Lawsuits Sans Frontiers Personal Jurisdiction Meets the World Wide Web Steven L. Baron MM450 April...
-
Upload
natalie-hudson -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Lawsuits Sans Frontiers Personal Jurisdiction Meets the World Wide Web Steven L. Baron MM450 April...
Lawsuits Sans Frontiers
• Personal Jurisdiction Meets the World Wide Web
Steven L. Baron
MM450
April 18, 2006
IIPA 2006 Report on China
• Piracy rates of physical copyright products remain virtually the highest in the world – 85 – 90%
• 35 million broadband lines
• 250,000 Internet Cafes
• Despite raids, no deterrence or meaningful decrease in availability of pirate products
Estimated Trade Loss*
*International Intellectual Property Alliance, 2006 Special 301 Report
Legal Issues that Emerge In International IP
• Who can be sued? Where? Under what law?
Important Definitions
• Jurisdiction = – Particular court or court system; and– Power of a court to hail a party into court and
render a decision that is binding on that party
Important Definitions
• Venue =– Location of a particular court
• Service of Process = – The delivery of legal papers that initiates a law
suit or legal proceeding
• Choice of Law =– The legal process of deciding which
jurisdiction’s law applies
Who Cares About Jurisdiction?
• Courts
• Lawyers
• Parties
Why care about jurisdiction?
• Impacts where you can be sued.
• Impacts law that applies to your suit.
• Impacts who decides the outcome.
• Impacts the nature of the outcome.
• Impacts the costs of suit.
• Impacts how you may decide to act in the future.
Dow Jones v. Gutnick
• Plaintiff/Respondent = Gutnick
• Defendant/Appellant = Dow Jones
Dow Jones v. Gutnick
• Gutnick lives in Victoria, Australia
• Dow Jones =– Delaware Company– Offices in New York City– Web Servers located in New Jersey
Dow Jones v. Gutnick
• Dow Jones publishes article in Barron’s On-Line
• Gutnick claims he was defamed in Australia
• Gutnick sues Dow Jones in Australia
Dow Jones v. Gutnick
• Trial court finds that Victoria “was not a clearly inappropriate forum” (i.e. Gutnick could maintain his suit in Australia).
• Court of Appeal refuses appeal.
• Dow Jones appeals to High Court of Australia
Dow Jones v. Gutnick
• High Court of Australia dismisses appeal– Defamation law seeks a balance
• Free Speech v. Preservation of Reputation
– Publication is “bilateral” in nature• Where the publisher acts
• Where the publication is presented
– Single Publication Rule
Dow Jones v. Gutnick
• “[T]hose who post information on the World Wide Web do so knowing that the information they make available is available to all and sundry without any geographic restriction.”
• Place where information is downloaded is where harm to reputation occurs.
Bangoura v. Washington Post
Those Pesky Canadians
Bangoura v. Washington Post
• Plaintiff = Bangoura– Former Senior official with UN– Seeks $9 million for two allegedly libelous
articles published on Post’s web-site
• Defendant = Washington Post – Washington based newspaper– Has on-line edition
Bangoura v. Washington Post
• At time of publication (1997), Post had 7 subscribers in Ontario
• The only individual to access the on-line articles was Bangoura’s counsel
• Bangoura did not move to Ontario until 2000
Bangoura v. Washington Post
• Post challenges jurisdiction in trial court.
• Trial court upholds jurisdiction:– “those who publish via the Internet are aware of
the global reach of their publications, and must consider the legal consequences in the jurisdiction of the subjects of their articles”
– Where is “publication”?– Where is the “effect” felt?
Bangoura v. Washington Post
• Court of Appeal (Ontario) reverses– Not reasonably foreseeable that Bangoura
would wind up a resident of Ontario– Bangoura’s lawyer was the only person in
Ontario to access the articles on the Washington Post Internet database
– U.S. Courts would not enforce a Canadian judgment (failure to meet “actual malice”)
– Gutnick case distinguishable
Why does the media care about where it can be sued?
Standards of Proof
• U.S. – Public figures must show “actual malice”– Knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for
the truth
• U.K. – Public figures need not show “actual malice”
Gutnick and Bangoura
• Impact of Cases:– Gutnick opens up specter of suit anywhere that Internet
publication is available
– Bangoura tempers the Gutnick decision slightly
– Imposes upon web publishers the need to know the law in foreign jurisdictions
• What about all those poor bloggers?
– Collecting judgment may still be difficult against a foreign interest without assets in the country
Quote of the Day
• “Man's mind, stretched by a new idea, never goes back to its original dimensions.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.