Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.
Sven Luther writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:21:22AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Examples of that are pre-trial conferences, where both sides must be
>> physically present (either in person or through counsel) before the
>> judge, so that they can efficiently agree on scheduling and procedural
>> issues.
>
> Ok, still do you think that a judge would have no consideration if the
> defendent is a poor student on the other side of the world, or otherwise has
> not the physical means to be present ? And in this case, how could the judge
> make the judgement binding anyway ?
I don't know how much leeway a judge has to do that. The plaintiff
can (and often will) appeal any decision by the judge that deviates
from the normal practice.
There are a lot of ways a judgment could be binding, mostly by making
life very unpleasant if the defendant ever visits that country -- for
example, arrest for contempt of court or seizure of assets upon entry.
> Let's keep in mind that the case at hand is one where we want to protect the
> defendent from legal harassment. If so, i think there should easily be able to
> put some doubt in the mind of the judge even with a simple letter.
Perhaps there should be, but my experience with and watching the US
court system suggests it would not be effective -- I think most judges
are good and honest people, but there are rules to follow, and going
outside those rules can undermine the judge's ruling. Procedural
issues are very important here, and are frequent grounds for vacating
rulings. That means the original judge has to spend even more time on
the same dispute, which most would rather avoid.
> I also believe that there most assuredly are some jurisprudence about similar
> kind of issues.
Specific references to that kind of jurisprudence would be very
reassuring for the rest of us. The Tentacles of Evil test is about
keeping a very skeptical mind when evaluating DFSG freeness.
> But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of things.
The usual explanation is that it discriminates against people outside
the chosen venue. Your response in the past was that the DFSG should
not protect copyright infringement, and it should not. The legal
fact, though, is that until a court rules on the matter, claims of
copyright infringement are just claims. Whether the copyright owner
files suit out of malice or misunderstanding, an innocent defendant
may still have to appear in some very inconvenient court that would
not otherwise have jurisdiction.
Michael Poole
Reply to: