Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>"If this suit is successful, it'll no longer be necessary to prove sufficient standing as a copyright holder of GPLed code in order to enforce the license;"

Would such a decision have any usefulness outside of California? This specific lawsuit is filed in a California state court, against a California defendant.

/not a lawyer



Also not a lawyer, but can't you sue in California over any product sold in California?


I believe a non-California defendant could move that suit into a federal court ("diversity jurisdiction" isn't it?)

But federal courts don't seem to put too much weight on how individual states interpreted a law -- hence my question.

(Same /not-a-lawyer as above)


If you have the money for lawyers you could always Thiel yourself a suitable plaintiff.


Sure, if you live in California. (I think IANAL is a given because I don't think any lawyer is giving out legal advice on HN)


The Software Freedom Conservancy is based out of New York, and they are the plaintiffs here.


... and your point is?

The Software Freedom Conservancy is a business which can do business in many states and be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in all of them, unlike an individual, who can be resident in only one state. (And even then, an individual could also sue in California if the event being sued over - like a purchase or an accident - occurred in California)


Being a resident isn't really a requirement if at most all you need to do to bypass it is form a company anywhere.


nitpick: the Software Freedom Conservancy is a charity, not a business.


Charities are a form of business. I didn't say they were for-profit.


Presumably the suit is federal because it’s a copyright case. So, yeah, it would have some significance within the 9th circuit until the appeals shake out.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: