From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Tue Nov 21 21:34:02 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Received: from prserv.net (out2.prserv.net [32.97.166.32]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75D229B06 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:34:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org ([32.101.77.192]) by prserv.net (out2) with SMTP id <2000112202335520200nu8lle>; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:33:56 +0000 Message-ID: <3A1B3083.923C808F@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:33:39 -0500 From: James Love X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] New list 1st post! -- James Love, Consumer Project on Technology v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176 love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Wed Nov 29 17:13:40 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E037329B8F for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:13:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (larson.essential.org [216.0.124.48]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08420 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:13:40 -0500 Message-ID: <3A25805D.B9FD2C19@cptech.org> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:17:01 -0500 From: Alan Bushnell X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------DF9BBE5E3AEA7E4A024E57BA" Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] CJ&D release on the Hague Convention Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------DF9BBE5E3AEA7E4A024E57BA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Alan Bushnell , Policy Intern Consumer Project on Technology / http://www.cptech.org PO Box 19367, Washington DC 20036 phone: 1(202)387-8030 fax: 1(202)234-5176 --------------DF9BBE5E3AEA7E4A024E57BA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="cjd.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="cjd.txt" Subject: CJ&D ALERT: URGENT ACTION NEEDED Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:43:18 -0500 From: Joanne Doroshow PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY: ACTION ALERT FROM THE CENTER FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY For Immediate Release November 29, 2000 Contact: Emily Gottlieb Deputy Director Center for Justice & Democracy emily@centerjd.org 917/438-4621 URGENT ACTION NEEDED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS' LEGAL RIGHTS DECEMBER 1 (FRIDAY) DEADLINE TO SUBMIT SHORT, EASY E-MAIL OR FAX COMMENTS The United States government is currently involved in a shocking and potentially dangerous treaty negotiation that would place major litigation decisions by consumers and workers around the world in the hands of the businesses they are suing. Very few people are aware that this is happening because business interests are in complete control of the process. There is absolutely no consumer representation in these treaty negotiations. Moreover, the U.S. government is assuming consumers are happy with this situation because they have not heard anything to the contrary from consumer groups. Specifically, the U.S. government has appointed a pro-business delegation to determine whether the United States accepts or rejects a Hague treaty (called the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters) that could determine where and how American consumers and workers can sue and be sued. See, http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html Some areas of concern are as follows: * Where Consumers Can Sue. Right now, the U.S. government has effectively blocked language in the treaty that would allow consumers to bring an action in the courts where they live. * Alternative Dispute Resolution. Businesses want the right to opt out of a country’s consumer protection laws if they provide ADR procedures like arbitration -- procedures that prevent cases from going to court. * Labor Issues. The U.S. government has opposed a provision that would give employees in private employment contracts a right to sue and be sued in the country where they live. Other provisions could affect U.S. labor unions. For example, if a U.S. labor union urges a global consumer boycott, it is unclear whether the union could be sued abroad in tort and have the resulting judgment enforced against it in the United States. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), has requested comments on or before December 1, 2000. Please take a moment to do the following: * E-Mail or fax the United States Patent and Trademark Office on or before December 1, 2000. Tell the USPTO that consumers must be part of the process and ask for an extension of the December 1, 2000 comment deadline. Send your comments to the attention of Elizabeth Shaw by fax, (703) 305-7575, or by e-mail, elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov on or before December 1, 2000. For more information, contact Jennifer Lucas, Attorney-Advisor, by telephone, (703) 305-9300, by fax, (703) 305-8885, or by e-mail, jennifer.lucas@uspto.gov. * Write a letter to the US delegates before December 10, 2000. On December 11th and 12th, there will be an intergovernmental meeting on ADR and the Hague Treaty. Manon Ress of the Consumer Project on Technology—lone consumer advocate who will be with the U.S. delegates but is prohibited from being part of any negotiation —wants to circulate letters of concern. These can be submitted to her by fax, (202) 234-5176, by e-mail, mress@essential.org, or by regular mail, Manon Ress, Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036. For further information, contact Manon Ress by telephone at (202) 387-8030. * Offer your expertise. Businesses have hired experts to brief the U.S. delegation about issues of importance, i.e., how to protect business interests under the treaty. Consumer and employee advocates are needed to counter pro-industry rhetoric that favors elimination of consumer protections. For more information, contact Manon Ress at CPT. MANON ALSO DESPERATELY NEEDS LEGAL ASSISTANCE. IF YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY AND CAN OFFER HELP, PLEASE CONTACT HER. * Forward this alert to other consumer organizations and attorneys. Consumer groups have been excluded from treaty negotiations while businesses have been lobbying to protect their interests. Consumer advocates need to be aware of the issues so they can strategize and take action if necessary. Thank you. For more information about the Hague Treaty on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments, see http://www.cptech.org/ecom/hague/rms-01102000.html; http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-October/000450.html; http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/prdrconjud.html; http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html. --------------DF9BBE5E3AEA7E4A024E57BA-- From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Thu Dec 14 12:37:41 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD1029B4B for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:37:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from vergil.cptech.org (rhaco.essential.org [216.0.124.54]) by genoa.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DE91822D for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:37:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001214123520.00a33c80@mail.essential.org> X-Sender: vbushnell@mail.essential.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:36:49 -0500 To: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org From: Vergil Bushnell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_4600738==_.ALT" Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] German Court Bans Foreign Nazi Web Sites Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=====================_4600738==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks to Declan for posting this on his politech mailing list. http://www2.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/12/13/001213hnbanger.xml?Templa= te=3D/storypages/printarticle.html -snip- "GERMANY'S HIGHEST COURT on civil affairs, the Bundesgerichtshof, ruled=20 Tuesday that the country's laws against Nazi propaganda can be applied even to Web sites=20 located outside of Germany. Overturning a lower court ruling, the court found that German authorities=20 can legally act against foreigners who place illegal material on Web servers that are accessible in= =20 Germany, said court spokesman Wolfgang Kr=FCger. " -snip- Vergil Bushnell Consumer Project on Technology email: vbushnell@cptech.org phone: 202-387-8030 www.cptech.org --=====================_4600738==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks to Declan for posting this on his politech mailing list.
http://www2.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/12/13/00121= 3hnbanger.xml?Template=3D/storypages/printarticle.html

-snip-
"GERMANY'S HIGHEST COURT on civil affairs, the Bundesgerichtshof, ruled Tuesday that the
country's laws against Nazi propaganda can be applied even to Web sites located outside of
Germany.
