I think Bodog is up a creek pretty badly.....
 

The merits of the case don't really mean very much.....but....

Someone from Bodog is going to have to show up in court I would think.

Any lawyers on the board know? Can they just ship a check for $48mil or can the judge demand someone (maybe calvin) show up in court?

Re: I think Bodog is up a creek pretty badly.....
 

They [censored] up by not initially appearing to contest the court's jurisdiction. If you are being sued in a place that you don't think has jurisdiction over you, the correct response is NOT to just not show up. Make a "special appearance" to contest jurisdiction (which you can do through counsel, Ayer would not have to be there in person).

At this point, they either have to pay or appeal (or move the court to reconsider the entry of default, which is somewhat in likely as judges don't tend to look kindly on getting the raspberry from litigants). If they appealed, they could PROBABLY/POSSIBLY get a stay on the execution of the judgment, which would allow them to keep a domain operating for a time.

Please note, the above is completely from the hip analysis and is not legal advice, yadda yadda yadda...

Re: I think Bodog is up a creek pretty badly.....
 

Who has jurisdiction over the internet? How does a US court enter an order that affects a foreign website? This sounds like a future WTO case.

Re: I think Bodog is up a creek pretty badly.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who has jurisdiction over the internet? How does a US court enter an order that affects a foreign website? This sounds like a future WTO case.

[/ QUOTE ]

People (classmates even) much smarter than I are spending lots of time and making lots of money attempting to resolve just those questions.

However, since Bodog used a US registrar, the court very plausibly has jurisdiction over that (and remember, no one from Bodog was around to tell the court why it didn't have jurisdiction...) Further, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that a U.S. court could assert jurisdiction over a dispute between a U.S. based player and an international site based on the site's purposefully availing itself of U.S. banking institutions and accepting, even soliciting, U.S. based players. I don't know how that would be resolved, but it's certainly a colorable argument

Re: I think Bodog is up a creek pretty badly.....
 

I think Bodog could have avoided this by not using a US-based registrar (eNom). There are plenty of overseas registrars which it would be much harder for a US court to enforce an order on.

Re: I think Bodog is up a creek pretty badly.....
 

Actually, the U S Government in a sense 'owns' the Internet.

That was a clash with the U.N. a year or so ago, the U.N. wanted the U. S. to turn over control to them.

Domain names registered all go to ICANN, a NP set up by the government (not a government agency though) but with a government department oversite, thus you see committees in the Senate and House for Internet oversight as well.

The 'Internet' was a project funded by the DoD? I believe in consultaion with sevaral Universities to transfere data between them quickly.

Sorry, Al, no, you did not Invent It.

obg

Could Bodog have gotten a license ... Did they screw up ?
 

A number of online gaming companies license the technology that BoDog is accused of pirating, ex. Playtech, Chartwell. So, did BoDog really screw up ? Can the patent holder guy get $48 million ?

Consider this .... can a patent holder in the US share in the proceeds of illegal activity ?

Did BoDog have a choice in whether to get a license or fight or ignore him ?

Remember, direct licensing may NOT have been an option, but somehow a third party/offshore entity might have interceded ..... hmmmm.

Re: Could Bodog have gotten a license ... Did they screw up ?
 

I would disagree. The U.S. government does not recognize the rights of Antigua, and have been ruled against by the WTO. There is no reason for BoDog to comply with this ruling. The US simply has no jurisdiction in this matter.

Worst case BoDog may never be able to regain the the ownership of bodog URL and have to make the newbodog.com perminant, but I see no way for the US to legally force payment of this money or lawsuit.

Re: Could Bodog have gotten a license ... Did they screw up ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would disagree. The U.S. government does not recognize the rights of Antigua, and have been ruled against by the WTO. There is no reason for BoDog to comply with this ruling. The US simply has no jurisdiction in this matter.

Worst case BoDog may never be able to regain the the ownership of bodog URL and have to make the newbodog.com perminant, but I see no way for the US to legally force payment of this money or lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US government pretty much does whatever it wants.....including taking your chit if they want to. That's not a good thing for bodog.

Re: Could Bodog have gotten a license ... Did they screw up ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would disagree. The U.S. government does not recognize the rights of Antigua, and have been ruled against by the WTO. There is no reason for BoDog to comply with this ruling. The US simply has no jurisdiction in this matter.

Worst case BoDog may never be able to regain the the ownership of bodog URL and have to make the newbodog.com perminant, but I see no way for the US to legally force payment of this money or lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

For about the 100th time today, you may be right, the US may have no jurisdiction over the matter. That's still an argument you have to show up in court and make ESPECIALLY in an instance where the US court plausibly has in rem jurisdiction over some of your property (which clearly happened here. I'm guessing that this is a miscalculation on the part of BoDog...)

And believe it or not, court's are not terribly adverse to finding that they lack jurisdiction to hear cases, especially a cluster-[censored] like this one would be sure to be if tried on the merits. But you have to tell the court WHY it has no jurisdiction. And, again showing up just for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction does not mean that you have submitted to the exercise of jurisdiction.