On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote: > > You can still claim that the court in question does not have > > jurisdiction over the parties. > > You can claim that the moon is cheese too, if you want.[1] The point > is that in order for the court to agree that they don't have > jurisdiction, you have to get them to agree that the clause is > non-binding. [The claiming is a lessser issue; what the court has to > do in order to agree with your claims is critical here.]
My point was that a harassing case based on this license would be much akin to claiming that the moon is cheese. > > Only if the case has merit -- only if there's a valid dispute > > involving the license -- would the CA courts have jurisdiction. > > Issues of jurisdiction are one of the first things to be determined in > most cases, they occur well before the court even begins entertaining > issues of merit.[2] For this clause of the license to apply at all, there would need to be a dispute about something related to the license. That means a dispute about Adobe's customer service or warranty support for this software, or a displute about the software being distributed without proper copyright notices or with improper trademark notices. So this aspect -- "what is the dispute about" -- would have to be resolved as a part of resolving issues about jurisdiction. I was not trying to say that all issues of merit would have to be resolved. -- Raul
