Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

MJ Ray wrote:

> On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
> wrote:

<snip>
>> Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people
>> to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the
>> legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for somebody to
>> defend themselves.
> 
> This doesn't seem to be a stock choice of venue clause, though. It
> only applies when there is a US party and some have claimed that the
> choice of venue clause would not necessarily prevent a US defendant
> being heard in their local court, such as Nathanael Nerode in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00237.html

I think you might have been confused by what I said.  I was describing, in
that message, how things work if there is *no* choice of venue clause.

If there is a choice of venue clause (and it's considered valid, which it
likely would be), it's likely that it would require a US defendant to go to
Santa Clara to avoid summary judgement.

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.