Overturning a lower court ruling, the court found that German authorities can legally act against
foreigners who place illegal material on Web servers that are accessible in Germany, said
court spokesman Wolfgang Kr=FCger. "
-snip-

Vergil Bushnell
Consumer Project on Technology
email: vbushnell@cptech.org
phone: 202-387-8030
www.cptech.org --=====================_4600738==_.ALT-- From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Fri Dec 15 14:38:08 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D8B29B7D for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:38:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from vergil.cptech.org (rhaco.essential.org [216.0.124.54]) by genoa.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D1118239 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:38:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001215143610.00a2d530@mail.essential.org> X-Sender: vbushnell@mail.essential.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:36:59 -0500 To: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org From: Vergil Bushnell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] USPTO extends date for Hague/IPR comments Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: [Federal Register: December 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 238)] [Notices] [Page 77347] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11de00-38] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office RIN 0651-AB25 Reopening of the Time Period for Acceptance of Comments on Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters AGENCY: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Reopening of time period for acceptance of comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published a notice seeking comments on a convention being negotiated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law that is designed to create common jurisdictional rules for international recognition and enforcement of judgments issued under these rules (65 F.R. 61306 (2000)). Interested members of the public were invited to present written comments on the topics outlined in the Issues for Public Comment section of the Notice by December 1, 2000. This notice reopens the time period for submission of comments. Comments will be accepted through January 12, 2001. EFFECTIVE DATE: All comments are due by January 12, 2001. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to offer written comments should address those comments to Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Box 4, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC 20231, marked to the attention of Elizabeth Shaw. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile transmission to (703) 305-7575 or by electronic mail through the Internet to elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov. All comments will be maintained for public inspection in Room 902 of Crystal Park II, 2121 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Lucas by telephone at (703) 305-9300; by facsimile at (703) 305-8885; by electronic mail at jennifer.lucas@uspto.gov; or by mail marked to the attention of Jennifer Lucas, Attorney-Advisor, addressed to Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Box 4, Washington, DC 20231. Dated: December 5, 2000. Albin F. Drost, Acting General Counsel. [FR Doc. 00-31355 Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-U -- James Love http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 Vergil Bushnell Consumer Project on Technology email: vbushnell@cptech.org phone: 202-387-8030 www.cptech.org From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Fri Jan 12 11:59:47 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79E729B19 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (flip.essential.org [216.0.124.53]) by genoa.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18E818238 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:59:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A5F3849.51D7603B@cptech.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:00:57 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Draft TACD resolution on Hague Convention - for comment Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is from a TACD discussion, on another list, but comments of course are welcome..... Jamie ........... This is a proposed TACD resolution on the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments. Feel free to improve this, or to offer comments. I doubt that I have the Article 7 things quite right. Jamie Version 1.0 1. TACD asks that the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters protect consumer and citizen interests. 2. Consumers should not be denied the right to litigate business to consumer disputes in the country where they live. 3. The Hague convention should not be linked to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR). Discussions about ADR are still preliminary, and there is no global consensus regarding ADR's role in electronic commerce. The Hague Convention should avoid engagement in discussions about ADR, and specifically, there should be no effort in the Convention to limit the enforcement of judgments to prior use of ADR. 4. The Convention should not enable the chilling of political speech, and should not enable the suppression of dissent or criticisms of government policies. 5. Intellectual property should be excluded from the Convention. There are very important differences in national laws regarding intellectual property, including differences on issues such as "fair" or "innocent" use, limits of trademark rights in areas of criticism, parody or comparative advertising, the scope of patent protection, the term of copyright protection, the use of sui generis intellectual property regimes for rights in data, and many other items. There is no global consensus what these policies should be. Cross border recognition of Internet based IPR claims raises many problems that cannot be solved in the Convention, and raise the prospect that intellectual property owners will sue in jurisdictions with the most restrictive IPR regimes, leading to a reduction in the public' rights. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Sat Jan 13 14:45:49 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085AA29B95 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (ppp-8.essential.org [216.0.125.8]) by genoa.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37E718239 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:45:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A60B0EC.6EFD7CC3@cptech.org> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:47:56 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Hague Convention/IPR CPT's Jan 12, 2001 comments to USPTO Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: These are the comments CPT filed on January 12, 2001 in the US Patent and Trademark Office request for comments on the IPR aspects of the Hague Convention on Foreign Judgments. The US government delegation is beginning consultations on the IPR issues in the Hague, and the World intellectual Property Organization will hold two days of public meetings on IPR and Jurisdiction on January 30 and 31 in Geneva, followed by one day of informal country negotiations on this issue. On February 6 the US FTC will hold a one day meeting on consumer issues in the Hague Convention, and the government of Australia has a request for comment on the Convention, ending February 16. For additional information on the schedule of Hague negotiations, see the CPT web page on the Hague Convention, or contact Dr. Manon Ress , who is coordinating several NGO events, and is organizing a Washington, DC spring public meeting on IPR consequences of the Hague Convention. Jamie Love http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html http://www.cptech.org/ecom/hague/CPT-Hague-IPR-Jan12-USPTO.html To: Elizabeth Shaw Jennifer Lucas cc: Jeffrey D. Kovar Manon Anne Ress From: James Love Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org Re: CPT's January 12, 2001 comments on IPR aspects of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters In June 2001, there will be an important diplomatic conference to consider a proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. This convention is the first major effort to address important jurisdiction issues for cyberspace, as they related to commercial matters. There are many important Internet related issues in the proposed convention, but perhaps non more vexing than those involving speech and intellectual property issues. By making foreign judgments easier to collect, the proposed Convention will effectively extend the reach of national laws concerning patents, trademarks, copyright, trade secrets, unfair competition, libel, slander and of course nearly all other commercial matters. This can result in citizens of any country being impacted by laws in other countries. This will be true even for bad laws. Governments who are involved in the Hague Convention negotiations are supposed to decide, by June 2001, if there will be a new global convention on jurisdiction and recognition of judgments, and if so, what will be the rules, and which areas of law will be covered. In the current draft, all aspects of civil and commercial law are covered, unless it is specifically exempted in Article 2. (It should be noted that the convention covers governments when they are engaged in civil or commercial disputes.) The Convention is complex and the subject of several controversies, details of which are available here: http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html These comments will focus on only two important areas, the impact of the convention of free speech, and on the public's rights under intellectual property laws. CPT asks that the convention be modified to explicitly protect free speech, and to exclude intellectual property, as it has for maritime, matrimonial, insolvency, wills and successions, and other areas of law. In facilitating the collection of foreign judgments, the convention will increase the liability that citizen's face when publishing or receiving information or software, conducting business, or otherwise using the Internet. The reach and importance of foreign libel, patent, copyright, trademark and other laws will be expanded. Activities that are legal in one country can result in costly liabilities, so long as they constitute infringements or other civil liabilities in foreign countries. Here are a few examples of areas where the proposed convention will present important problems: 1. Software and E-Commerce patents. At present there are national differences on the policies regarding the issuance of patents on software. Some countries, like the US, have opened the doors to patents on software, while others have not. Formally at least, patents on software are excluded from the European Patent Convention, and are a topic of considerable debate and controversy within Europe. There is also continual pressure for countries to accept patents on software. For example, some EU and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIP0) officials claim that Article 27.1 of the WTO/TRIPS accord requires countries to adopt software patents, arguing that software is a "field technology" that has an "industrial application." Whatever the merits of this argument, it at least presents the possibility that all countries that are WTO members will be required to grant software patents. While the USA is considered the most aggressive country in terms of issuing software patents, there is no reason to believe that this will be true in the long run, particularly if software patents are issued in countries that (a) have even worse systems for examining patents than the USA, or (b) seek to adopt an even more aggressive patent strategy in order to "tax" foreign e-commerce. By making it easier to collect foreign judgments, the Hague convention will shift the burden of paying for such patents to foreign citizens, giving every country an incentive to adopt anti-consumer policies. Foreign countries have latitude in determining how damages for infringement are calculated, and a wide range of activities can generate foreign infringement liability. Business Methods patents raise the same issues. Right now there is considerable controversy in the USA over the appropriateness of issuing patents on business methods, and indeed, even if one accepts the controversial notion that business methods are an appropriate topic for patents, there is ample evidence many such patents are of poor quality, for example due to inadequate research of prior art or poor judgments regarding standards for novelty. One can argue that this is a US domestic problem. But if the Hague convention on judgments covers patents, it will be a much larger issue. Why wouldn't one see foreign countries become very aggressive in terms of issuing business methods patents? And if they did, what recourse would we have under the Hague Convention? And what evidence do we have that foreign governments can do a better job than the US PTO on patent examination, or that the foreign courts will provide a competent and fair forum for evaluating business methods and software patent infringement claims? 