Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
Barb Dybwad, Mashable: “The proposed law comes from French MP Valerie Boyer and is inspired by a recent report she authored on anorexia and bulemia. She points to the deterimental effect that unrealistic body images can have on adolescents.” More: Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Ken at Popehat (UK’s Liberal Democrats promote similar ban for some ads).
{ 3 comments }
The French revolution is over. You lost!
A French heir of Louis XIV has taken the current management of his ancestor’s palace to court to ban an exhibition by modern US artist Jeff Koons that he feels dishonours his family’s illustrious past. …
On Wednesday, judges at Versailles’ administrative court were examining [a demand by Prince Charles-Emmanuel de Bourbon-Parme] for an emergency injunction to halt the show, which his suit brands “a desecration and an attack on the respect due to the dead.”
His complaint cites what he terms “right immemorial” of all mankind to see its forefathers respected and to have a “right of access to their heritage without pornographic restraint.”
Republican France of course does not recognize titles of nobility, or royalty for that matter. Prince Charles-Emmanuel de Bourbon-Parme is, under French law, just some guy. It would seem that, unless French law really does recognize some right immemorial to access one’s heritage without pornographic restraint, the Prince would need to file an action to clear title to Versailles.
The very little knowledge I have of continental law comes from representing a French building products company in a class action over allegedly defective siding, but I’m sure France has some analogue to the doctrine of adverse possession under American or British common law. The Prince, it would appear, has a hard road ahead if he wishes to recover some small part of his patrimony.
As for Jeff Koons, and his allegedly pornographic art, you may view it here. I have a four year old niece of whom I’m quite fond, and I’ll bet she’d love a Jeff Koons reproduction. Evidently standards for what constitutes pornography among French ex-royalty are pretty loose.
{ 6 comments }
Updating our Oct. 23 post: “A French appeals court says Voodoo dolls of President Nicolas Sarkozy may remain on sale, but must carry a notice saying that pricking them harms the president’s dignity.” (AP/AZCentral, Nov. 28).
{ 3 comments }
France’s counterpart to RIAA has been given a green light to sue four U.S. companies that develop peer-to-peer file-sharing applications. The applications make possible both lawful and unlawful methods of sharing copyrighted or uncopyrighted material. (”Record Labels to Sue Vuze, Limewire and SourceForge”, TorrentFreak, Nov. 14).
{ 3 comments }
You have to get down to paragraph 8 in the New York Times account before you begin to learn about the effect of a nationally legislated smoking ban. “So, there it is. Your café culture is inconsistent with the safety world you have chosen.” (Althouse, Nov. 23; Steven Erlanger, “Across France, Cafe Owners Are Suffering”, New York Times, Nov. 22).
The company offers a doll for sale resembling President Nicolas Sarkozy (as well as one of his rival, Socialist Segolene Royal). “The doll bears a number of colorful quotes from the outspoken statesman (such as ‘Get lost, you pathetic ______,’ which he allegedly said last year to someone who refused to shake his hand) and comes with a manual telling buyers to stick pins in the quotes.” The nastygram from Sarkozy’s lawyer says the maker must recall the 20,000 dolls or it will infringe on Sarkozy’s “exclusive and absolute rights over his own image”. (Lowering the Bar, Oct. 22; BBC).
{ 1 comment }
Now it’s software makers talking about suing the auction provider for not doing more to police the sale of pirated copies. In contrast to the unsuccessful action by Tiffany ruled on earlier this month, such a suit might rely on copyright as opposed to trademark law. (Holly Jackson, “Software makers threaten to sue eBay over counterfeits”, CNet, Jul. 25).
Meanwhile, Roger Parloff at Fortune checked and found eBay was not exactly complying with that very sweeping court injunction obtained by luxury goods maker LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy) which required the removal of relevant auctions not only on ebay.fr but on the American site and other affiliates if persons in France are able to access those sites. (Jul. 16).
{ 7 comments }
The ruling (Slashdot) seems relatively unsurprising given the favorable posture of U.S. law toward online middlemen like eBay, but a number of readers have asked about how it relates to the ruling the other week by a French court in favor of much more sweeping claims against eBay by luxury goods maker LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy). The answer, unfortunately, may not be simply that the various eBay sites have to follow different local rules depending on where they are based or to whom a purchase is being shipped. Per Roger Parloff’s Fortune piece, the earlier ruling “applies to all eBay sites worldwide to the extent that they are accessible from France, and not merely to the company’s French site at ebay.fr, according to [French lawyers on both sides]“.
{ 13 comments }
The verdict in a French court, if upheld, won’t just compel the online auction site to police its listings for counterfeits of luggage, perfume and other status goods, but also will knock out “gray market” goods (product originating in authorized channels, but sold in a different market than intended). “It would even bar individuals from reselling LVMH perfumes that they had received, for instance, as unwanted Christmas presents, both lawyers say.” (Parloff, Fortune)(cross-posted from Point of Law).
{ 3 comments }
“The builders of the world’s biggest particle collider are being sued in federal court over fears that the experiment might create globe-gobbling black holes or never-before-seen strains of matter that would destroy the planet. … The Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, is due for startup later this year at CERN’s headquarters on the French-Swiss border.” Among the concerns of critics who are suing in federal court in Hawaii: “Could quarks recombine into ’strangelets’ that would turn the whole Earth into one big lump of exotic matter?” (Alan Boyle, CosmicLog, MSNBC, Mar. 27; Dennis Overbye, “Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More”, New York Times, Mar. 29).
