PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Personal Jurisdiction
Chapter 8: Weather underground corporation Vs Navigation catalyst systems
The fundamental consideration in determining personal jurisdiction involves assessing whether state courts have an interest in an individual (Klerman, 2017). In this instance, the exercise of personal jurisdiction is deemed inappropriate. The lawsuit against the Navigation Catalyst system fails to meet the three requirements for ensuring specific jurisdiction. Firstly, the
court is granted consent for personal jurisdiction when the defendant appears, either through express or implied consent, which, in this case, is lacking. Secondly, the defendants not being incorporated in Michigan complicates jurisdiction. Thirdly, the defendants' actions are not substantial enough to justify personal jurisdiction, as the court's power in this regard hinges on the activities being significant and reasonable (Rutherglen, 2015). Lastly, the defendant's activities are unrelated to the cause of action, making jurisdiction impermissible. Consequently, the court should not endorse personal jurisdiction.
Chapter 9: Apple Inc. Vs Major league baseball
In the dispute involving Apple Inc. and MLB, it is essential for users affected by blackout
games to maintain competitiveness. I advocate for providing every individual with the opportunity to purchase blackout games on a per-game basis. Moreover, for subscribers, introducing a feature allowing them to download or record games would offer an additional benefit, facilitating offline viewing of missed games during work hours. MLB's priority in the agreement would likely focus on ensuring customers can reliably watch their games given the current speed of internet streaming.