2. Fair Use under copyright laws. There are large differences between countries with regard to copyright laws. Of particular concern to CPT are national policies on fair use. Many persons participate in Internet news groups and mailing lists, often redistributing portions of or even entire articles of selected stories in discussions of a wide range of topics. Teachers circulate information in classrooms for non-commercial use, including, for example, foreign video clips or articles from foreign web sites. NGOs and individuals provide hypertext links to articles from other web pages. Authors quote from other authors. Stories, books and movies explore ideas or themes used or developed earlier by others. Musicians sample music, or in various ways borrow or use from others. Software, telecommunications and computer engineers, pharmaceutical companies, automobile manufacturers and others use reverse engineering to understand how machines, software, drugs and other products are made, or how they can make interoperable products. Some of these activities are considered infringements, and others are considered fair use under various national legal systems. By including copyright infringement claims in the Hague Convention on foreign judgments, every author, every software developer, every musician, every student, and every citizen who uses or receives information, will have liability for foreign copyright laws. If there is an expectation that foreign copyright laws are more restrictive than domestic laws, then users lose rights. The public domain is reduced. This is our primary concern. We do not believe there is enough consensus regarding the scope and enforcement of copyright laws to rush toward a system to recognize foreign judgments for copyright infringement. On many of these areas, US law is considerably better in terms of protecting the public's rights than are at least some foreign laws. Indeed, with a large number of countries in the Convention, there will of course nearly always be some countries that have worse laws than the US, from the point of view of fair use. This provides opportunities for publishers to forum shop, and to litigate infringement claims in countries that are the least protective of the public's rights. 3. Free Software. The free software movement has created a large number of software programs that currently power the internet. Programs and distributions such as GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, Apache, sendmail, bind, gimp, GNOME, KDE, X- Windows, Emacs, and countless others are used throughout the world to run servers, create applications and provide services to businesses, non-commercial institutions and individuals. Microsoft sees the free software movement as its most important competitor in the server market, and this competition has kept the Internet more competitive and less monopolistic. Much of this free software is written by volunteers. If the Hague convention exposes these volunteers to new risks for foreign infringement suits, it may have a disastrous impact on the continued growth and development of the free software movement, and harm the Internet. 4. Sui generis IPR regimes. One particularly difficult area for the Hague Convention concerns the US liability for new sui generis IPR regimes, including those that do not exist in the USA. Some of these laws run counter to US legal traditions, are highly anticompetitive, or suffer from poor administration. An example of a problematic foreign sui generis regime is the new EU database protection laws. 5. Use of Government Copyright to suppress dissent or criticism. Many foreign governments claim copyright in government documents. For example, in the UK, the government has sued David Shayler, a former MI5 employee, and nine publications, over crown copyright claims in documents David Shayler had disclosed, that reveal official government wrongdoing. There is another UK case involving Nottinghamshire's County Council, where the government used the copyright law to suppress an embarrassing report regarding an investigation into child abuse. The Nottinghamshire government threatened copyright litigation against several parties for publishing this report on the Internet, including US web sites. According to recent news reports, Hitler attempted to use copyright laws to repress US circulation of materials he wrote. Under a new Hague Convention, one can imagine China, a Hague conference member that has a repressive government, using government copyright laws to suppress publication of information about government activities. US citizens have an interest in these issues, even when the enforcement of the foreign judgments take place in non-USA jurisdictions. For example, when sued, David Shayler was living in Paris, but the information he disclosed was of interest to the entire world, including to US citizens. (For more information regarding the Nottinghamshire case, see: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/comp_law/index.html#Not http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dlheb/Default.htm http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/comp_law/notts.txt, and for an analysis of the Shayler case, see: http://www.thenation.com/issue/000522/0522wiener.shtml) These are only a few examples of a much large class of problems that are presented by inclusion of intellectual property in the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments. CPT encourages the US government to hold public meetings to discuss the IPR aspects of the Hague convention. As noted above, CPT's web page on the Hague Convention is here: http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html. CPT also asks that the US government find the resources to provide a web page on the Hague convention that is updated regularly with current information about the Convention, and provide information about how citizens can provide comments to governments who are participating in the Hague negotiations, or participate in important Hague meetings, including the June 2001 diplomatic convention. Sincerely, James Love Director Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 Washington, DC 20036 http://www.cptech.org -- James Love http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Fri Jan 19 12:22:08 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from prserv.net (out4.prserv.net [32.97.166.34]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89B729B07 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:22:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (slip139-92-111-68.gen.ch.prserv.net[139.92.111.68]) by prserv.net (out4) with SMTP id <2001011917220220402v8s8ke>; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:22:03 +0000 Message-ID: <3A687882.8067B39C@cptech.org> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:25:22 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS , ecommerce , "hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] FTC February 6 roundtable on Hague Convention Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PUBLIC ROUNDTABLE ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR ONLINE BUSINESS-TO-CONSUMER CONTRACTS AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission ACTION: Notice Announcing Public Forum SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") will hold a roundtable discussion on (1) recommendations by business and consumer groups on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for online consumer disputes; and (2) a proposed provision in the Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters being negotiated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law that provides special jurisdiction rules for international consumer contracts. DATE AND LOCATION: The roundtable will be held on Tuesday, February 6, 2001, beginning at 9:30 am, at the Federal Trade Commission, Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. Registration is not required. Requests for participation as a panelist should be directed to Maneesha Mithal, Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, phone: (202) 326-2771, facsimile: (202) 326-3392, e-mail: mmithal@ftc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maneesha Mithal, Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, phone: (202) 326-2771, facsimile: (202) 326-3392, e-mail: mmithal@ftc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Background: The electronic marketplace, which has opened the door to international business-to-consumer transactions on an unprecedented scale, provides enormous benefits. For consumers, it offers 24-hour access to sellers around the globe; for businesses, it offers access to a worldwide market. For both business and consumers, it offers tremendous efficiencies. This online marketplace also has created challenges; among them, how best to resolve disputes involving cross-border consumer transactions. Consumers must be confident that they will have access to redress for problems arising in the online marketplace. In many instances, consumers face unique difficulties in resolving problems arising out of online transactions, such as language and cultural differences, inconvenience and expense that may result from the distance between the parties, and problems with litigation, including difficulties in establishing jurisdiction, determining the applicable law, and enforcing judgments. In addition to facing similar burdens, businesses must determine where they could be subject to jurisdiction and which laws might apply to them, which could significantly increase the cost of doing business online. The FTC has held two workshops on these and related issues. The first, in June 1999, explored questions related to core consumer protections; online disclosures that consumers need to feel safe when shopping online; jurisdiction; applicable law; and the roles of the private sector and international bodies in addressing consumer protection issues. The findings from this workshop informed the OECD voluntary Guidelines on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, which were issued in December 1999. The Guidelines encouraged industry, government and consumers to work together to develop inexpensive, easy-to-understand and acceptable ADR mechanisms. The FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection issued a report on this first workshop in September 2000, which can be found at .The second workshop, on ADR for online consumer transactions, was sponsored jointly with the Department of Commerce in June 2000. A summary of that workshop can be found at . A consensus emerged at these workshops about the need to develop and implement ADR programs to resolve online consumer disputes. Outstanding issues include whether ADR programs should be governed by minimum legal standards for fairness and effectiveness, whether ADR programs should be binding and/or mandatory for the consumer, whether results of particular ADR programs should be confidential, and what rules of decision should apply to ADR programs. At our workshops, certain private sector organizations, including the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue and the Global Business Dialogue on Electronic Commerce, have made specific recommendations on these issues. Although ADR programs will reduce the number of online disputes that result in litigation, some litigation is inevitable. Such cases will likely raise the question of which court has jurisdiction over a dispute. Currently, in cases involving contractual disputes, U.S. courts generally allow consumers to sue out-of-state businesses in consumers' home courts; however, in some domestic consumer contract cases, courts have upheld choice-of-forum clauses designating the business' home court as the applicable forum. It is unclear how U.S. courts would treat a clause designating a foreign forum in a consumer contract, as U.S. courts have not directly addressed this issue. For several years, FTC staff has expressed concerns about the use of choice-of-forum clauses in consumer contracts concluded over the Internet. At the same time, FTC staff recognizes industry's legitimate concerns about the potential for increased costs associated with litigating disputes around the world. The Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, which is currently being negotiated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, offers one possible international resolution of this jurisdiction issue. The Convention, if ratified, would create jurisdictional rules governing international lawsuits and provide for recognition and enforcement of judgments by the courts of signatory countries. Article 7 of the draft Convention contains jurisdiction rules for international consumer contracts. It provides that: 1. A plaintiff who concluded a contract for a purpose which is outside its trade or profession, hereafter designated as the consumer, may bring a claim in the courts of the State in which it is habitually resident, if a) the conclusion of the contract on which the claim is based is related to trade or professional activities that the defendant has engaged in or directed to that State, in particular in soliciting business through means of publicity, and b) the consumer has taken the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract in that State. 2. A claim against the consumer may only be brought by a person who entered into the contract in the course of its trade or profession before the courts of the State of the habitual residence of the consumer. 