Yahoo Inc. case
The fact and precedents in Yahoo Inc. case and its judgment is referenced so as to bring into a skeptical idea of process that courts adopt while deciding matters relating to jurisdictional issues in cyber law. Yahoo is one of the world’s largest global online networks for wide range services. It has reached out for more than 21 million local users in United States and 90 millions globally. The baseless fight of nations on their cultural differences, and the effort to claiming their laws on each other in an effort to protect those differences rather than seeking means to preserve them without conflict, is an old and regrettably venerated tradition. the issue between the two plaintiff and Yahoo serves as a poor explanation of the usability of the litigation process, either in France or in the United States, to deal with this cultural and legal dispute that came when material posted lawfully on servers and which was unlawful in another country, here one country violates the law when viewed by web surfers in another country. The courts in both country attempt to go through the line between preserving their sovereignty and preserving the principle of international community. The results are not well satisfying for all sides. Although the most disappointing element of this conflict is that after three years of litigation, the dispute is similar than when they started, and the issues raised before the both parties are still unresolved.
The French court further declared that Yahoo! to advise against French citizens from accessing the site and to take all necessary dealings to make it unfeasible to access the Nazi relic auction and any other web site or service that may comprise an apology for Nazism or a contesting of Nazi crimes. 02 In addition, the French court ordered Yahoo! to pay a penalty of 10,000 Francs to LICRA . Following the French decisions, Yahoo! filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that the French court's orders were neither recognizable nor enforceable under the laws of the United States.
Zippo manufacture v. Zippo Dot Com
This case is a landmark opinion regarding internet jurisdiction , and it is one of the most frequently cited Cyberlaw opinions. In which court found personal jurisdiction over a defendant providing internet services. Zippo manufacturing company makes Zippo pocket lighters is a Pennsylvania corporation. A California Corporation Zippo Dot Com operated an internet website that offered access to USENET newsgroup. Zippo Dot Com registered the domain names “zippo.com” “zippo.net” and “zipponews.com”
. Zippo manufacturing’s basis of claims was Dot Com ‘s use of the world “Zippo” I in the domain names in numerous locations in its websites and in the title of the internet newsgroup message that were posted by the Zippo dot com subscribers . Dot Com moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Zippo manufacturing filed a...