No, what the court said was that the injury
in question was directed against a California
company or institution which they have
jurisdiction over and that this case meets
the requirements necessary to have the case
tried in California.
If you broke a California law but the harm
wasn't directed at California(a resident etc.)
than California would have no jurisdiction.
I'm a Canadian and not a lawyer but given the
reasoning of the decision I don't see that the
US Supreme Court will have grounds to overturn
this decision.
Having said that, the decision could be vacated
on other grounds. Obviously since I'm not a
lawyer I don't know for sure but I'm presuming
that any reverse engineering is illegal in
California, otherwise there is no basis for
this suit since the DeCSS source was legally
reverse engineered. If it isn't illegal in
Illinois to reverse engineer, in other words
if this case has no basis in Illinois on it's
face than this court erred in not finding
for Pavlovich. Test 3) of the 7 criterion which
the court must use in testing if the long
arm statute applies, is whether California's
laws are in conflict with the sovereignty of
the laws of the other state in question, in
this case Illinois. If it's not illegal to
reverse engineer in Illinois than it is obvious
that this case is in severe and direct conflict
with the laws of Illinois which would mean
that the long-arm statute could not apply.
The above analysis is for some reason based on
the idea that the harm in question was supposedly
done from Illinois if it wasn't than simply
replace Illinois with the state in question.
If I was a US citizen what would really bother
me is that none of the 7 tests used by the
court refer to the interests or sovereignty of
the federal government. In otherwords how can
it be illegal to perform an action in a part
of the country when that same action isn't
illegal in the total of the country. Again I'm
presuming there isn't a federal US law against
reverse engineering.
Canada also has a two-tiered medical system. There's the one the government pays for and the one you get if you're rich and can pay to have your problem fixed in the US.
Believe you me the rich in Canada don't use our medical system.
I've seen analysis to support your statement but
I've never seen anyone take into account the
lost opportunity cost of using up the gas(natural
gas I'm assuming we're talking about). I'm not
a chemist but my understanding is that natural
gas can be used in any number of renewable
resource products. Whereas Uranium is mainly good
for blowing up people(bad) and producing lots
of "clean" energy.
In the final analysis I think this factor must
also be taken into account.
"Look at all this extra money were making now that Napster isn't available. There's proof positive that Napster was contributing to the decline of our meager profits."
If you thank someone for kicking you in the groin no doubt they'll continue to do it.
Finally. A comment that's on topic for what actually went on with this guy.
I can't say I fault anyone though since Katz has no clue on this one. This has nothing to do with the McD's per. se. and everything to do with the fact this guy didn't like a tariff put on his product.
I'm not going to argue that this guy was wrong for feeling hard done by. From all indications the American's use of a 100% tariff was punitive indeed. However this in no way justifies breaking up a McDonald's as a means of protest.
Of course French farmers have been using violence and mass display to get their way for a long time. Both the American's and French subsidize their farmers to an obscene level, and than point their fingers at the other and cry foul.
It's a wonder that anyone thinks this current milieu is worth the attention given the government intervention into farming that both these countries take part in daily.
I wonder how hard it would be to run these guys out of money or energy by making them continuely use their lawyers to attack us.
It would probably be hard to coordinate but if we just keep putting up web sites every time they sue one of us eventually they'll get tired of it or they'll go broke. Sure it will take awhile but it may be fun to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
If you broke a California law but the harm wasn't directed at California(a resident etc.) than California would have no jurisdiction.
I'm a Canadian and not a lawyer but given the reasoning of the decision I don't see that the US Supreme Court will have grounds to overturn this decision.
Having said that, the decision could be vacated on other grounds. Obviously since I'm not a lawyer I don't know for sure but I'm presuming that any reverse engineering is illegal in California, otherwise there is no basis for this suit since the DeCSS source was legally reverse engineered. If it isn't illegal in Illinois to reverse engineer, in other words if this case has no basis in Illinois on it's face than this court erred in not finding for Pavlovich. Test 3) of the 7 criterion which the court must use in testing if the long arm statute applies, is whether California's laws are in conflict with the sovereignty of the laws of the other state in question, in this case Illinois. If it's not illegal to reverse engineer in Illinois than it is obvious that this case is in severe and direct conflict with the laws of Illinois which would mean that the long-arm statute could not apply.
The above analysis is for some reason based on the idea that the harm in question was supposedly done from Illinois if it wasn't than simply replace Illinois with the state in question.
If I was a US citizen what would really bother me is that none of the 7 tests used by the court refer to the interests or sovereignty of the federal government. In otherwords how can it be illegal to perform an action in a part of the country when that same action isn't illegal in the total of the country. Again I'm presuming there isn't a federal US law against reverse engineering.
Believe you me the rich in Canada don't use our medical system.
http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/
and connect to your different Window's boxes to your hearts content.
It's quite cool and gets a hell of a reaction from some people when you start controlling their desktop for them.
In the final analysis I think this factor must also be taken into account.
I can see the RIAA's response now...
"Look at all this extra money were making now that Napster isn't available. There's proof positive that Napster was contributing to the decline of our meager profits."
If you thank someone for kicking you in the groin no doubt they'll continue to do it.
I can't say I fault anyone though since Katz has no clue on this one. This has nothing to do with the McD's per. se. and everything to do with the fact this guy didn't like a tariff put on his product.
I'm not going to argue that this guy was wrong for feeling hard done by. From all indications the American's use of a 100% tariff was punitive indeed. However this in no way justifies breaking up a McDonald's as a means of protest.
Of course French farmers have been using violence and mass display to get their way for a long time. Both the American's and French subsidize their farmers to an obscene level, and than point their fingers at the other and cry foul.
It's a wonder that anyone thinks this current milieu is worth the attention given the government intervention into farming that both these countries take part in daily.
Rice in California? What's up with that?
It would probably be hard to coordinate but if we just keep putting up web sites every time they sue one of us eventually they'll get tired of it or they'll go broke. Sure it will take awhile but it may be fun to watch.