In some places it’s worse: a group of French cleaning ladies organized a car-pool to take them to their jobs across the border in Luxembourg. For their efforts, they, and their employer, Onet-Luxembourg, have been sued by bus service Transports Schiocchet Excursions, for “unfair competition”; the bus company seeks to have the cars seized. The case will be heard in January. (Kim Willsher, “Bus firm takes car sharers to court”, Guardian, Jul. 11 (via Taylor); Thomas Calinon, “Préférer sa voiture au bus peut vous conduire au tribunal”, Libération, Jul. 9).
Posts Tagged ‘France’
Agence France-Presse sues Google
Because aggregating headlines, first sentences of stories, and (sometimes) tiny little thumbnails of pictures constitutes an outrageous trampling on the French news service’s intellectual property, it wants at least $17.5 million in damages. (“AFP sues Google for news aggregation”, PhysOrg.com, Mar. 20). We covered the issue Nov. 9.
Edward Fagan’s tsunami lawsuit
Nineteen German and Austrian tourists are filing a lawsuit against the government of Thailand and the French hotel chain Accor over the Indian Ocean tsunami. Naturally, the lawsuit has been filed in New York. Another defendant is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; plaintiffs complain that NOAA’s Pacific Tsunami Warning System failed to issue a warning for a tsunami in a completely different ocean. (Aside from the fact that NOAA owes no duty to vacationing Germans in Thailand, NOAA did try to notify other countries of the tsunami potential of the earthquake.) The suits against NOAA and Thailand in a US court are frivolous in the narrowest sense of the word, and will likely be quickly dismissed; Accor will probably have to spend some time and money if it can’t get out on jurisdictional grounds. Edward Fagan (Feb. 5, Aug. 13, Apr. 2, Aug. 8, 2003 and links therein) is the attorney; press coverage uncritically repeats the claim that he is “best known for filing lawsuits seeking reparations for Holocaust victims,” a self-promotion others disagree with. (Jean-Michel Stoullig, AFP/Wash. Times, Feb. 15; cf. also AP, Feb. 13; hat tip to reader D.C.). I’m curious: does Fagan sue his local news weather department if he gets wet because of an unanticipated rainstorm?
At least Fagan isn’t claiming that his lawsuit will stop tsunamis. This site does make that claim for its “lawsuit”; it’s possible that it’s a tongue-in-cheek art project, but the smart money is betting that it’s the work of a full-fledged self-parodying moonbat. It’s not clear if there’s an actual lawsuit; lawsuits by the deranged tend to be more entertaining than socially problematic, except for district court judges unfortunate enough to be in the Ninth Circuit.
A simple ‘Thank you’ would do
A French researcher, Guillaume Tena, found several holes in the Viguard anti-virus program that a malicious hacker could have exploited to nullify the software’s protections. What did he do? He published his findings.
The company responsible for the holy software, Tegam, sued for copyright violation. The company is asking for a 6000 euro fine and a four month jail term. A related civil case asks for 900,000 euros in damages.
The researcher’s website says he “showed how the program worked, demonstrated a few security flaws and carried out some tests with real viruses. Unlike the advertising claimed, this software didn’t detect and stop ?100 percent of viruses?.”
From the ZDNet Australia story:
According to French security Web site K-OTik, Tena had technically broken copyright laws because his exploits were “not for personal use, but were communicated to a third party”.
However, K-OTik, which regularly publishes exploit codes, claims that the ruling could create a precedent so vulnerabilities in software, however critical, could not be declared publicly without prior agreement from the software publisher.
K-OTik?s editors say the ruling is “unimaginable and unacceptable in any other field of scientific research”.
” Security researcher to be jailed for finding bugs in software?”, ZDNet Australia, Jan. 11.
“French drink-drive hosts cleared”
“A French couple on trial for allowing a dinner guest to get into his car while drunk have been cleared of all criminal charges by a court in Nancy. … Victims’ relatives brought the case, accusing Angelique and Jean-Sebastian Fraisse of failing to prevent a crime.” (BBC, Oct. 19).
