Re: [dvd-discuss] CA Supreme Court hears Pavlovich Jurisdiction Challenge in DVDCCA case

["James S. Tyre" <jstyre(at)jstyre.com>]

At 06:28 PM 9/8/2002 -0700, D. C. Sessions wrote:
>On Sun, 2002-09-08 at 12:37, Joshua Stratton wrote:
> > Indeed they have. Partially this is because IIRC Congress hasn't enacted
> > any legislation. Trade secrets are pretty much the domain of the states.
> > California's t.s. laws are broader than those of a lot of other states
> > though, again IIRC.
>
>Which in turn is because trade secrets have been handled as a matter of
>contract law, and in contract law the matter of personal jurisdiction
>is pretty clear: the parties have unambiguously availed themselves of
>the State in question and usually specified its jurisdiction in the
>contract itself.


Huh?

"Pure" trade secret law (where, as here, there is no contract involved) has 
nothing to do with contract law, even for personal jdx purposes.

Indeed, the argument centered around the United States Supreme Court Calder 
v. Jones purposeful availment test, which is a test of personal 
jurisdiction in tort law, not contract law.

Apples and rutabagas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net