3. The parties to a contract within the meaning of paragraph 1 may, by an agreement which conforms with the requirements of Article 4, make a choice of court - a) if such agreement is entered into after the dispute has arisen, or b) to the extent only that it allows the consumer to bring proceedings in another court. For disputes arising from cross-border consumer contracts, the court in the consumer's home country will have jurisdiction over the foreign business, regardless of the court designated in a choice-of-forum clause. At this point, it appears that significant competing policy interests are involved, which warrant further study of Article 7. The Public Forum: The morning discussion will focus on recommendations on ADR for online consumer transactions proposed by the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue and Global Business Dialogue on Electronic Commerce. The purpose of this session is to foster a dialogue between business and consumer groups and work toward finding common ground on outstanding issues related to ADR. The afternoon discussion will focus on Article 7 of the Preliminary Draft Hague Convention as it relates to cross-border business-to-consumer disputes arising from online transactions. The purpose of this session is to inform U.S. Government views on Article 7 of the Preliminary Draft Hague Convention in preparation for several upcoming meetings, including an electronic commerce experts committee meeting in Ottawa, Canada at the end of February, and the upcoming two-part Diplomatic Conference during 2001-02 to finalize the draft Convention. Related Documents: For further information on these issues, please refer to the following documents: FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Report, Consumer Protection in the Global Electronic Marketplace: Looking Ahead (September 2000) (located at ) FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Report, Summary of Public Workshop: Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Transactions in the Borderless Online Marketplace (November 2000) (located at ) TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue Recommendations on Alternative Dispute Resolution (February 2000) (located at ) Global Business Dialogue on Electronic Commerce Recommendations on Alternative Dispute Resolution (September 2000) (located at ) Hague Conference on Private International Law, Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (located at ) By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark Secretary -- James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Sat Jan 20 11:14:48 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from prserv.net (out1.prserv.net [32.97.166.31]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC6C29B00 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (slip139-92-111-188.gen.ch.prserv.net[139.92.111.188]) by prserv.net (out1) with SMTP id <20010120161446201022q0g2e>; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:14:47 +0000 Message-ID: <3A69BA30.AE24BE6F@cptech.org> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:17:52 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Three WIPO papers on IPR jurisdiction and Hague Convention Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Random-bits] Three WIPO papers on IPR jurisdiction and Hague Convention Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:16:02 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS WIPO has distributed three papers in advance of its January 30-31, 2001, WIPO Forum on Private International Law and Intellectual Property. This is a meeting on IPR jurisdiction and the proposed Hague Convention. (I am invited panel member for this meeting). Jamie http://www.cptech.org/ecom/hague/Ginsburg2000.doc Jane C. Ginsburg and Morton L. Janklow, Private International Law Aspects Of The Protection Of Works And Objects Of Related Rights Transmitted Through Digital Networks. http://www.cptech.org/ecom/hague/Lucas2000.doc Andre Lucas, "Aspects De Droit International Prive De La Protection D'oeuvres Et D'objets De Droits Connexes Transmis Par Reseaux Numeriques Mondiaux." http://www.cptech.org/ecom/hague/Blumer.doc Fritz Blumer, "Patent Law and International Private Law on Both Sides of the Atlantic." -- James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 _______________________________________________ Random-bits mailing list Random-bits@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Fri Feb 2 12:08:00 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB8E29AF1 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from vergil.cptech.org (rhaco.essential.org [216.0.124.54]) by genoa.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5591822E for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:07:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20010202120042.00a8c8c0@mail.essential.org> X-Sender: vbushnell@mail.essential.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:03:16 -0500 To: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org From: Vergil Bushnell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_3718245==_.ALT" Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] James Love's presentation at WIPO forum on jurisdiction Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=====================_3718245==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed This is the text of the slides I used in my presentation at yesterday's WIPO forum on jurisdiction. Jamie Global agreements on Intellectual Property Protection and Public Rights and the Public Domain - WIPO Forum on Private International Law and Intellectual Property Geneva, January 30 and 31, 2001 James Love Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org 1. Old framework for global IP agreements o Focus of agreement is protection of property owner. o Rights for property owners typically are mandatory and minimum rights. o Public rights are largely discretionary. o Burden of IP protections protect falls on domestic consumers. 2. The Internet will change the nature of future IP agreements o Cross-border enforcement of IP claims will permit countries to extend the reach of domestic IP laws. o Burden of compliance will fall on foreigners. o There is a need to address global norms for minimum public rights 3. CPT position on Hague Negotiations o The proposed Hague convention on jurisdiction and foreign judgments should be amended to exclude intellectual property claims. o No new effort should be undertaken to enhance cross-border judgment recognition until there is a global consensus on the public's minimum rights in intellectual property. 4. We are concerned the Hague Convention would: o Shrink the public domain, by extending the global reach of novel or over reaching IP regimes, o shrink the scope of "fair use" exceptions in IP regimes, by introducing liabilities for the most restrictive foreign IP regimes, o Shift the costs of IP regimes to foreign consumers, giving countries new incentives to adopt restrictive IP laws, o Expose the Internet to a plethora of new IP claims by countries or firms engaged in socially inefficient rent seeking IP strategies. 5. E-Commerce Patents I o USP 4,873,662. British Telecom's patent on hyperlinking. o USP 5,794,207, Priceline.com patent on "name your price" auctions. o USP 4,558,302. Unisys "Gif" patent. o USP 5,960,411. Amazon "1 click" purchase patent. o USP 6,157,946. NetZero patent on use of pop-up ads on Free Internet services. 6. E-Commerce Patents II o USP 6,073,241. C/NET, Inc.'s "Apparatus and method for tracking world wide web browser," on the operation of banner advertisements. o USP 5,855,008. Cybergold's "Attention Brokerage" patent, which covers financial incentives for citizens to view political messages. o USP 5,105,184. So called "Energizer Bunny Patent," on Methods for displaying and integrating commercial advertisements with computer software. 7. AltaVista Patent on Internet Searching o David Wetherell, representing investors in AltaVista. - They happen to own 38 patents, many of which we think are fundamental in the search area. They were the first to spider and index the Web. And Digital did a good job of recognizing the potential value of that intellectual property. And they were very thorough in filing broad and deep and narrow patents. And we have another 30 patents that are in application. So we believe that virtually everyone out there who indexes the Web is in violation of at least several of those key patents. 8. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JORDAN ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FREE TRADE AREA The Government of the United States of America ("United States") and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ("Jordan") . . . Agree, 5. Jordan shall take all steps necessary to clarify that the exclusion from patent protection of "mathematical methods" in Article 4(B) of Jordan's Patent Law does not include such "methods" as business methods or computer-related inventions. 9. Free Software Movement o Software is developed by volunteers, and given away. o Software is distributed globally on the Internet. o Very large national differences in national laws on software patents, permitted reverse engineering, contracts of adhesion, etc. 10. The country of origin for publishers is arbitrary. o Choice of IP address to publish is trivial - 216.0.124.147 (Published in USA) - 152.158.2.48 (Published in Europe) o Publishers can create foreign subsidiaries 11. Linking Controversies o "Deep" linking - News Stories - Ticketmaster o Links to infringing materials o Framing of pages - AskJeves.com 12. Government Copyright o David Shayler - UK. Former MI5 Agent, then living in France - Published government documents that embarrassed the UK government - UK government sued 9 publications for copyright infringement o Nottinghamshire - Copyright used to suppress publication on the Internet of report addressing mistakes in child abuse investigations 13. A few additional copyright issues o Google's cached web page o Educational fair use o Personal fair use o Commercial Fair use - Reverse Engineering o Contracts of adhesion o Crown copyright and suppression of dissent 14. The ICANN UDRP o Decision making process is biased in favor of business interests o ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) allocated only 3 of 21 board members to non-commercial domain name holders. o Decisions are not uniform 15. Use of Generic Names o Good Decisions - Penguin.org - Pueblo.org - Shack.com - Eurotrash.com o Bad decisions - Crew.com - Esquire.com - Pueblo.net - bodacious-tatas.com 16. UDRP: is criticism a legitimate use of a trademark in a domain name? o Good decisions - Stopcomusa.com - bridgestone-firestone.net o Bad decisions - csa-international.net - kwasizabantu.org 17. KwaSizabantu.Org o "The admitted nature of the use of the domain names ... includes alternative views and indeed critical views concerning ... [KwaSizabantu] and its activities. The Panel holds such activity amounts to tarnishing the activities associated with the trademark or service mark "KwaSizabantu" ... . Therefore, ... [Rost] does not establish any rights or legitimate interests ..." 18. Criticism of Canadian Standards Association o At each website, Respondents attack and criticise the Complainant and its staff in relation, inter alia, to its failure to certify Respondents' Odatus generator. . . they are not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services . . . Examination of Respondents' web pages clearly show that they are using their domain names to attract persons to their sites for the purpose of publicly attacking the Complainant and members of its staff and pleading its case in relation to a dispute between themselves and the Complainant... Respondents claim to rights and legitimate interests is essentially based on a claim to freedom of speech and, expression of opinion, but that right does not require the use of Complainant's trade marks in the domain names for that purpose. 19. UDRP rules regarding use of Trademark in Domain name? o Firestonetiresgoboom.org o Exxon.Union - Trademark owners oppose the use of the company name in domain names, for a new TLD, proposed by the International Federation of Free Trade Unions. o Nokia.customers o Microsoft.discuss o Nike.humanrights 20. Trademark and Unfair competition o In some countries, torts may be based on upon disparagement of brands, even when claims are truthful or maters of opinion. o Comparative advertising is illegal in some countries. 21. Trademarks and Searching Terms o There is substantial controversy over the permitted use of company names in meta tags for searching. o Cross border judgments could chill use of important navigation tools, and suppress the ability to find criticism of trademark owners. 22. Sui-generis regimes o Rights may be novel, restrictive, anticompetitive, imposes costs of compliance whole apparent from compensation, have unfair procedures,and suffer in other ways. -- James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176 ______________ Vergil Bushnell Consumer Project on Technology email: vbushnell@cptech.org phone: 202-387-8030 www.cptech.org --=====================_3718245==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" This is the text of the slides I used in my presentation at yesterday's
WIPO forum on jurisdiction.
Jamie
Global agreements on Intellectual Property Protection and Public Rights
and the Public Domain
-
WIPO Forum on Private International Law and Intellectual Property
Geneva, January 30 and 31, 2001
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org
1. Old framework for global IP agreements
o Focus of agreement is protection of property owner.
o Rights for property owners typically are mandatory and minimum rights.
o Public rights are largely discretionary.
o Burden of IP protections protect falls on domestic consumers.
