > that he perceives as oppressive. European individuals often think US > > copyright and patent laws are overbearing. US corporations often > > think European copyright and patent laws are too weak. Non-Muslims > > could be very disadvantaged if a COV clause subjects them to shari'a > > law. I could continue; is that sufficient illustration? > > To be fair, though, the problems you've listed above are just as prevalent > in Choice of Law clauses. "You agree that this licence agreement shall be > interpreted by the laws of the state of <foo>" can subject a European to US > patent law, or a US corp. to .eu patent law, and so on, without causing > either party undue cost (beyond what any lawsuit is going to cost you) due > to having to present arguments in a foreign court. And that is why it is *possible* for choice of law clauses to be non-free: selection of laws that are intrinsically non-free is no different to writing them into the license in the first place. Precisely which ones are a problem is a tricky puzzle. Certainly selecting for one of the middle-eastern despotisms would be a problem. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature