(New page: '''Citation:''' ''EDIAS Software Int'l v. BASIS Int'l Ltd.,'' 947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Ariz. 1996). ==Factual Background== The defendant, a New Mexico company, was accused of posting [[...) |
(Adding categories) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | == Citation == |
||
| − | '''Citation:''' ''EDIAS Software Int'l v. BASIS Int'l Ltd.,'' 947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Ariz. 1996). |
||
| + | '''EDIAS Software Int'l v. BASIS Int'l Ltd.,''' 947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Ariz. 1996) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11718230109167532957&q=947+F.+Supp.+413&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]). |
||
| − | ==Factual Background== |
+ | == Factual Background == |
| + | The defendant, a New Mexico software company, sent [[e-mail]] messages to some of its customers, and [[post]]ed a notice on its [[website]] and on a CompuServe forum stating that it had canceled its [[distribution agreement]] with the plaintiff. EDIAS sued, claiming that the [[e-mail]], [[website]], and CompuServe notices constituted [[defamation]] and [[tortious interference with contract]] (among other things). |
||
| − | The defendant, a New Mexico company, was accused of [[post]]ing [[libel]]ous statements on both its [[website]] and in a CompuServe discussion forum. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
The court held that the defendant was subject to suit in Arizona for libel, defamation, tortious interference with contract, and Lanham Act violations. As the court stated, the defendant “should not be permitted to take advantage of modern technology through an [[Internet]] [[Web page]] and forum and simultaneously escape traditional notions of [[jurisdiction]].” |
The court held that the defendant was subject to suit in Arizona for libel, defamation, tortious interference with contract, and Lanham Act violations. As the court stated, the defendant “should not be permitted to take advantage of modern technology through an [[Internet]] [[Web page]] and forum and simultaneously escape traditional notions of [[jurisdiction]].” |
||
The court found that the allegedly [[defamation|defamatory statements]], which concerned the reasons BASIS discontinued its contract with an Arizona software company, “were directed at and caused harm in Arizona.” |
The court found that the allegedly [[defamation|defamatory statements]], which concerned the reasons BASIS discontinued its contract with an Arizona software company, “were directed at and caused harm in Arizona.” |
||
| + | [[Category:Case]] |
||
| − | [[Category:Case]][[Category:Case-U.S.-Federal]][[Category:Case-U.S.-Jurisdiction]][[Category:Jurisdiction]] |
||
| + | [[Category:Case-U.S.-Federal]] |
||
| + | [[Category:Case-U.S.-Jurisdiction]] |
||
| + | [[Category:Jurisdiction]] |
||
| + | [[Category:1996]] |
||
Latest revision as of 03:34, 8 October 2013
Citation[]
EDIAS Software Int'l v. BASIS Int'l Ltd., 947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Ariz. 1996) (full-text).
Factual Background[]
The defendant, a New Mexico software company, sent e-mail messages to some of its customers, and posted a notice on its website and on a CompuServe forum stating that it had canceled its distribution agreement with the plaintiff. EDIAS sued, claiming that the e-mail, website, and CompuServe notices constituted defamation and tortious interference with contract (among other things).
Trial Court Proceedings[]
The court held that the defendant was subject to suit in Arizona for libel, defamation, tortious interference with contract, and Lanham Act violations. As the court stated, the defendant “should not be permitted to take advantage of modern technology through an Internet Web page and forum and simultaneously escape traditional notions of jurisdiction.”
The court found that the allegedly defamatory statements, which concerned the reasons BASIS discontinued its contract with an Arizona software company, “were directed at and caused harm in Arizona.”