Re: Advertising violations

On 3/17/99, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think that's true ... I'm pretty sure they have prevailed
> against out of state defendants as well.
>
> If so, however, it probably had to do with the addition of common law
> right of publicityor unfair competition claims, and the reach of
> California's long arm statute. I'm only speculating here.

Perhaps I was not writing clearly, but your response raises an interesting question on its own. What I was thinking was that C3PI couldn't go to NY and sue someone who was "violating" the California statute *in New York* -- California presumably not having legislative jurisdiction over acts that take place in New York not intended to have effects in California. Where someone acts on a national basis, and certain effects of that enter California, the issue is more complicated. There may be some interesting constitutional issues here about "dormant commerce clause" effects, but let that go.

Your response raises the choice-of-law issue. We're not used to thinking about that in copyright!

• Vance R. Koven * phone: 617-482-3852 *
• attorney at law * fax: 617-482-4972 *
• 20 Park Plaza Ste. 633 * net: vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com *
• Boston, MA 02116 * *

  ---