Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.
- From: MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:50:33 +0100
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20040723122548.GD12155@pegasos>
On 2004-07-23 13:25:48 +0100 Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a lawyer of similar
and fluent in the Laws of France, in a country local to the
defendent. I don't
have hard data over this though, and would welcome hard data to the
IIRC, there is no requirement for a private individual to be
represented by a lawyer in an English court, although many are.
Additionally, the case would probably be heard in the appropriate
court nearest to the defendant, so travel costs are minimal, and there
may be Legal Aid available. Therefore, the need to hire a lawyer local
to Versailles is a significant additional expense an abusive licensor
can make the defendant pay, apparently on a whim.
There have been famous English civil self-defences, like the McLibel
trial. I have tried to verify the above is still true today, but
there's not a match in the subject indices I have access to and I
can't construct a free text search which isn't drowned by irrelevant
matches (for example "represent yourself infringement" finds lots of
I thought someone had previously claimed that the choice of venue was
not valid to a French court anyway?
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast