Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Yes, but you could then tell them and the court that they had to move the > > > suit to where you lived. With this clause, you couldn't (unless the > > > clause > > > was ruled to be unenforcable). > > > > This is circular. A court has to decide from the facts of the case > > whether the clause is "enforceable". Which court decides that? That > > depends on whether the clause is "enforceable". So where do we start? > > I would imagine that the plaintiff would argue in their local court that the > clause was enforceable, and the defendant would argue in their local court > that it wasn't. If both won in their respective juristictions, you would > appeal the decisions to a higher court, one with juristiction over both > lower courts.
>From reading groklaw.net I get the impression that US courts don't like duplication of effort, so I would guess that in this scenario the case in the plaintiff's court would be stayed awaiting the result of the case in the defendant's court. The defendant might have a defence that doesn't use the licence at all, so it would be total waste of time for the other court to discuss the details of a clause in a document that turns out to be completely irrelevant. With a contract that both parties have signed it's fairly easy to see that both parties have agreed to the choice of venue; with a public licence quite a lot of legal work has to be done in order to show that the licence has anything to do with the case. So I wonder whether such a clause in a public licence has any practical effect and if so, how. But I guess nobody here knows the answer so I'll shut up now. Sorry for rambling.