More: Sundries Shack (”For goodness sake, one of the plaintiffs calls himself an ‘author and researcher on time travel’”); Adler @ Volokh. The liberal site Lawyers, Guns & Money, perhaps serving in this instance as a Strange Attractor, attracts a commenter who seems to agree with the lawsuit-filers that it’s better to be safe than sorry — the Precautionary Principle lives! And from our comments, links to the complaint, Ted on jurisdiction, and thoughts on the effectiveness of litigation in obtaining free publicity.
{ 8 comments }
{ 2 comments }
The action was “in protest at a possible reform that could cut them out of many divorce cases.” Notaries public would be authorized to handle many divorces involving mutual consent, at a large likely savings to divorcing couples. (AP/IHT, Dec. 19).
{ 3 comments }
We recently covered the Caterpillar lawsuit, in which an American company was sued because of the way a foreign government used its products. Although the suit was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit, it wasn’t because it’s absurd to blame a manufacturer for how its products are used; rather, it was because — as Walter noted — the Caterpillar products were actually paid for by the U.S. government. Given that, it may not be much comfort to other companies being sued over the actions of foreign governments.
In 2004 and 2005, various Chinese citizens were arrested in China by the government of China, prosecuted for their pro-democracy activities, convicted, and sent to jail. They allege that, while in these Chinese prisons, they have been treated poorly by the Chinese government, and that they have suffered physical and mental anguish as a result.
So, in April of this year, these Chinese prison inmates sued the obviously-responsible party: Yahoo, naturally. In California. They sued Yahoo for violating federal law against torture. And for assault, battery, false imprisonment, unfair competition, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for violating the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In China. What was Yahoo’s wrongdoing? The company — or, rather, its Chinese subsidiary — allegedly provided evidence to the Chinese government which enabled the government to identify these people and prosecute them for breaking Chinese law.
Now, one may have no love for the Chinese government, or for companies that do business in China. One can argue that, ethically, Yahoo should refuse to cooperate with the Chinese government. But those are policy questions, and however one comes down on them, one can’t argue that a federal court in California can order a company to break the laws of another country. (The flaws in this should be readily apparent; as Yahoo notes in its motion to dismiss the case, under the logic of the plaintiffs, “A court in France could issue an injunction mandating that French companies doing business in America refuse to provide evidence in cases where the defendant might be subject to the death penalty.”) One can’t argue that a federal court in California can order a company to get a prisoner released from a Chinese prison (Yes, that’s in the lawsuit.) One can’t argue that a federal court in California can act as an appeals court for a Chinese trial, finding Chinese laws unconstitutional.
Yahoo is seeking to dismiss the case in its entirety. (Washington Post)
(Incidentally, it should go without saying that my introduction was not intended to compare the actions of Israel’s government in fighting terrorism with the actions of China’s government in punishing peaceful dissent. The only parallel here is the attempt to hold an American company responsible for the actions of a foreign government.)
Meanwhile, in other attempts to use the U.S. courts to run world affairs, a group of Bolivians have sued the former president of Bolivia, in the United States, for human rights violations that took place in Bolivia. (Reuters)
{ 6 comments }
{ 2 comments }
Among things you’ve missed if you haven’t been keeping up with our sister site: law firm tells silicosis clients that “unfortunately” they’ve checked out healthy and don’t have the disease after all; American Express pays $3 million, and class action objectors go away; Harvard’s Larry Tribe apologizes to the widow of the late Prof. Bernard Siegan; French consumerist vows not to replicate U.S. folly on class actions; Madison County, Ill. courts due for upgrade to heckhole status?; Hillary bashes Obama for supporting class action reform; Deborah La Fetra concludes her week of guestblogging on premises liability, negligent security and other matters; and much, much more.
Minutes after being shot several times, Ibrahim Sidibe and Nicholas Watson identified 16-year old Francesco Kelly as the shooter. Kelly was arrested for the Silver Spring bus stop attack and convicted of first-degree attempted murder in 2003. Maryland’s high state court threw out the conviction on the grounds that Kelly’s inability to call two witnesses after the judge ruled (without a state objection) that their testimony was inadmissible hearsay violated Kelly’s rights. On retrial, a jury acquitted Kelly, to the dismay of Sidibe (who is paralyzed from the shooting) and Watson, who, perhaps implausibly, blames the shooting for his later criminal career. Kelly did not call the two witnesses whose testimony his attorneys previously claimed materially affected his ability to get a fair trial. The lawyers who made that argument to the Maryland Court of Appeals will suffer no consequences. (Ernesto Londoño, “As Suspect Is Acquitted, Shooting Victims Protest”, Washington Post, Aug. 2).
{ 11 comments }
Perhaps not unrelated to the French Mohammed-cartoons trial mentioned yesterday, this is from Brussels Journal (Feb. 2):
If Turkey joins the EU then we will have the comedy situation that denial of the Armenian Holocaust is a criminal offence in France, whilst mentioning it is a criminal offence in Turkey. The happy result of this could be that the entire population of France could be lifted and placed, Midnight Express like in Turkish prisons. Of course the entire population of Turkey could then find itself extradited to France and imprisoned there.
Before anyone objects, yes, it’s of course true that the laws in question do not actually compel citizens to speak affirmatively on behalf of the official view, so it’s still possible (through silence) to avoid breaking anyone’s law. The concept remains funny, though.
{ 2 comments }
Point of Law Volokh