Raul Miller writes: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:49:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > This is choice of venue; it means that, if the licensor wants, he can > > force me to trek out to Indiana at whim to defend myself in court, > > overriding the normal legal mechanisms for choosing a suitable venue. > > I believe most of d-legal considers this to be non-free; I agree. > > Of course, it also means that if Microsoft uses a derivative of this in > some proprietary component of Windows that the licensor can avoid having > to trek out to Seattle to contest the issue. > > [Personally, I'm more ambivalent about this being a non-free issue > than you.]
At least in the case of Microsoft, this is not true. Since Microsoft does business in every state of the USA and many foreign countries, it is subject to personal jurisdiction in their local courts. Venue is satisfied by having an aggrieved party live there or by the alleged infringement taking place there (other things can probably satisfy the requirements for proper venue). Choice-of-venue, as opposed to choice-of-law, mostly makes it easier to sue small people. Michael Poole
