The sheriff in the inbox

Topic

New Reply

ISSUE 18.30 • 2021-08-09 LEGAL BRIEF By Max Stul Oppenheimer, Esq. Has the International Trade Commission come up with the opening wedge in eliminatin
[See the full post at: The sheriff in the inbox]

Reply | Quote

Replies

What is the ITC to do? We have all these online sellers protected by the selling sites.
Us consumers face similar problems when a trade goes wrong. There is no indication who the seller is and where the seller resides.

Perhaps the sales sites should be more thorough in verifying sellers and then keep a register of their contact details, accessible both by the consumer and the authorities.

Its currently just a lawless state out there

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

There is no indication who the seller is and where the seller resides.

The vendors name are quite strange revealing nothing however sellers vending wares through Amazon post the address of their business, just click on the store name. Ebay reveals the general location of sellers in their listings.

Reply | Quote

Agreed – basis of the problem (AIUI) is Amazon’s concealment (or at least non-display) of the contact details of the seller/defendent/respondent. If Amazon does not say otherwise, then I would suggest that the default should be c/o Amazon; and if it comes to it then Amazon should have to stand up in court, and say why – as essentially a co-conspirator – they should not be liable…

My view is very much that – if you wnt to do business with me – I need to know who you are, what your address is and where you are based. And if you are dealing via an intermediary (Amazon.com, whoever), they either reveal – or defend the case.

Reply | Quote

So is this of any relevance to readers outside the US?

Reply | Quote

Yes, Amazon is an international company and I’ve seen similar lawsuits and reactions in other countries.

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

1 user thanked author for this post.

Seff

Reply | Quote

Does not Amazon close down seller accounts due to complaints?

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

If the concept Max discusses gains traction, it could open a whole can of worms. In the U.S., patent trolls have already been suing companies and even customers for the supposed infringement of patents in the equipment they use. Imagine now if you were to get sued by some troll in Uzbekistan for allegedly violating a patent on the printer that you innocently bought five years ago, and now you are summoned to defend yourself in a court in central Asia.

 

Keep Running Windows 7 Safely for Years to Come  
Make Windows 10 look and work like Windows 7

Reply | Quote

My concern is the court is in a foreign country with very lax procedures bordering on legalized lynching.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

Just curious, isn’t a person subject to the laws of the country where they live? Exactly what legal claim could the International trade commission have over someone?

I guess it all depends on whether or not the country you live in honors such demands by international organizations.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

“The United States International Trade Commission is an agency of the United States federal government that advises the legislative and executive branches on matters of trade. It is an independent, bipartisan entity that analyzes trade issues such as tariffs and competitiveness and publishes reports. As a quasi-judicial entity, the USITC investigates the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against unfair trade practices, such as subsidies, dumping, intellectual property infringements and, copyright infringement“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission

So it does look like nobody who buy a printer or anything else at Best Buy is going to be hauled to Tajikistan to be tried there because of a complaint lodged by some local company  alleging there has been a patent violation of some other form of malpractice that is bad for their business.

In fact, I am inclined to doubt that someone who buys a printer from Best Buy without any obvious signs of mischievous tampering with the product’s identification number or other identifier, perhaps in a plate bolted to the printer, is going to be served a summons to appear in court in the USA (where the ITC has jurisdiction and can compel people to answer complaints in court) because of an alleged patent or copyright violation by the maker of the printer, in Tajikistan or anywhere else. Can buying a printer be a fair or unfair trade practice, or a trade practice at all? I doubt that and I am, therefore, also inclined to think that the idea that the ITC is going to go after the buyers from a shop properly registered and legally allowed to sell printers or whatever else, particularly when they buy something that does not scream “This guy bought me knowing that I am really, really, really a dodgy product”, such an idea, in short, is a bit of a stretch.

The issue raised in the Newsletter article is more like this: what if what the ITC is doing sets the legal precedent in the USA that serving summons to appear in court for whatever reason, not necessarily having to do with the ITC, does not have to be made in person, and preferably where the one being summoned lives or has his or her business or office, and instead their summons, regardless of the nature of the complaint, are considered to be served by just mailing them to some other place, so the intended recipient may not get to know that has been summoned, fails to appear in court and gets into trouble, nevertheless, because of that?

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

I want to add this:

If some judge in Tajikistan issues an order that someone living in the USA (and I would imagine in other countries as well) appears at his court to defend oneself against a complaint of, for example, violating the patent of some local company by buying the printer at Best Buy, for such an order to be obeyed, two things have to be true:

(1) That there is an extradition treaty between the USA and Tajikistan.

Is there one? Yes, there is — since 2003.

(2) That (a) some competent USA magistrate determines that the request for extradition is valid and (b) the reasons given for it are good enough to go ahead and grant it.

If the decision is to grant the extradition request, pack your bags, you have a long flight ahead.

But, regardless of the decision, this is likely to be, at the very least, a considerable hassle for the buyer of the printer: getting and paying lawyers, appearing in court, etc.

How likely it is that the extradition request will be granted? Good question! It depends on the judge, but I would think the reason given in the extradition request (buying the printer) is seriously likely to be laughed out of court. Particularly if the country where the request comes from is one that has several big marks against it in terms of, among other things, honoring the UN Human Rights Declaration and associated Conventions, in the list of countries with such serious issues kept by the US State Department (the UNHRD is not an International Treaty, but the related Conventions are, and therefore are the law of the land in their signatory countries).

So if Cybertooth lives in the USA, at least, he can relax somewhat, for now, and go buy the printer. I think.

 

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

Here’s a law journal article on the specific issue that I was thinking about: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/797/

Last year, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation were accused of patent infringement. Their alleged wrongdoing? Purchasing routers and using them to provide wireless services. A small Atlanta-based company called Bluewave, along with hundreds to thousands of small businesses, received demands for royalties for alleged patent infringement. The accusation? Using an off-the-shelf PDF machine. As incredible as they might seem, these mass patent assertions and the harm they cause are real – six out of the top ten patent litigation campaigns have exclusively named technology customers, not suppliers.

Not sure if or how subsequent legal developments may have affected this phenomenon.

 

Keep Running Windows 7 Safely for Years to Come  
Make Windows 10 look and work like Windows 7

Reply | Quote

Sorry, Cybertooth for a mix-up, I was actually replying to  lurks about’s  concern expressed here #2382931 .

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote