Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@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.
The difference is not just a matter of the laws; where the assets are is important too. Now, assuming that a British suit could be successful, there are few assets to be attached in the UK, and the US courts won't recognize a UK defamation decision.
Ec