Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
<posted & mailed>
lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org> wrote:
>> If you can show that a particular choice of venue clause has a
>> particular problem because of a particular combination of laws or
>> legal procedures, then that might be an argument for it not being
>> DFSG-free. Otherwise, isn't it sufficient to just mention is as a
>> possible risk when the licence is being discussed and leave it at
>> that?
>>
>
> I have argued that it may well be *good* for a license to specify choice
> of venue. It is a nice thing to know which laws apply to the agreement,
> and that's what a choice of venue clause tells you (at least, to the
> point anything is certain in law).
Wrong wrong wrong. Please pay attention.
A choice of *law* clause tells you which laws apply to the document. A
choice of *law* clause looks like this:
"This license will be governed by the laws of the state of California."
A choice of venue clause does something entirely different; it declares
which specific court will hear the case. It looks like this: "All disputes
will be settled by the Municipal Court of Santa Clara County, California."
Yes, these are different. Courts can, and will, decide cases based on
foreign laws. If there is no choice-of-venue clause, venue is decided
(among the possible jurisdictions) mostly by how much of a pain it is for
the various litigants to travel (the least pain is the best place).
We have explained repeatedly that choice of law clauses are great and fine,
while choice of venue clauses are abusive.
> But don't take my advise, however much logic it may be based on.
Namely, "none".
> Just
> watch what real lawyers are doing. Real lawyers seem quite happy with
> these clauses, both when offering and accepting them.
Well, real lawyers get paid more money if they have to travel to foreign
countries. Maybe they're happy about that. So what does that have to do
with us? Nothing.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: