Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Cologix Canada Inc. v. Path Network Inc and Path's other legal issues - Canadian data center company is suing Path Network, famous for being ran by a pedophile, not paying their bills, scamming their investors, and deplatforming the Kiwi Farms
🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading. Create account
If the court makes an evaluation on its own whether stuff be sealed, Im fine with that. But arguing that American courts have to differ to Canadian courts is bullshit.
>The court calls it highly unusual circunstances, blames 5 other people for why it can do this and how it isn't the COURT'S decision, just that they can if they want to, and grants it, accomplishing seemingly nothing of value
Sounds like the easiest and most pragmatic option for a lazy judiciary. "Yeah sure, granted, hope it does absolutely nothing like we know it will. Now stop bothering me with reconsiderations and foreign court documents."
How much of a risk is there of this decision setting a precedent that other countries will use in the future to coerce US courts into doing things, citing established case law in Cologix v. Path?
How much of a risk is there of this decision setting a precedent that other countries will use in the future to coerce US courts into doing things, citing established case law in Cologix v. Path?
It's probably going to mostly be confined to Arizona for now. But get a few more state courts to issue similar decisions, and you can start presenting them as persuasive caselaw to the actually important courts (in the far reaching sense).
It's probably going to mostly be confined to Arizona for now. But get a few more state courts to issue similar decisions, and you can start presenting them as persuasive caselaw to the actually important courts (in the far reaching sense).
It feels more like an individual judge trying to make a generic "in the interests of justice" deal. Path didn't follow the rules cleanly, Gervais went through a court process to get the confidentiality protections he wanted, the judge goes "meh let him have it. It's an unusual circumstance, it doesn't prejudice either party, and it doesn't really matter to this case".
