Jurisdiction and Judgments in Cyberspace

John Marshall Law School

Fall 2002

Tuesday 4pm-6pm

IT860

 

Professor Charles Lee Mudd Jr.                                                                 312-545-6835

Adjunct Faculty                                                                                            773-871-4141

Office Hours: Thursday 5pm-6pm                        

                        Or by appointment

cmudd@privacyresolutions.com

http://www.privacyresolutions.com/jmls/

 

 

Seminar Syllabus

 

SEMINAR DESCRIPTION

 

Jurisdiction has long been a main stay of any legal education and practice. Jurisdictional questions arise every day in nearly every context. With the advent of the Internet, additional questions have arisen relating to jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments.

 

We shall explore the emergence of these questions and the manner in which legal entities have attempted to address them. The syllabus has been designed to (1) bring everyone up to speed on jurisdiction and judgments, (2) introduce everyone to concepts relating to cyberspace, (3) explore both domestic and international aspects of cyber-jurisdiction, (4) explore certain specific topical areas, and (5) explore alternative dispute mechanisms in light of cyber-jurisdictional problems.

 


READING MATERIALS

 

Book ______________________________________________

 

Jurisdiction and Cyberspace CD-ROM

(This CD-ROM will contain most of the specified readings below and will be distributed to class.)

 

Newspaper (WSJ, NYT, USA Today, etc.)

(Each seminar participant will be required to review a national newspaper each week and pull any articles relevant to our seminar discussions.)

 

Recommended:            Borders in Cyberspace, eds. Brian Kahin and Charles Nesson

                                    http://www.odrnews.com/

 

SEMINAR REQUIREMENTS

 

The course will involve significant participation; a small, individual presentation to your colleagues; and a written assignment.

 

Participation (15%)

 

A seminar course requires the participation of every student to provide the full educational impact and level of shared discussion necessary to achieve the seminar objectives. Consequently, it is essential that every student participate in classroom discussions and on the email listserv (IT860@privacyresolutions.com). As always, quality is valued more than quantity. That being said, one should not feel hesitant to share an idea or comment.

 

Participation is also weighed by the student’s efforts to supplement the seminar materials with articles read in national newspapers and on various Internet sources. Consequently, each student will be required to monitor a national news source and bring relevant articles to class (or to share a link on the listserve where the article is located on the web) for distribution and discussion.

 

 

Presentation (25%)

 

Each seminar participant shall present an oral presentation on a topic approved by the instructor and within the scope of the seminar. It is highly recommended and encouraged that the presentation be accompanied by supporting materials – ideally both electronic and print (examples may include hard copy outlines, powerpoint, online demonstrations). The presentation should include a survey of the current state of the law in the particular area, cases of interest, legislative action, controversies, and trends. 

 

It is contemplated that approximately one half hour of class time will be devoted to each oral presentation. We will schedule the presentations during the last half of the semester.

 

Students are encouraged to distribute abstracts, questions for discussion, or other material related to their presentation in advance.

 

 

Research Paper (60%)

 

Each seminar participant shall be responsible for an original research paper of a style and quality suitable for publication in a law review or other professional journal. The paper should address a narrow topic approved by the instructor and within the scope of the seminar. The research paper may (but need not) address the same topic or a similar topic as a student's oral report. However, the topic may not be one on which the student has written another paper for academic credit.

 

 

 

TIMELINE:

 

Week Three – Submit one-age abstract.

You should submit an abstract that identifies your issue, the questions deemed worthy of exploration, the scope of your research paper, and the intended relevance/impact of your research paper. The abstract should be single spaced; one inch margins; one line between title, name, and content; and no more than 500 words.

 

Week Five – Submit proposed bibliography

You should submit a list of articles and sources you have found thus far in your research. The citations should be in blue book form. No limits; not necessary to have read all of them as of yet.

 

Week Seven – Submit annotated bibliography

You should submit a revised list of articles and sources used. The citations should remain in blue book form. In addition, you should provide a concise paragraph statement on what the citation offers the reader. Ideally, this exercise will allow you to identify the sources most relevant to your research paper.

Week Eleven – Submit final research paper.

While page or word limitations will not be enforced, most satisfactory papers will fall within the range of 4,000 to 8,000 words, not including citations.


 

COURSE SCHEDULE

 

The following represents our schedule of readings for the forthcoming semester. Though some weeks might look extensive, many of the readings consist of a few pages. Nonetheless, the readings conform with a graduate level of study. All of the readings will be thought provoking. Consequently, all of our classes will be interesting and provocative.

