The company in question GEMSA Pty Ltd of Australia got a patent on "Storage cabinets" on a computer. Pretty much a patent on folders or directories. Now they are suing everyone.
According to the EFF:
"As far as we can tell, GEMSA seems to think that anyone with a website that links to hosted content infringes its patent"
> any foreign order censoring EFF would be unenforceable in the United States under the First Amendment and the Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (SPEECH Act).
Speak for yourself, I like it. I mean, the whole reason the SPEECH Act exists is to be a “fuck you” to countries like the UK with plaintiff-friendly libel laws trying to get those judgements enforced in the US, so the immature name is kind of fitting.
This is good for the EFF in the short term, but what if the Australian court finds that the EFF is ignoring its order and so must pay fines?
Perhaps in response to US court saying "the Australian court lacked jurisdiction over EFF", the Australian court will say that the US court has no jurisdiction in Australia. The Australian court could conceivably force the EFF to change how its site is shown to people in Australia. Then after realizing that people in Australia can still access the US version of the EFF's site, force the EFF to change its site in all countries.
This sort of problem could become more common, such as the case that Google lost where the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Google had to remove results in violation of Canadian law from all Google results worldwide.
countries' laws only apply within its borders. An Australian court cannot fine the EFF or force them to modify their website because it does not operate within Australia, they have no ability to "force" the EEF to do anything. Google only had to obey the Canadian Court because it has operates in Canada [0]
Unless the EFF site is hosted in Australia, such a ruling cannot have any effect. A court could force Australian ISPs to block eff.org though. Interesting things could also happen if the EFF used an Australian DNS provider, but that is quite unlikely.
EFF Australia should just repost the EFF US post and see what happens. :)
The post didn’t make clear if EFF US contested the case in South Australia at all. In which case it was probably a default judgement and unlikely based on merit?
After its thorough analysis, the court declared “(1) that the Australian Injunction is repugnant to the United States Constitution and the laws of California and the Unites States..
> Any United States person against whom a foreign judgment is entered on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, may bring an action in district court, under section 2201(a), for a declaration that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States.
I suspect that the court in fact found the patent to be stupid (not merely "protected opinion"), but stopped short of writing that into the verdict. The EFF substantiate their "stupid" accusation with reason; it's not just schoolyard name-calling.
If they are fined or in contempt of court ... I would recommend consulting with an Australian lawyer and then the Australian embassy before boarding a plane to Australia.
I’m certainly not familiar with Australian politics or law, but is it not surprising that the Australian court would grant the injunction in the first place?
[+] [-] CPAhem|8 years ago|reply
According to the EFF: "As far as we can tell, GEMSA seems to think that anyone with a website that links to hosted content infringes its patent"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-st...
[+] [-] bufferoverflow|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] livarot|8 years ago|reply
This way of naming laws is incredibly childish.
[+] [-] appleflaxen|8 years ago|reply
but there is at least a little bit of value to having a brief, specific name to use when referring to it that somehow relates to the topic at hand.
[+] [-] Analemma_|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bartart|8 years ago|reply
Perhaps in response to US court saying "the Australian court lacked jurisdiction over EFF", the Australian court will say that the US court has no jurisdiction in Australia. The Australian court could conceivably force the EFF to change how its site is shown to people in Australia. Then after realizing that people in Australia can still access the US version of the EFF's site, force the EFF to change its site in all countries.
This sort of problem could become more common, such as the case that Google lost where the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Google had to remove results in violation of Canadian law from all Google results worldwide.
[+] [-] benchaney|8 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.google.ca/about/locations/?region=north-america
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|8 years ago|reply
One would hope that'd be a given and go without saying.
> The Australian court could conceivably force the EFF to change how its site is shown to people in Australia
Not without jurisdiction over the EFF they can't.
> Then after realizing that people in Australia can still access the US version of the EFF's site, force the EFF to change its site in all countries.
Not without jurisdiction over the EFF they can't.
[+] [-] gpvos|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarbazetc|8 years ago|reply
The post didn’t make clear if EFF US contested the case in South Australia at all. In which case it was probably a default judgement and unlikely based on merit?
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|8 years ago|reply
Wow, now that's a judicial smack down.
[+] [-] bdonlan|8 years ago|reply
> Any United States person against whom a foreign judgment is entered on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, may bring an action in district court, under section 2201(a), for a declaration that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States.
[+] [-] kazinator|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gpvos|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icbm504|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarbazetc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogweather|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamandcheese|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CPAhem|8 years ago|reply
A judge recently sent a blogger to jail for 4 months for "libel" even though the truth of the matter was not disputed.
A book on Chinese bribing of Australian politicians has been withdrawn after defamation threats from these politicians.
This was largely unreported in the Australian press, only in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/world/australia/china-aus...
[+] [-] em3rgent0rdr|8 years ago|reply