Whats my point? My point is that youre trying to sell what youre doing as some form of legal research when you are neither a law student nor a legal representative in any manner at all. Pre-Law is a meaningless term, you could be a communications or drama major for all it matters. Anyone attending a community college is a pre-law student. Your so-called pre-law qualification is meaningless and comical.
Note, however, this is simply the opinion of a pre law student.
"Pre-Law"? So you're not even a law student yet?
Anyone else reminded of this scene:
Otter: Point of parliamentary procedure!
Hoover: Don't screw around, they're serious this time!
Otter: Take it easy, I'm pre-law.
Boon: I thought you were pre-med.
Otter: What's the difference?
1. I don't see how this is at all germane. If I was a law student currently I doubt I'd have time to post on a forum about a game I no longer play.
2. My opinion is based off legal research into the case, including reading the court documents. I doubt very few other people on this thread have done so. Instead, most of the posts are simple baseless opinions. At least I defend my stance.
3. Whats your point?
I hate to fill you in on reality here, but youre not a legal authority of any kind. Youre not doing legal research. Youre some guy whos probing the internet for what he thinks is legal data and then extrapolating nonsensical comments therefrom.
Please leave the legal research to those people who actually do legal research, and know what it means to look up current law, case history, comparative precedent and common law, and then attempt to extrapolate that into the current circumstances. From what I have seen, you havent done any of that.
Please leave the armchair legal opinions out of this discussion. Leave the law to those people who know what theyre talking about.
Hopefully, some day if you do become a law student you will realize what a silly thing it is youre doing now.
Oh god, I'm the one person actually looking at the only first hand information we have, and using it to form an opinion, instead of spewing whatever enters my head, and that's more baseless then just making stuff up. Ayup. Logical.
Ugh. Its these extrapolations that you make from these facts which make your attempts to form "legal opinions" based on your "pre-law" qualifications appear silly. I actually work in a law office and I know how the system works and why it works.
For example, youve questioned why Jagex Limited, a British Corporation, undertook legal action against the Snellmans (Snellmen?) in Massachusetts and then proposed that the action should have been thrown out because neither Jagex, nor the Snellman brothers, were resident in the State of Massachusetts.
Of course, to a trained legal eye, or at least to anyone that is even remotely involved in the actual real practice of law, one immediately realizes the invalid nature of your claim, because:
1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a federal
law. The applicant filed an action under a Federal law, which means that an Applicant can bring legal action in any
competent court of jurisdiction anywhere in the U.S.A., regardless of the location of the defendants or the plaintiffs. There is more than enough case law and precedent out there to support this course of action.
2. The alleged trespass of the Defendants under said Federal Law was tried in the State of Massachusetts under the consideration that the defendants sold their product to residents of the State of Massachusetts, and that said product was used within the State of Massachusetts. As such, the crime occurred within the state of Massachusetts and therefore, the Massachusetts Court has jurisdiction.
These are clear and valid points as to why the action was undertaken and pursued in the State of Massachusetts and these same points are brought forward in the Judges Order
of August 16th, 2010.
Not to mention that the Applicants legal counsels office is located in Boston, Massachusetts. While they also have offices in Chicago and Washington D.C., it is most likely that Boston was the most convenient site for undertaking this legal action because the appellant Court in Boston probably had a clearer schedule. I have no way of knowing this for certain, but it seems likely. Either that, or their Boston counsel was their better choice for some other reason. I any way, that was certainly a mitigating factor as to why the action was tried in Massachusetts.
Even so, the Snellman brothers counsel made a huge blunder in trying to demonstrate that the Massachusetts Court was inappropriate for this action and, as a result, there are a number of sidelines that come into play here. Theres nothing like trying to tell a Court that its acting outside of its jurisdiction, especially when its clearly within its jurisdiction. Its like calling some small town Judge a bumpkin to his face.