Re: Extending US Juridiction to Foreign Nationals

On Wed, June 04, 1997, Jeremy G. Byrne <jeremy[_at_]midnight.com.au> wrote:
>
> On 3/06/97, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/2/97, Jeremy G. Byrne <jeremy[_at_]midnight.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > What provisions could _possibly_ exist to exert jurisdiction over a
> > > "foreign defendant" hosting a site from a county outside the Berne
> > > Convention, WTO etc. (such as Iran, Ethopia, the Cook Islands or
> > > San Marino)?
> >
> > if the trademark infringement has an impact on U.S. commerce,
> > U.S. nationals are involved, and the suit will not offend the
> > substantive law of another soveriegn, U.S. courts will take
> > jurisdiction under the Lanham Act
>
> So what you're saying is that the foreign national would be prosecuted,
> under the Lanham Act, in a US Court, under US Law. Is this regardless of
> whether the foreign national is offending substantive law in his or her
> own country? How would you forsee the US Courts might proceed from a
> judgment against a foreign national in such a case? Via extradition
> treaties? Do these typically extend to cover "crimes" involving
> IP/copyright?

Does sound pretty silly, doesn't it? But that's the whole long arm jurisdiction issue, which has been used, for example, to apply "local community standards" when prosecuting an out-of-state web site for pornography..

I've been to IP seminars in which I've taken issue with the use of the term "broadcast" when applied to the WWW. It seem to me that if we think of a site "broadcasting over the internet", rather than a person "searching for" and "surfing to" a site, we've put a weapon in the hands of the would-be regulators.

Mark Kolber
Denver, CO
mkolber[_at_]sprynet.com Received on Sat Jun 07 1997 - 02:42:19 GMT