2. The Internet will change the nature of future IP agreements
o Cross-border enforcement of IP claims will permit countries to extend
the reach of domestic IP laws.
o Burden of compliance will fall on foreigners.
o There is a need to address global norms for minimum public rights
3. CPT position on Hague Negotiations
o The proposed Hague convention on jurisdiction and foreign judgments
should be amended to exclude intellectual property claims.
o No new effort should be undertaken to enhance cross-border judgment
recognition until there is a global consensus on the public's minimum
rights in intellectual property.
4. We are concerned the Hague Convention would:
o Shrink the public domain, by extending the global reach of novel or
over reaching IP regimes,
o shrink the scope of "fair use" exceptions in IP regimes, by
introducing liabilities for the most restrictive foreign IP regimes,
o Shift the costs of IP regimes to foreign consumers, giving countries
new incentives to adopt restrictive IP laws,
o Expose the Internet to a plethora of new IP claims by countries or
firms engaged in socially inefficient rent seeking IP strategies.

5. E-Commerce Patents I
o USP 4,873,662. British Telecom's patent on hyperlinking.
o USP 5,794,207, Priceline.com patent on "name your price" auctions.
o USP 4,558,302. Unisys "Gif" patent.
o USP 5,960,411. Amazon "1 click" purchase patent.
o USP 6,157,946. NetZero patent on use of pop-up ads on Free Internet
services.
6. E-Commerce Patents II
o USP 6,073,241. C/NET, Inc.'s "Apparatus and method for tracking world
wide web browser," on the operation of banner advertisements.
o USP 5,855,008. Cybergold's "Attention Brokerage" patent, which
covers financial incentives for citizens to view political messages.
o USP 5,105,184. So called "Energizer Bunny Patent," on Methods for
displaying and integrating commercial advertisements with computer
software.
7. AltaVista Patent on Internet Searching
o David Wetherell, representing investors in AltaVista.
- They happen to own 38 patents, many of which we think are fundamental
in the search area. They were the first to spider and index the Web. And
Digital did a good job of recognizing the potential value of that
intellectual property. And they were very thorough in filing broad and
deep and narrow patents. And we have another 30 patents that are in
application. So we believe that virtually everyone out there who indexes
the Web is in violation of at least several of those key patents.
8. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND JORDAN ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FREE TRADE AREA
The Government of the United States of America ("United States") and the
Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ("Jordan") . . . Agree,
5. Jordan shall take all steps necessary to clarify that the exclusion
from patent protection of "mathematical methods" in Article 4(B) of
Jordan's Patent Law does not include such "methods" as business methods
or computer-related inventions.
9. Free Software Movement
o Software is developed by volunteers, and given away.
o Software is distributed globally on the Internet.
o Very large national differences in national laws on software patents,
permitted reverse engineering, contracts of adhesion, etc.
10. The country of origin for publishers is arbitrary.
o Choice of IP address to publish is trivial
- 216.0.124.147 (Published in USA)
- 152.158.2.48 (Published in Europe)
o Publishers can create foreign subsidiaries

11. Linking Controversies
o "Deep" linking
- News Stories
- Ticketmaster
o Links to infringing materials
o Framing of pages
- AskJeves.com
12. Government Copyright
o David Shayler
- UK. Former MI5 Agent, then living in France
- Published government documents that embarrassed the UK government
- UK government sued 9 publications for copyright infringement
o Nottinghamshire
- Copyright used to suppress publication on the Internet of report
addressing mistakes in child abuse investigations
13. A few additional copyright issues
o Google's cached web page
o Educational fair use
o Personal fair use
o Commercial Fair use
- Reverse Engineering
o Contracts of adhesion
o Crown copyright and suppression of dissent
14. The ICANN UDRP
o Decision making process is biased in favor of business interests
o ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) allocated only 3 of
21 board members to non-commercial domain name holders.
o Decisions are not uniform
15. Use of Generic Names
o Good Decisions
- Penguin.org
- Pueblo.org
- Shack.com
- Eurotrash.com
o Bad decisions
- Crew.com
- Esquire.com
- Pueblo.net
- bodacious-tatas.com
16. UDRP: is criticism a legitimate use of a trademark in a domain
name?
o Good decisions
- Stopcomusa.com
- bridgestone-firestone.net
o Bad decisions
- csa-international.net
- kwasizabantu.org
17. KwaSizabantu.Org
o "The admitted nature of the use of the domain names ... includes
alternative views and indeed critical views concerning ...
[KwaSizabantu] and its activities. The Panel holds such activity amounts
to tarnishing the activities associated with the trademark or service
mark "KwaSizabantu" ... . Therefore, ... [Rost] does not establish any
rights or legitimate interests ..."
18. Criticism of Canadian Standards Association
o At each website, Respondents attack and criticise the Complainant and
its staff in relation, inter alia, to its failure to certify
Respondents' Odatus generator. . . they are not using the domain names
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services . . .
Examination of Respondents' web pages clearly show that they are using
their domain names to attract persons to their sites for the purpose of
publicly attacking the Complainant and members of its staff and pleading
its case in relation to a dispute between themselves and the
Complainant... Respondents claim to rights and legitimate interests is
essentially based on a claim to freedom of speech and, expression of
opinion, but that right does not require the use of Complainant's trade
marks in the domain names for that purpose.
19. UDRP rules regarding use of Trademark in Domain name?
o Firestonetiresgoboom.org
o Exxon.Union
- Trademark owners oppose the use of the company name in domain names,
for a new TLD, proposed by the International Federation of Free Trade
Unions.
o Nokia.customers
o Microsoft.discuss
o Nike.humanrights
20. Trademark and Unfair competition
o In some countries, torts may be based on upon disparagement of brands,
even when claims are truthful or maters of opinion.
o Comparative advertising is illegal in some countries.

21. Trademarks and Searching Terms
o There is substantial controversy over the permitted use of company
names in meta tags for searching.
o Cross border judgments could chill use of important navigation tools,
and suppress the ability to find criticism of trademark owners.
22. Sui-generis regimes
o Rights may be novel, restrictive, anticompetitive, imposes costs of
compliance whole apparent from compensation, have unfair procedures,and
suffer in other ways.
--
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
http://www.cptech.org
love@cptech.org
1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176
______________

Vergil Bushnell
Consumer Project on Technology
email: vbushnell@cptech.org
phone: 202-387-8030
www.cptech.org --=====================_3718245==_.ALT-- From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Tue Feb 20 12:06:35 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370A829AF2 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:06:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (flip.essential.org [216.0.124.53]) by genoa.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D5318234 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:06:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A92A52B.D263E516@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:11:07 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Australia: ACA Hague commments Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Louise Sylvan was kind enough to forward the Australian Consumers Association comments to the Australian AG, on the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments. Jamie International Electronic Commerce - Proposed Hague Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention Issues Paper 3 - Commonwealth AG's Department Comments of the Australian Consumers' Association (ACA) Introduction The Australian Consumers' Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on the issues raised by the Proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgements in Civil Matters. We appreciate the open consultation procedures adopted by the Attorney General's Department and the preparation of summary issues papers to assist in the consultation process. The ACA, established in 1959, as a fully independent consumer organisation, is known throughout Australia as the publisher of CHOICE magazine as well as for its advocacy on behalf of consumers. The ACA accepts no commercial sponsorship or donations, no advertising in its publications, and no ongoing government funding. Our support is derived from our membership and the sale of published materials. The comments below are addressed in particular to the consumer contracts section of the Issues Paper and respond directly to the questions posed on page 21 of the document. The numbering refers to the paragraphs of the Issues Paper. Geographic Location (3.1, 3.2) Although there can be some difficulty in determining the geographic location of parties in an electronic transaction, this problem is increasingly irrelevant due to technological developments and the fact that, in many transactions, the location of the consumer is evident due to the need for a delivery address. CONSUMER CONTRACTS Article 7 and targeting issues (5.4 - 5.7, 5.18) The ACA favours the retention of Article 7. We believe that it is essential for the development of trust in electronic commerce, to assure consumers of redress in the event of a dispute. We do not accept the argument made by some of the business lobbies that a protective jurisdiction provision is unnecessary since the Internet has changed the power balance in business-to-consumer transactions. Despite the enhanced extent of comparative information which can be accessed by consumers through websites, the problems inherent in any business-to-consumer contract remain just as relevant in the online world as offline. Neither businesses nor consumers have suddenly transformed themselves in terms of relative power simply because they are engaging in commerce through an electronic medium. It appears to us as self-evident that the average consumer is still less powerful in a market transaction than Microsoft for example, or even a small business supplier. If a business publishes a website on which a consumer can conduct a transaction, then in our view that business had made a decision that they are operating in the consumer's jurisdiction. If a business does not wish to do so, then it can indicate that it does not sell in a particular jurisdiction, as many websites and prospectuses for example already do. Multinational companies have little excuse for arguing that they would be disadvantaged by having to deal with consumers in a variety of jurisdictions - they already do. Smaller businesses will potentially encounter some difficulties, but they can expand their business Internet activities overseas (either quickly or slowly depending on their capacity) with the able assistance and advice of their industry associations; in fact, modern technology and a plethora of websites have made this information quite affordable and accessible for businesses, large and small. It is particularly important that Article 7 be retained given that there is no protection for consumers from the use of "jurisdictions of convenience" - in other words, jurisdictions nominated as the choice of forum in a business-to-consumer contract which basically offer little or no regime of consumer protection. Furthermore, Consumers International in its first research study of consumer shopping online (consumers@shopping.com - An international comparative study of electronic commerce, Consumers International, September 1999, available at www.consumersinternational.org) found that the