On 22/09/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/09/2007, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In making this decision, we assessed five major
cities: Boston, London,
If that assessment took more that say 20 seconds we have a problem.
Could you elaborate? Are you saying that it should be, in some way,
obvious that London is a bad choice? In what way is that?
As discussed interminably on some other list this very week, British
defamation law is voracious and enthusiastic. Having WMF operating in
a British jurisdiction, or keeping assets there, is pretty much an
invitation for someone to sue us in a UK court - a situation where we
might win but we would certainly suffer.
I thought the main reason British defamation law was "voracious and
enthusiastic" was because it has a very loose definition of what it's
jurisdiction is, so I don't see how the main WMF office being in
Britain would make it any more susceptible to British defamation law.