Tom Marble <Tom.Marble@Sun.COM> wrote:
Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is*
given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1].
In essence, this is the same claim we have heard before:
"If, however, you are an individual, or a company that trades in only
one of the places in which the other party also trades, the only
jurisdiction that can hear the case is the one you share in common
with the other party. In this circumstance, the "choice of venue"
clause has no effect - no reasonable court would hear a case involving
a party with no connection to the court."
So, as I've repeatedly stated before, to accept such a choice of venue as
not being an effective cost, we need to be sure the court is "reasonable".
I've no idea whether Santa Clara County California (SCCC) is "reasonable"
and I'm not going to take Simon's word because: