3 ms·
Read the blog post I linked, then read VE Holdings, then get back to me. Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what per
by monochromatic 11y ago
Read the blog post I linked, then read VE Holdings, then get back to me.
Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391.
- mnarayan01 11y ago> Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391. You say that like it's improbable.
- wtallis 11y agoLet's turn this around: are you asserting that Congress did anticipate in 1990 that personal jurisdiction would extend to almost anybody with a website without requiring specific evidence of any actual commerce with the district or state in question? Because the case law on that was certainly a mess in the subsequent years, and it doesn't look like it's even been taken up by the Supreme Court. What is necessary under Federal Circuit law for an e-commerce business, for example, to avoid falling under the personal jurisdiction of Eastern Texas for a software patent suit? And do you believe that such measures—if they exist—do "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"?
- dhimes 11y agoWell, I've included in my TOS that the product is not for use there. Maybe that will help (not released yet).
- monochromatic 11y agoThe current doctrine of "minimal contacts" had already been around for 45 years in 1990. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_Co._v._Washington https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_Co._v._Wa... Yes, I think Comgress should be presumed to have known about it.