[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: jurisdiction language
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: jurisdiction language
- From: "James J. O'Donnell" <jod@georgetown.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:21:40 EDT
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
I understand what our French colleagues mean when they speak of the tenacity of American lawyers. So are we in a position where our laws require us to eschew a cheaper, fairer, and more collegial form of dispute resolution in favor of one that is expensive, favors one side, and renders what will in any event be trivial disputes more complex and time-consuming? I will confess myself at least slightly frustrated and baffled by this turn and repeat my request for an example of a good license actually signed by a Europe-only publisher -- to show to our French colleagues as an example. Jim O'Donnell Georgetown University On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Peggy Hoon wrote: > We, here at North Carolina State University, are not allowed to agree to > mandatory arbitration or any other dispute resolution mechanism other than > legal action in North Carolina courts. We can agree to be silent on the > issue in the contract - > > Peggy
- Prev by Date: Legal History on "Natural" vs. Statutory Exclusive Rights
- Next by Date: RE: jurisdiction language
- Prev by thread: Re: jurisdiction language
- Next by thread: RE: jurisdiction language
- Index(es):