4 ms·

Is there any reason SCEA wants to file in CA other than making it inconvenient for Hotz?

• omh 16y ago
  Does Japan have a DMCA-style law? Even if it does, I'd guess that SCEA has a better (bigger?) team of lawyers than SCEJ when it comes to this sort of case.
  • Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
    They're not saying the case should have been bought in Japan or under Japanese jurisdiction (they admit it should be bought in the US, just that it should be bought in New Jersey as that's where the alleged offence was committed and because to bring it anywhere else is deliberately inconvenient to the defendant). The point about SCEJ is that it should be them that should be bringing the case rather than SCEA. Personally that one feels like clutching at straws as it doesn't invalidate the alleged infringement, just this particular case. In the unlikely event that the judge threw it out based on this SCEJ would just bring the case using the same lawyers and the same materials (SCEJ and SCEA are both after all Sony and to assume that they wouldn't co-operate and share resource isn't really realistic).
  • jlazarow 16y ago
    If the case was brought up in Japan, then wouldn't Hotz just need to avoid ever stepping on Japanese soil in order to stay out of trouble (regardless of the outcome of the case).
• rorrr 16y ago
  Some courts are more favorable in some areas. CA must be the most favorable when it comes to copyright cases.
• roc 16y ago
  People have a predictable and powerful tendency to put everyone into buckets via easily quantifiable properties and treat them very differently based on whether they see themselves as sharing those buckets. Ergo, if a jury gets involved, it's worse for Sony if the action is framed as "Japanese corporation vs New Jersey citizen", given a jury composed of New Jersey residents. If they can get SCEA/California jurisdiction, it's "California corporation vs New Jersey resident", given a jury composed of California residents.
• tibbon 16y ago
  Maybe their legal team isn't barred in NJ?
  • bhousel 16y ago
    Corporations generally hire outside counsel to handle most of their legal practice. So Sony (or their subordinate companies) would hire megafirms that employ lawyers allowed to practice law anywhere in the world.
• ChuckMcM 16y ago
  The federal judiciary in California is sometimes better at handling complex intellectual property and technology rights cases because they have seen more go through. Because of this they also have some precedents which can be cited and which the ninth circuit is supportive of. I don't doubt if it were a complex financial scam that they would be happy to move it to New Jersey (where they have seen a number of securities cases go through)