George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we >> ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference >> that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for >> me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to >> deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. >> Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me >> than being sued here. > > The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find > some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange.
That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. >> How do we protect against that currently? > > What changes the picture is that you just add new possibilities to be > possibly > attacked and as we all know sco wont be the last, it was not the smartest > either... So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
