|
''CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson'' was a court case heard before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that contacts and contracts negotiated through the Internet with a party in a different state were sufficient to grant personal jurisdiction in that state. In particular, the court held that Patterson's use of storage, electronic transmission of files, and advertisement through CompuServe's network in Ohio were sufficient to grant Ohio personal jurisdiction over Patterson. ==Background== Richard Patterson, a resident of Texas, subscribed to CompuServe, Inc., an Internet service provider with its headquarters in Ohio.〔 Under the business moniker FlashPoint Development, Patterson developed a software product designed to help people navigate around the Internet. In 1991, from Texas, Patterson entered into an agreement with CompuServe in which Patterson could store, transmit, and advertise shareware files through CompuServe. Other CompuServe subscribers could purchase Patterson's software through CompuServe, and CompuServe would collect a 15% fee and pay Patterson the remaining balance. In 1993, CompuServe started marketing a software product similar to that of Patterson's with similar markings and names.〔 In December 1993, Patterson informed CompuServe that he believed CompuServe's marketing of their product infringed his common law trademarks. While CompuServe changed its program's name, Patterson continued to complain. When Patterson demanded $100,000 to settle his claim, CompuServe filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment in Ohio District Court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|