location in which the consumer was shopping could actually change during the course of completing a transaction - which would be visible only to the more perceptive or technologically-literate of consumers - thus making it imperative that consumers know that they are basically "shopping from home", in other words from their own jurisdiction. More broadly, the ACA opposes any business-to-consumer contract which contains a so-called "choice of court" and/or "choice of law" clause. Basically, there is no choice involved in these contracts so the term is a misnomer. These contracts are contracts of adhesion and should form no part of proper business-to-consumer relationships. Such clauses are entirely appropriate to business-to-business transactions and should remain in that sphere. In addition, we strongly oppose the possibility of consumers being able to "contract out" of the special jurisdiction conferred by article 7 as has been proposed by some of the business groups. The argument that suppliers from large economies would be unwilling to deal with consumers in relatively small distant economies like Australia is not especially persuasive; competition and economic policy are the realms in which that potential problem should be addressed and not through contracts that deny Australian consumers ease of seeking redress. Alternative Dispute Resolution 5.8 - 5.10 The consumer movement strongly supports the availability of voluntary independent complaints handling and dispute resolution systems. Such systems, providing they are properly constructed, are transparent and not dominated by industry interests, can be quite satisfactory and far less costly in resolving consumer disputes with a trader. Australia has been very successful in some areas in establishing excellent industry-funded alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. These have been established in a tri-partite manner with consumer representatives, government nominees and industry representatives around the table. The governing boards of the good schemes also have requirements for equal consumer and industry representation (eg. Bank Ombudsman), independent chairs, and often a government nominee who exercises the interests and supervision of the consumer affairs minister in helping to assure that the scheme is properly serving consumer interests. Despite the experience with some excellent schemes, we do not support inclusion in the proposed convention of any clause which would require consumers to make use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. If the ADR systems are good, consumers will use them. Unfortunately, there is no established global body, which we would trust, that reviews and monitors existing ADR schemes and ensures that these are competent and fair. In its excellent review of ADR systems globally, Consumers International found serious limitations and weaknesses in many of these schemes - while noting the innovative nature of many developments. But basically, Consumers International expressed major reservations about the current situation and certainly opposed mandated ADR on the basis of the current state of development of these schemes (Disputes in Cyberspace - Online Dispute Resolution for consumers in Cross-Border Disputes, December 2000, available at www.consumersinternational.org). Apart from our opposition to mandated ADR, we are entirely opposed to the proposition that consumers be required to choose ADR and by so doing must relinquish their rights to take legal action against a business. Very curiously, some industry groups have proposed this as a means for improving consumer trust in electronic commerce. It escapes us entirely how denying individuals their legal rights will improve their trust in transacting online. At the same time we would strongly encourage industry groups to develop effective codes of conduct and to educate their members in relation to good complaints handling processes, as this will greatly assist in reducing business-to-consumer disputes. To reiterate, we do not support the Convention having any requirements in relation to ADR, but would also encourage the delegations to the Convention to ensure that it does not prevent consumer recourse to voluntary alternative dispute methods. Enforcement of judgments by government regulatory authorities (5.11 - 5.12) The ACA's view is that a dispute should not be excluded from the scope of the Convention simply because one of the parties is a Government agency. In examining the matter pragmatically, even without a change in the law, Australia already has a variety of MOUs with a range of countries in relation to regulatory action arising from business behaviour on the internet, and has participated in a number of actions - both requesting enforcement action from regulatory partners abroad and in bringing actions against Australian businesses at the request of foreign regulators. Costs to Australian business (5.29 - 5.31, 5.32) The increased globalisation of trade as well as the growth of the Internet has enabled many businesses to expand offshore without establishing major offices in each country of trade. While Australian businesses have been a bit slow about establishing e-commerce trading, many have done so quite successfully. As noted above, the Internet itself has enabled extensive information and education to take place through industry networks and this includes readily available information about the laws in various regimes; there is little evidence that the risk of litigation in overseas countries has prohibited the growth of e-commerce worldwide or in Australia. The reticence to transact online is the consumers', largely because they mistrust the medium and are unclear how well their consumer rights are protected including their rights of redress and privacy; in the latest ABS survey, despite the fact that almost half of Australian consumers have experience being online, only slightly more than 5% of them are willing to transact online (actually complete the purchase). Many consumers "shop" for products, but will only complete the buying transaction offline. This behaviour is also notable in a number of other countries. Japanese officials, for example, have advised us that very little in the way of transactions is being completed online despite all the shopping activity. So the issue is not the problems or cost to Australian business, but the fact that insufficient trust currently exists on the Web that will enable its growth to continue unless consumer issues are addressed. Ensuring redress and that consumers know that they can, as a last resort, take legal action in their own courts, will help to build that trust. If Australian businesses, large and small, want to do business with other countries, then they need to understand, with the help of their industry associations, what consumer protections are available to the consumers in that country. This is good business practice. Many businesses in Australia already have experience in dealing with the variations in laws across the States and Territories of the Federation, and can use their experience in applying those skills of differentiation internationally as well. Status quo? (5.34 - 5.37) We do not believe that Australia's position should be simply to allow the national law of each country to determine whether a court in the consumer's forum has jurisdiction and whether the judgment obtained by a consumer from a foreign court is enforced. This is a worst possible outcome, throwing complete uncertainty onto the consumer as to what protections they may or may not have. It is quite unreasonable to assume that consumers want to spend their time on the Web trying to determine whether or not they will have consumer protections, or even for that matter researching the plethora of seal programs that have now materialised to try and figure out if the business is bona fide. The underpinning of our markets is trust built on the back of good consumer protection regimes. If trust is to be built online, some certainty about consumer protection needs to be provided, and provided reasonably soon. Louise Sylvan Chief Executive Australian Consumers' Association February 16, 2001 From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Tue Feb 20 22:43:43 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E56C29AF2 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:43:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from cptech.org (ppp-9.essential.org [216.0.125.9]) by genoa.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69B918232 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:43:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A933A7F.7B626266@cptech.org> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:48:15 -0500 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hague Convention list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Feb 26 Ottawa II Hague E-Commerce meeting. Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is the draft agenda for the February 26, 2001 meeting in Ottawa on E-Commerce related issues for the Hague Convention on Jursidiction and Foreign Judgments. Several businesses and NGOs have been invited to particpate in the event, and to make presentations on the Monday panels. I expect to be on a panel in Cluster 3, regarding Torts, where issues of speech and intellectual property will be discussed. I don't have the list of experts yet, but will post it when I get more names. Jamie ---------- CONFÉRENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW Commerce électronique et compétence juridictionnelle internationale Ottawa - 26 février au 2 mars 2001 Projet d=ordre du jour * * * Electronic Commerce and International Jurisdiction Ottawa - 26 February to 2 March 2001 Draft Agenda Electronic Commerce and International Jurisdiction Expert meeting Ottawa - 26 February to 2 March 2001 Draft Agenda Monday 26 February Morning B Registration 9.00 am B Start of the session 10.00 am B Welcome address by a Representative of the Government of Canada B Opening by Professor Teun Struycken, Chairman of the Netherlands Standing Government Committee on Private International Law, election of Chair B Introductory remarks by Hans van Loon, Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law B Roundtable discussion It is proposed that the informal expert meeting begin with an opportunity for international e-commerce experts to discuss their specific concerns with, and possible solutions to, the preliminary draft Convention, and share them with the governmental experts. To that effect, a series of three roundtable discussions, each of 90 minutes= duration, are planned for Monday, each devoted to a cluster of related issues in which 6-10 e-commerce experts, coming from different geographical regions and moderated by a governmental expert, will take the lead. Cluster 1 Forum selection and its limitations, in particular consumer contracts - Forum selection clauses in consumer contracts - Role of online alternative dispute resolution (ADR) - Definitional issues: Aconsumer@ - Disclosure of Aconsumer@ status and location of parties Lunch 12.30 pm Afternoon (2.00 pm to 5.00 pm) (break from 3.30 pm to 3.45 pm) Cluster 2 Business-to-business (B2B) contracts - Appropriateness of a contract specific head of jurisdiction, particularly in the case of on-line performance - Same question for activity-based jurisdiction - Definitional issues, Agoods@/@services@ etc - Identification and location of parties Cluster 3 Torts, delicts and provisional measures - Localising relevant act or omission in e-commerce cases - Identifying place of injury - Is it possible to prohibit Internet sites as sole ground of jurisdiction? - Provisional measures and e-commerce Tuesday 27 February Morning (session from 9.30 am to 12.30 pm) (break from 11.00 am to 11.15 am) Plenary: B Intellectual property: discussion of the Report of the Geneva meeting (1 February 2001) - Forum selection and consumer contracts (cont.): ADR report by D. Wallis (Member European Parliament, rapporteur Brussels Regulation on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments) Afternoon (2.00 pm to 6.00 pm) B Breakout groups; suggestions: - forum selection and consumer contracts - activity based jurisdiction and B2B contracts - torts and delicts - Plenary (5.00 pm to 6.00 pm) Wednesday 28 February Morning (9.30 am 12.30 pm) (break from 11.00 am to 11.15 am) Plenary: B Provisional measures B Relationship with other Conventions Afternoon (2.00 pm to 6.00 pm) B Breakout groups; suggestions: - activity based jurisdiction and B2B contracts - torts and delicts - provisional measures - Plenary (5.00 pm to 6.00 pm) Thursday 1 March Morning (9.30 am to 12.30 pm) (break from 11.00 am to 11.15 am) Plenary: B Activity based jurisdiction and B2B contracts Afternoon (2.00 pm to 6.00 pm) B Breakout groups; suggestions: - activity based jurisdiction and B2B contracts - torts and delicts - relationship with other Conventions - Plenary (5.00 pm to 6.00 pm) Friday 2 March Morning (9.30 am to 12.30 pm) (break from 11.00 am to 11.15 am) - Conclusions from the meeting B Preparation of informal Edinburgh meeting (25-28 April 2001) B Preparation of Diplomatic Conference Part I (6-22 June 2001) From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Mon Feb 26 12:15:00 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from genoa.essential.org (genoa.essential.org [216.0.124.11]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B999429B07 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:15:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from phelsuma.cptech.org (phelsuma.essential.org [216.0.124.26]) by genoa.