New at Point of Law
There are all sorts of new posts over at our sister website Point Of Law. Attorney Leah Lorber, who’s appeared on this site in the past, has just joined for a week’s worth of guestblogging contributions, including posts on a Mississippi Supreme Court case undoing the joinder of 264 asbestos cases and a Kentucky punitive award against Ford Motor (in a “park-to-reverse” transmission case). On medical malpractice, Ted Frank examines the benefits of the damage limits approved by Texas voters, Jim Copland discusses my WSJ op-ed on the Kerry campaign’s ideas for reform, and I link to an informative paper by Richard Anderson of the Doctor’s Company. Law professors Lester Brickman and Richard Painter, both experts on the ethics of contingency fees, have now completed their featured discussion of the issue.
Plus lots more, including posts by me on the ABA’s plans to push reform of jury trials; how contingency-fee litigation by the state of California is straining U.S. relations with France; Eliot Spitzer, the comparison-shopper’s friend; two posts (here and here) comparing the American way of litigation with that prevailing in other democracies; how liability law affects the way certain products smell; and who you can’t trust to explain the new overtime regulations.
Moody’s blamed for Bolshevik bond renunciation
The French Association of Russian Bondholders (or AFPER) is unhappy that the government of the Soviet Union repudiated the debts of its czarist predecessor, leaving it (or, more accurately, its members’ predecessors) with worthless paper. So in an interesting inversion of causality, in June 2001 it misguidedly sued Moody’s and S&P for providing ratings to the debt of the new post-Soviet Russian government in 1996, and sought to hold the rating companies liable for the debts of the earlier iterations of the Russian government. A Paris court finally got around to throwing the case out today. (Reuters, April 6).
Haiti to France: pay us $21,685,135,571.48
Reparations madness, cont’d: almost 200 years after a slave revolt won Haiti’s independence, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide “has launched a controversial campaign to get France to repay its former colony billions of dollars in restitution. And he has already sent Paris a bill, down to the very last cent: $21,685,135,571.48.” A legal adviser to the Aristide administration is considering taking the case to international court (Jacqueline Charles, “Aristide pushes for restitution from France”, Miami Herald, Dec. 18; Henry Samuel, “You owe us $21,685,135,571.48”, Daily Telegraph (UK), Oct. 8; “The sad bicentennial of a once fabulous sugar colony”, The Economist, Dec. 18). No word yet on whether any reparations will be offered in the opposite direction for the 1804 massacres during which newly emergent strongman Jean-Jacques Dessalines ordered the slaughter of almost the entire French population resident in Haiti, an estimated 20,000 persons. (Update: another side of the story from Tunku Varadarajan, who argues that the government of France really was “first a brutal colonizer, and then a usurious bully”.)
In other news, the highly popular videogame “Vice City”, part of the Grand Theft Auto series, has drawn fire from New York and Florida officials “and from the government of Haiti, which has threatened to sue the game’s manufacturer, New York-based Rockstar Games, its parent company, Take 2 Interactive Software Inc., and the game’s distributors. A Miami lawyer representing the Haitian government said the game violates the hate crime laws of Florida and other states. ‘It’s the kind of thing that has no business being sold because it’s not just a game,’ attorney Ira Kurzban told the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. ‘It’s a teaching device for young kids and high school students. What is it teaching them? Violence, hatred and racism.'” (“Haitian, Cuban Leaders Denounce ‘Grand Theft Auto'”, WTVJ South Florida, Dec. 16). More on videogame lawsuits: Sept. 26 and links from there.
