tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post2003374807813372268..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Personal Jurisdiction and eBayWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-83326206997060226132008-08-31T17:36:00.000-04:002008-08-31T17:36:00.000-04:00This shows the U.S. court system is stuck in the o...This shows the U.S. court system is stuck in the old age of near independent states and the new age of an integrated nation connected with internet -- more than anything else. In a lot of case, goods and money and transacted even without the knowledge of the physical location of the other end. The eBayer may well reside in Africa and the harm of the take-off notice may be felt in Africa.Copyright Law and Copyright Litigation Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687389061872562179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-53127539430374262072008-03-09T11:49:00.000-04:002008-03-09T11:49:00.000-04:00omAndrew - you are making the same error that Judg...omAndrew - you are making the same error that Judge Walker D. Miller made, remember he got overturned.<BR/><BR/>Sevenarts through their agents Chalk & Vermillion did not send a cease and desist.<BR/><BR/>They did actual harm by sending an NOCI. An NOCI sent to eBay caused the listings to be terminated and a strike to be placed on the sellers account. eBay keeps score, multiple takedowns result in suspension of the sellers account.<BR/><BR/>An NOCI and a Cease and Desist are two different animals. <BR/><BR/>Additionally Sevenarts and Chalk & Vermillion have been shutting down eBay auctions for 5+ years and have never brought suit. Nor did they sue the manufacturer of the fabric, Shamash and Sons.<BR/><BR/>Also when the seller filed the counternotice Sevenarts threatened litigation.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14611726650769514622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-8351073590485493442008-02-01T14:38:00.000-05:002008-02-01T14:38:00.000-05:00Normally, of course, one expects that a party aski...Normally, of course, one expects that a party asking for a cease and desist to bring suit, rather than the party on the receiving end, and normally venue would be proper and personal jurisdiction where the Defendants reside, so on the merits, the isn't an unreasonable forum.<BR/><BR/>I can't help but worry, however, that the bank shot doctrine could, in some other circumstance do considerably mischief -- making it too easy to obtain a home state forum of a Plaintiffs' choosing. Overall, there has been considerable reluctance to find personal jurisdiction based upon the use of instrumentalities of commerce without any physical contact, a doctrine that when applied has supplied certainty to the law. Is this the right result, as a consequence of a rather quirky procedural posture of the case, for the wrong reason?Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.com