 

Please note that the nature of the subject matter covered in this course will prompt the need for supplemental articles that appear as time progresses and issues arise in the news.

 

Week One – Introduction    8/22

 

Course Introduction

General Lecture on Jurisdiction and Cyberspace

Discussion on Research Paper and Presentation

 

 

Week Two – Overview of Jurisdictional Issues    8/29

 

Additional reading will be assigned via email.

 

Damages for Breaches of Privacy, Legal Authorizations and Mergers and Takeovers in U.S. Law. Memorandum to European Commission, U.S. Department of Commerce (July 14, 2000).

            http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/PRIVACYDAMAGESFINAL.htm

 

 

Week Three – Jurisdiction and Cyberspace         9/5

 

Review cases and perspectives on: http://www.tkhr.com/articles/personal.html

 

A Separate Jurisdiction For Cyberspace? Juliet M. Oberding & Terje Norderhaug http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue1/juris.html

 

David Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders-The Rise of Law in Cyberspace, 48 Stanford L. Rev. 1367 (1996)

 

David Post, Personal Jurisdiction on the Internet: An Outline for the Perplexed (1998)

 

The American Bar Association's Internet Jurisdiction Project, A Report on Global Jurisdictional Issues Created by the Internet, ABA, 2000

 

 


Week Four – Domestic Jurisdiction 9/12

 

Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997).

Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)

[parts I, III only]

Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998) [parts I, III only]

Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) [part IIA only]

Millenium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millenium Music, LP, 33 F. Supp. 2d 907 (D. Or. 1999)

Citigroup, Inc. v. City Holding Co., 99 Civ. 10115 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2000)

[part IV only]

 

 

Week Five – International Jurisdiction 9/19

 

[Book] Part III, Chapter 1, Regulatory Reach of Bordeless World


International Jurisdiction in Cyberspace:Which States May Regulate the Internet?

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v50/no1/wilske.html

 

UEJF and Licra v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo France ["French Yahoo! case"]

Decision of the County Court of Paris, May 22, 2000

Decision of the County Court of Paris, Nov. 20, 2000

Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme,

145 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (N.D.Cal. 2001)

Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme,

169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001)

 

 

Week Six –     Selected Topics - Domain Names and IP   9/26

 

ICANN

ICANN, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

Parisi v. Netlearning, 139 F. Supp.2d 745 (E.D. Va. 2001)

 

WIPO

Yahoo! Inc. v. Eitan Zviely, et al., Case No. D2000-0273

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. wallmartcanadasucks.com and Kenneth J. Harvey,

Case No. D2000-1104

Alloy Rods Global, Inc. v. Nancy Williams, Case No. D2000-1392

 

Jay D. Sallen d/b/a J.D.S. Enterprises v. Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA et al.,

2001 U.S. App. Lexis 25965 (1st Cir. Dec. 5, 2001)

 

Recommended Reading:

 

Jeoffrey Leonard, Domain Name Disputes: An Analysis of the UDRP Resolution Thus Far, 2001 Wake Forest Intell. Prop. L.J. 4

 

Jonathan Weinberg, ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy, 50 Duke L. J. 187 (2000)

 

David Post, Governing Cyberspace: Where is James Madison When We Need Him?

ICANN Watch site, http://www.icannwatch.org/

 

WIPO RFC3 Executive Summary and Part IV: Personal Names

(paragraphs 132 to186 ONLY).

 

 

Week Seven – Selected Jurisdictional Topics 10/3

 

Kenneth W. Brakebill, Note, The Applications of Securities Laws in Cyberspace: Jurisdictional and Regulatory Problems Posed by Internet Securities Transactions, 18 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 901 (1996).

 

 

United States v. Kammersell, 196 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 1999)

United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996)

 

 

Week Eight – Presentations 10/10

 

Presentations

Additional Materials TBA

 

 

Week Nine – Selected Jurisdictional Topics         10/17

 

TBA

 

 

Week Ten – Jurisdiction, Cyberspace, and ADR 10/24

 

[Chapter 15, Alternative Resolution of Online Disputes

 

Cyber-Mediation: Medium Massaging The Message

Llewellyn Joseph Gibbons, Robin M. Kennedy, Jon Michael Gibbs

http://www.mediate.com/articles/gibbons.cfm

 

Introduction to Online Dispute Resolution for Business

Colin Rule

http://www.mediate.com/articles/rule2.cfm

 

European Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/acce_just02_en.html

 

Summary of June 2000 Public Workshop hosted by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, "Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Transactions in a Borderless Online Marketplace", November 2000

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/altdisresolution/index.htm

 

Explore content on: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm

 

Week Eleven – Reserve Week          10/31