Tobacco recoupment suit loses in France
Declining to follow our bad example: “A French health authority has lost its attempt to sue four tobacco companies for the cost of treating thousands of cancer patients. In the first case of its kind in France, the national health insurance fund (CPAM) in Saint-Nazaire had demanded 18.6m euros from BAT-Rothmans, Philip Morris, JTI-Reynolds and Altadis. The CPAM said it was the amount it had spent treating more than 1,000 people with smoking-related diseases.” A court threw out the action as ungrounded in law. “‘It is interesting to note that no jurisdiction in Europe has so far allowed this kind of surrogate action against cigarette manufacturers,’ said BAT in a statement.” (“Health fund loses tobacco fight”, BBC, Sept. 29)(see Oct. 7, 1999 (Israel) and Feb. 1-3, 2002 (foreign governments suing in U.S. courts).
Archived family law items, pre-July 2003
[probate and estate law cases]
“Decorating for reconciliation“, May 29, 2003.
“Pet custody as legal practice area“, Feb. 17, 2003; “Officious intermeddlers, pet division” (lawyers intervene on behalf of couple’s cats and dogs), May 14-15, 2002.
Custody and visitation, 2003: “‘The Politics of Family Destruction’” (Stephen Baskerville), Jan. 7-8. 2002: “Rethinking grandparent visitation“, Oct. 21; “‘Avoiding court is best defence’“, Jan. 14-15. 2001: “Columnist-fest” (John Tierney), May 25-27; “Solomon’s child“, Jan. 26-28. 1999: “Spreading to Australia?” (smoking and child custody), Dec. 29-30; “Chicago’s $4 million kid” (custody battle royal), Sept. 17-19.
Child support, 2003: “‘The Politics of Family Destruction’” (bans on fathering more children), Jan. 7-8 (& Nov. 28, 2001). 2001: “Wrong guy? Doesn’t seem to matter“, Aug. 7-8; “‘Judge orders parents to support 50-year-old son’“, Aug. 7-8. 2000: “State errors unfairly cast some dads as deadbeats“, Sept. 8-10; “Not child’s father, must pay anyway” (plus: “throwaway dads”), May 22; “Pilloried, broke, alone” (Donna LaFramboise on “deadbeat dads”), Apr. 10. 1999: “Beating up on ‘deadbeat dads’“, Aug. 23.
“Lawyers fret about bad image“, Oct. 3, 2002.
“Hizzoner’s divorce, settled at last“, Jul. 16-17, 2002.
“Lawyer’s 44-hour workday” (social service agency, uncontested adoptions), Jun. 28-30, 2002.
“Anti-circumcision suit advances“, Aug. 19, 2002; “By reader acclaim: suing over circumcision“, Feb. 28-March 1, 2001; “Folk medicine meets child abuse reporting” (“coining” of skin), May 31-Jun. 2, 2002.
Restraining orders: “‘The Politics of Family Destruction’“, Jan. 7-8, 2003; “A menace in principle“, Mar. 4, 2002; “Fateful carpool“, Aug. 23-24, 2000; “Stay away, I’ve got a court order“, Aug. 11-13; “Recommended reading” (Dan Lynch in Albany Times-Union), Jan. 25, 2000; “Hitting below the belt“, Oct. 26, 1999; “Injunctive injustice“, Oct. 14; “Weekend reading” (“Why is Daddy in jail?…For the crime of wanting to see his child”), Sept. 25-26, 1999; “Hitting below the belt” (Cathy Young, Salon).
“Mom wants to be sued” (for negligent injury to fetus), Jan. 4-6, 2002.
“‘Wrongful life’ comes to France“, Dec. 11, 2001; “Meet the ‘wrongful-birth’ bar“, Aug. 22-23 (& letter to the editor, Sept. 3; more on wrongful birth/life: Jan. 9-10, May 20-21, Jul. 1-2, 2002; Nov. 22-23, Sept. 8-10, June 8, May 9, Jan. 8-9, 2000).
“Women’s rights: British law, or Islamic?“, Nov. 13, 2001.
“Rush to reconcile“, Sept. 27, 2001.
“Why she’s quitting law practice” (Canadian lawyer Karen Selick), Aug. 13-14, 2001.