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056C418232 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:15:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20010226120715.01b12eb0@mail.essential.org> X-Sender: vbushnell@mail.essential.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:08:22 -0500 To: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org From: Vergil Bushnell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Hague Convention in the news Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: "It's Not a Small E-Commerce World, After All"/ E-commerce Times http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/7700.html Vergil Bushnell Consumer Project on Technology email: vbushnell@cptech.org phone: 202-387-8030 www.cptech.org From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Wed Feb 28 07:56:18 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from atlsnmx1.nextel.com (atlsnmx1.nextel.com [167.20.198.200]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E8329AF1 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlntgw01.nextel.com (atlntgw01.nextel.com [10.8.79.187]) by atlsnmx1.nextel.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA29719 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:56:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by atlntgw01.nextel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:58:15 -0500 Message-ID: <020A5EC56F3FD411B5230008C716D0850102C8AD@nhqntex01.nextel.com> From: "Katona, Raymond" To: "'hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org'" Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:51:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] RE: Hague-jur-commercial-law -- confirmation of subscription -- r equest 723469 Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: confirm 723469 -----Original Message----- From: hague-jur-commercial-law-request@venice.essential.org [mailto:hague-jur-commercial-law-request@venice.essential.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 7:54 AM To: raymond.katona@nextel.com Subject: Hague-jur-commercial-law -- confirmation of subscription -- request 723469 Hague-jur-commercial-law -- confirmation of subscription -- request 723469 We have received a request from 208.6.240.1 for subscription of your email address, , to the mailing list. To confirm the request, please send a message to hague-jur-commercial-law-request@lists.essential.org, and either: - maintain the subject line as is (the reply's additional "Re:" is ok), - or include the following line - and only the following line - in the message body: confirm 723469 (Simply sending a 'reply' to this message should work from most email interfaces, since that usually leaves the subject line in the right form.) If you do not wish to subscribe to this list, please simply disregard this message. Send questions to hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org. From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Mon Mar 5 22:26:59 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0E229B6D for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:26:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from catskill.net (218.m62.mon.catskill.net [12.33.158.218]) by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f263QeG30670; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:26:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3AA4560A.40E6C719@catskill.net> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 22:14:18 -0500 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Katona, Raymond" , Hague list , James Love Subject: [Fwd: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] RE: Hague-jur-commercial-law -- confirmation of subscription -- request 723469] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6E6A7DBB2BAD4104C575DB8F" Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Il s'agit d'un message multivolet au format MIME. --------------6E6A7DBB2BAD4104C575DB8F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This message was apparently sent to me by mistake. Does anyone know what´s going on? (BTW, I subscribed to this list but haven´t received a single posting from it.) Michael Sondow --------------6E6A7DBB2BAD4104C575DB8F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from venice.essential.org ([216.0.124.17]) by iciiu.org ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:45:02 -3736627 Received: from venice.essential.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620D729B4D; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:57:02 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from atlsnmx1.nextel.com (atlsnmx1.nextel.com [167.20.198.200]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E8329AF1 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from atlntgw01.nextel.com (atlntgw01.nextel.com [10.8.79.187]) by atlsnmx1.nextel.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA29719 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:56:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by atlntgw01.nextel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:58:15 -0500 Message-ID: <020A5EC56F3FD411B5230008C716D0850102C8AD@nhqntex01.nextel.com> From: "Katona, Raymond" To: "'hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] RE: Hague-jur-commercial-law -- confirmation of subscription -- r equest 723469 Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:51:42 -0500 X-Rcpt-To: X-DPOP: DPOP Version 2.7r confirm 723469 -----Original Message----- From: hague-jur-commercial-law-request@venice.essential.org [mailto:hague-jur-commercial-law-request@venice.essential.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 7:54 AM To: raymond.katona@nextel.com Subject: Hague-jur-commercial-law -- confirmation of subscription -- request 723469 Hague-jur-commercial-law -- confirmation of subscription -- request 723469 We have received a request from 208.6.240.1 for subscription of your email address, , to the mailing list. To confirm the request, please send a message to hague-jur-commercial-law-request@lists.essential.org, and either: - maintain the subject line as is (the reply's additional "Re:" is ok), - or include the following line - and only the following line - in the message body: confirm 723469 (Simply sending a 'reply' to this message should work from most email interfaces, since that usually leaves the subject line in the right form.) If you do not wish to subscribe to this list, please simply disregard this message. Send questions to hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org. _______________________________________________ Hague-jur-commercial-law mailing list Hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/hague-jur-commercial-law --------------6E6A7DBB2BAD4104C575DB8F-- From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Tue Mar 6 20:26:49 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC0529AF1 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 20:26:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (dialup-63.215.155.6.Washington1.Level3.net [63.215.155.6]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA12673 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:26:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001801c0a6a5$30a7eca0$069bd73f@default> From: "Paul Lembesis" To: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 20:23:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0A67B.4692FC00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] (no subject) Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0A67B.4692FC00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello. I understand that a meeting will be held in Ottawa sometime this = month to prepare for the June conference. Does anyone have any details? = Thanks, Paul Lembesis ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0A67B.4692FC00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello.  I understand that a = meeting will be=20 held in Ottawa sometime this month to prepare for the June = conference. =20 Does anyone have any details?   Thanks, Paul=20 Lembesis
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0A67B.4692FC00-- From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Wed Mar 21 20:32:02 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Received: from hotmail.com (f74.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.74]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E41C29B03 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:32:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:32:01 -0800 Received: from 129.94.6.28 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 01:32:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [129.94.6.28] From: "Jerker Svantesson" To: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 01:32:01 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2001 01:32:01.0511 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4BD7770:01C0B26F] Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Ottowa II Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows were I could find out some information about the outcome of the Ottowa II meeting. Thanks, Dan Svantesson SJD Research student UNSW, Sydney Australia. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Thu Mar 22 17:25:40 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C43E29AF2 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:25:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from pwautele.law.harvard.edu (roam223-121.law.harvard.edu [140.247.223.121]) by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26562 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:25:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010322171630.00aad360@pop.law.harvard.edu> X-Sender: pwautele@pop.law.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:22:18 -0500 To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org From: Patrick Wautelet In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Hague Draft and ATCA Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Just a short note to let you know that a recent and well-informed article was published commenting on the effects of the Hague Draft on so-called 'Human Rights' litigation (i.e. Alien Torts Claim Act etc). The references are: B. van Schaack, "In Defense of Civil redress : The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the proposed Hague Judgments Convention", 2001 Harvard International Law Journal, pp. 141-200, see http://www.law.harvard.edu/studorgs/ilj/ Patrick Wautelet Harvard Law School From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Thu Mar 22 19:56:15 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746F129B46 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:56:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from iciiu.org (72.m66.mon.catskill.net [12.33.159.72]) by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f2N0uE221413; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:56:14 -0500 Message-ID: <3ABA9E80.539366EF@iciiu.org> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:53:20 -0500 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hague list Cc: Patrick Wautelet Subject: Re: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Hague Draft and ATCA References: <4.3.1.2.20010322171630.00aad360@pop.law.