for anyone that didnt read the article, I used the headline straight from the article, he didnt really "win" as techcrunch didnt "participate" it was a default ruling.
I was logging in to make that same comment. A default judgment is when the defendant doesn't show up in court. The judge didn't look at the merits of the case and find in favor of Sethi. A default judgment just says that the plaintiff wins because the defendant didn't show up.
Here's the key part from the second link (emphasis added):
> The purpose of this letter is to inform you that TechCrunch and Mr. Arrington will not, as is their right, submit to the jurisdiction of the English courts in this matter. As we have previously informed you in our letters of March 18 and May 17, 2009, TechCrunch is not susceptible to the jurisdiction of the English courts and the proper forum for your client’s claims would be the State of California, which is the location where the words were both written and published in accordance with the prevailing local laws and standards. As a result, any vindication that your client seeks should properly be sought in the courts of the appropriate California jurisdiction. Accordingly, defendants will not file an Acknowledgment of Service in the High Court of Justice. As we have previously informed you, any judgment that your client may obtain in this matter will be unenforceable in the United States.
I've heard of this happening, but I don't know how it actually plays out. Would the UK detain an American citizen with a default judgment against him? I guess every country's laws on how to handle civil claims against foreign nationals visiting the country differ... interesting stuff, never really thought about it before. Would be curious to have a solicitor or lawyer with knowledge of the law weigh in.
Edit: I looked at the zdnet link - it's got some information, but looks a bit off to me. Arrington and Techcrunch not defending in England when they didn't do anything in England isn't running from the law. The reason jurisdictions exist is so your company doesn't get sued in a foreign country where you have no staff, no offices, took no actions, and didn't do any business. The article goes on to say:
> By default, the judgment recognizes that Arringon/Interserve are in a position of power where what they say carries weight to a large audience and can be considered damaging.
Pretty sure that's incorrect: The court stamped a piece of paper saying that the defendants weren't there, they didn't make a ruling about positions of power in international media in the internet age. I'd still be curious to hear someone with knowledge of the law weigh in - I can understand not wanting to defend a suit in a foreign country that you don't have operations in, and I don't think the English jurisdiction would apply. But does that mean Arrington could get arrested in England? Interesting to think about this case.
> For many years, we've discussed the many challenges faced by countries in trying to recognize that "jurisdiction" on the internet isn't what they probably think it is. Many countries want to interpret internet jurisdiction as "if it's accessible here via the internet, it's covered by our laws." But it doesn't take much scenario planning to recognizing what a disaster would result from such an interpretation. Effectively that means that the most restrictive legislation anywhere in the world (think: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) would apply everywhere else.
Similar articles talking about the different rulings, merits, jurisdictions in technology:
The American/Californian law is pretty clear that American officials, courts, law enforcement, etc. won't enforce the English default judgment. How it'd be handled in England, in the UK, and maybe even the EU is another story. What does England do with its own citizens that don't pay? If there's assets, I assume they can be frozen/seized with a court order. No assets? Arresting a person for a civil judgment when they don't have assets seems a bit barbaric. Foreign national from a friendly country? My initial hunch is that Arrington could go to England without a problem, but maybe not.
The more I think about it, the more it seems international civil law regarding technology and the internet is going to be a rapidly growing field the next 5-20 years. Curious as to how this plays out in theory and in real life.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/enforcement/ind... is a good source for England in general. Enforcing elsewhere within the UK is even difficult, never mind the EU at large, although it can be done. The normal approach against an individual is an attachment of earnings order, where the employer withholds money from salary to pay off the judgment (or if unemployed, the same thing happens from the person's benefits), but if the person has no income or assets (or, at least, no assets within the jurisdiction), there's really not very much anyone can do.
So, if it wasn’t for the TechCrunch post, all of Blognation’s staff would have been paid and the network might still be in existence today - competing with TechCrunch.
It is very very sad, if the above statement is true. Whoever is wrong here, Arrington or Sethi, destroying a competitor in this manner is a little too much. It is irresponsible use of power, and the whole thing has gone too far.
I'm not sure, but I think he could expand the legal rulling to other european countries as well. So Arrignton won't be allowed to visit those other countries as well.
AIUI a judgment in one EU state can be enforced in any other, but issuing an EU-wide arrest warrant for non-payment of a civil judgment by someone neither domiciled nor resident in any member state is, IMO, rather unlikely. Even if one were issued, it would be solely for the purpose of bringing the person before the courts (generally in the form of an enforcement officer) to answer questions relating to their assets, in order to assess if/how enforcement of the judgment might happen.
>Mike has been taking shots at Sam with numerous character >assassinations - he even published Sam’s legal proceedings >against him on TechCrunch.
I know nothing at all of this matter, but since when has it been considered a "character assassination" to publish a document that is public record? Particularly those that make claims AGAINST the publisher!
By not filing a suit in the USA, Sethi can say that he's won all his lawsuits, or, more meaningfully, Arrington has lost. Sethi might consider it a good trade to not get any money from the lawsuit in return for tarnishing Arrington's name.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=1134
http://www.crunchnotes.com/2009/08/03/update-on-sam-sethi-we...