“Canadian court: divorce settlements never final“, May 15, 2001; “Down repressed-memory lane II: distracted when she signed” (separation agreement), Dec. 29-30, 1999.
“‘Halt cohabiting or no bail, judge tells defendants’” (1805 N.C. law), May 8, 2001; “Dusting ’em off” (old laws against “alienation of affection”, cohabitation), May 18-21, 2000.
“‘State running background checks on new parents’” (Michigan), Apr. 3-4, 2001; “Expanding definitions of child abuse“, Feb. 16-19, 2001; “Battered? Hand over your kids“, July 13, 2000.
“‘Victim is sued for support’” (Canada: husband shot by wife may have to pay her), Feb. 9-11, 2001; “Pay us for this service” (husband dunned for cost of defending wife charged with murdering their kids), Dec. 22, 1999.
“Do as the Douglases do” (pre-nuptial agreements), Jan. 10, 2001.
“Behind the subway ads” (1-800-DIVORCE, etc.), Dec. 18-19, 2000; “State of legal ethics” (ad for will-contest litigation), Oct. 5-6; “Honey, you’ve got mail” (solicitations from divorce lawyers arrive before unsuspecting spouses know they’re being divorced), July 15, 1999.
“Family law roundup” (English couple’s divorce costs ?840,000; frequent flier miles argued over; charges of clubby Marin County, Calif. courts), Nov. 7, 2000.
“Dangerous divorce opponents” (when spouse is lawyer), Sept. 21, 2000.
“The asset hider“, May 16, 2000; “No, honey, nothing special happened today” (woman seeking divorce fails to tell husband she just won California lottery), Nov. 20-21, 1999.
“Columnist-fest: liberal aims, illiberal means” (Stuart Taylor on same-sex marriage, William Raspberry on grandparents’ rights), Feb. 24, 2000.
“Scorched-earth divorce tactics? Pay up” (Massachusetts decisions adopt loser-pays as sanction), Jan. 31, 2000.
“Dear Abby: Please help…” (sue married man for breach of promise to follow through on divorce?), Jan. 11, 2000.
“Christmas lawyer humor” (Richard Crouch, “Joys of the season for divorce lawyers”), Dec. 23-26, 1999.
“Splitsville, N.Y.” (New York magazine cover story), Dec. 17-18, 1999.
“Weekend reading” (some celebrities tuck nondisclosure contracts into the envelope with wedding invitations), Aug. 7-8, 1999.
Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson:
“Free To Commit” (Louisiana covenant marriage law), Reason, October 1997.
“At Law: Divorce Court New York Style“, City Journal, Spring 1993.
“Kidlib and Mrs. Clinton: The Hand that Rocks the Cradle” (children’s rights), National Review, May 11, 1992.
“Suing Ourselves to Death“, (vagueness of custody standards; excerpt, The Litigation Explosion), Washington Post, April 28, 1991.
Countless websites deal with divorce, custody and other family-law topics. A great many of these are put up by persons outraged at what they’ve gone through in their own experiences in court. Among sites with a reformist focus, many align themselves with one or another camp among family roles: thus there are sites that focus on husbands’ legal woes and those that focus on wives’; sites for custodial and for non-custodial parents, for birth parents, for adoptive parents and for adoptees; and so forth. Yet dissatisfaction with the legal system’s handling of family breakup, and outrage at exorbitant costs, tactical gamesmanship, judges with too much arbitrary power, unreliable expert opinion, and outright perjury and invention, are themes that weave through sites from all sides. Indeed, one lesson from comparing a variety of sites is that innocent parties of every sex, age and condition are victimized by legal hardball — and that the process produces many more losers than winners.
Books of interest:
Karen Winner, “Divorced from Justice : The Abuse of Women and Children by Divorce Lawyers and Judges”
Cathy Young, “Ceasefire! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality“.
Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters, “Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria”
Margaret Hagen, “Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice” (currently unavailable)