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Patrick Wautelet wrote: > see http://www.law.harvard.edu/studorgs/ilj/ The URL leads to the homepage for the Journal. No path to the van Schaack article is apparent. Can you give a more precise location? M.S. From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Fri Mar 23 09:33:59 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1448229AF2 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from iciiu.org (67.m61.mon.catskill.net [12.33.158.67]) by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f2NEXv214171; Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:33:57 -0500 Message-ID: <3ABB5E20.44573D46@iciiu.org> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:30:56 -0500 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hague list Cc: pwautele@law.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Hague Draft and ATCA References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: p wautele wrote: > you'll probably > find the article on Westlaw or Lexis or in any good law library. Not everyone on this list is an attorney or has access to the pay services you mention. If the article is posted somewhere on Harvard's websites, could you post the URL? Alternatively, if you have the article on your computer, perhaps you could post it to this list or, if copyright law prohibits that, at least post a few paragraphs or a summary. M.S. From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Fri Apr 6 12:27:49 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from milan.essential.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB35F29AF2 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:27:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cptech.org (milan.essential.org [216.0.124.12]) by milan.essential.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA30663 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:27:49 -0400 Message-ID: <3ACE1982.73C3B575@cptech.org> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:31:14 -0700 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hague Convention list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Three questions on the new Article 7 Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Ecommerce] Three questions on the new Article 7 Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 21:11:06 -0400 From: James Love Organization: http://www.cptech.org To: ecommerce Jeffrey Kovar, Dear Jeff, After todays meeting about the proposed changes in Article 7 of the Hague Convention, I would like to ask the following question, to better appreciate the differences between the October 1999 draft and the Ottawa draft. 1. Suppose I purchase an airline ticket from a web page, for travel related to my job. Suppose further that before I buy the ticket, I sign a click-on, mass market, contract of adhesion, terms of service contract, as is the case for nearly every e-commerce web page. Suppose further that the contract has a choice of forum clause, plus all sorts of provisions that are anti-consumer, and not enforceable in the USA, but they are enforceable in the place indicated in the choice of forum clause. Does the Ottawa draft protect me from the choice of forum clause? Did the October 1999 draft protect me from the choice of forum clause? 2. Suppose a teacher goes to a web page, and buys a mass market software database or statistics program, which he is reimbursed for through his job. Suppose that the product does not have the features or functionality that were promised. Suppose further that before the purchase was made, the teacher had to agree to a click-on terms of service contract of adhesion that contained a choice of forum clause and an anti-consumer mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) requirement. Would this purchase have been protected by Article 7, under the October 1999 draft. Would it be protected under the Ottawa draft of Article 7? Or, would the teacher's purchase be controlled by Article 4? 3. Suppose I click on a web page and sign a terms-of-service contract that contains restrictions on the right to make hypertext links to the web page, and a choice of a forum that does not recognize fair use. Suppose further that I intend to link articles from the web page to the CPTECH.Org web page, on the grounds that the hypertext link is a fair use in the USA? Would the choice of forum clause be enforceable under either draft? Could I be sued for copyright infringement in a foreign country, under the Convention, and would a judgment or injunction be enforceable in the USA? Please answer at least 1 and 2 as soon as possible, if the answer to number 3 is not known. (As you know, I am still waiting for answers to my earlier IPR questions, but maybe you know the answer to 1 and 2 right now). Jamie -- James Love Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org 1.202.380.3080 fax 1.202.234.5176 mailto:love@cptech.org From owner-hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Fri Apr 6 20:37:54 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hague-jur-commercial-law@venice.essential.org Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2]) by venice.essential.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E545B29AF2 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iciiu.org (246.m45.mon.catskill.net [12.33.158.246] (may be forged)) by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f370bp911539 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:37:51 -0400 Message-ID: <3ACE6146.AC22044C@iciiu.org> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:37:26 -0500 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hague Convention list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] ICIIU Report and Commentary on April 6 FTC Meeting on Article 7 Sender: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org Errors-To: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org X-BeenThere: hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I attended the meeting held at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., to discuss the changes to draft Article 7 (Contracts concluded by consumers) proposed at the February 6 meeting in Ottawa. This is a brief report of my impressions of that meeting. First, the person from the FTC who called the meeting (I cannot recall his name) turned the meeting over to Jeffrey Kovar - a U.S. State Department employee who is the head of the U.S. delegation to this Hague Convention - as soon as the meeting began, and the FTC person did not participate further in the meeting aside from one or two very brief comments. Whether this abstention on the part of the FTC person was intended to give Mr. Kovar his due as the U.S. delegate, or to the FTC's relative indifference to the new treaty, remains to be seen. In any event, it is not positive for the consumer advocates involved in the negotiations that the FTC has not, to judge by this meeting, taken a more pro-active position on the issues in favor of consumer protection. Mr. Kovar, while evidently knowledgable on all aspects of the draft treaty including Article 7 (he was present in Ottawa), did not conduct the meeting with much attention to the rules of order, which resulted (as it always does) in domination of the discussion by the most aggressive and least respectful participants: the attorneys representing businesses. This inattention to democratic and orderly process at meetings is precisely what keeps them from being more productive, and bodes ill for a democratic and just conclusion to the treaty negotiations, in my opinion. All I can hope is that the larger and better-attended meetings are conducted in a fairer way. On to more substantive matters. Most of the meeting, which lasted two hours, was taken up by what appeared to me to be a misunderstanding between participants regarding the important conflicts in Article 7. The Ottawa meeting, operating no doubt from a position of wishing to ameliorate the situation of consumers, allowed changes not only to their special rights under the draft convention - specifically an a priori grant to contracts between them and businesses of jurisdiction in the consumers' home country - but re-defined what consumer contracts are. The re-definition ("personal, family, or household purposes"), as compared to the previous one ("not for trade or professional purposes") did nothing, in the opinion of certain consumer representatives, to clarify the situation. When I was allowed to speak, I tried to make the point that neither of these definitions seemed to reflect Internet transactions: "Personal" is meaningless as a distinction between consumers and businesses, just as is "personal computer"; families, especially families with wealth, often form family partnerships that control large business interests; and no one buys dishes on the Internet. I suggested that, so far, it seemed to me that Internet transactions had not yet been fully considered in either the wording or the substance of the draft treaty articles, and I suggested to those present that, since the meeting had been called specifically to consider the relation of Article 7 to the Internet, there was little point in discussing questions of jurisdiction until some better definitions of whom they affected was arrived at. This suggestion was greeted with support by a few, but not by those controlling the meeting, unfortunately, who appeared to have their own agenda. James Love had the courage to insist that the draft treaty take full cognizance of the major impediment to consumer protection in Internet transactions: the contracts of adhesion that appear on all vendors' websites and, in the absence of courts willing to see them for what they are - an egregious limitation on freedom of choice, supercede the law and, most likely, even the Hague Convention. Businesses are not about to abandon them, of course, since they give all the power to the vendor, who no longer has any need to negotiate with the buyer. This is an inherent problem with the Internet, which is not as interactive as it pretends to be, and certainly not as interactive as the face-to-face transactions it is replacing. Just for these reasons, the Hague Convention, if it truly desires to protect consumers, must deal with these questions. If it does not, new programs will be written to accompany web browsers that allow consumers to filter out those vendors whose terms of service, including choice of jurisdiction, are not to their liking. This will eventually be the Internet's response to the Hague's unwillingness to seek full protection for consumers. In the little time left for the remaining changes to draft Article 7, Mr. Kovar rapidly went through paragraphs 2 through 5, all of which deal with the conditions under which consumer-business contract disputes may or may not be adjudicated in certain jurisdictions. Paragraph 2, for example, attempts to confine the resolution of consumer-business disputes to the courts of the consumer's home country so long as the business conducts its activities there or directs them there. Where does that leave e-commerce, which directs its activities world-wide? Nothing is said of this in either the 1999 draft or the Ottawa revision, except in a negative way, by excluding businesses that take "reasonable steps to avoid concluding contracts with consumers habitually resident in that State". One can only wonder what these "reasonable steps" will be. Perhaps a clause in their contract of adhesion that says they are not soliciting business in any country where the laws do not recognize the primacy of contracts of adhesion, or, to go one step further, which are signatories to the Hague convention. While this may seem facetious, is it any more so than phrases like "concluding contracts with consumers"? Is there an e-business that negotiates cont