On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Exactly. It's not a cost because exactly the same thing could happen > > anyway. The same is true of choice of venue clauses - the bringer of the > > suit could claim that their local venue had jurisdiction over me, even > > if this isn't actually the case. > > The difference is that if you have accepted a choice-of-venue license, > the sociopath can present his local venue with proof that it has > jurisdisction. That makes a difference, however much you try to deny it.
If it's a frivolous case, it makes no difference. You'll have to turn up to either: (a) debunk the claim that there is jurisdiction, or (b) debunk the frivolous claim which will both impose the same cost. (Please don't Cc me.) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
