Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Crime Software The Courts United States

Judge Rules Against China In 'Green Dam' Suit 152

Posted by Soulskill
from the china-shrugs dept.
An anonymous reader writes "About a year after Cybersitter sued the Chinese government and several Asian OEMs for allegedly copying its code to create the 'Green Dam' software, a US federal judge has allowed the $2.3 billion suit to proceed. Judge Josephine Staton Tucker, a California district judge, entered a judgement of default against the People's Republic of China on Wednesday, after PRC officials failed to respond to the ruling. Although the PRC's embassy sent a letter to the US State Department protesting Cybersitter's suit, such a letter did not qualify as a formal response."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rules Against China In 'Green Dam' Suit

Comments Filter:
  • by timeOday (582209) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @04:56PM (#35255540)
    The absurdity of claiming $2.3B in any copyright suit aside...

    It would be hilarious if we reneged on our foreign debts by using RIAA math to value the IP "stolen" from the US in the trillions, and seize foreign capital as "compensation."

    This does happen [nwsource.com] in the case of tangible assets such as oil, so I guess the fact we don't do the same for intellectual property is a tacit admission of some distinction between them vs other types of property.

  • Re:Good grief... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jayveekay (735967) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @04:56PM (#35255542)

    It won't be the PRC government that prevents them from getting money, it will be the USA government that stops them. The hostages held by Iran for 444 days tried to sue (there were substantial Iranian assets in the US that had been frozen and could be used to pay damages), but they lost their lawsuit not because of any defence put on by Iran but rather by the US government.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/01/national/main561274.shtml [cbsnews.com]

    If the USA government does that to protect a state which it considers an enemy (Iran), imagine what they will do to protect the PRC to which they owe a trillion dollars or so.

  • Re:Good grief... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Agent.Nihilist (1228864) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @05:35PM (#35255706)

    It won't be the PRC government that prevents them from getting money, it will be the USA government that stops them. The hostages held by Iran for 444 days tried to sue (there were substantial Iranian assets in the US that had been frozen and could be used to pay damages), but they lost their lawsuit not because of any defence put on by Iran but rather by the US government.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/01/national/main561274.shtml [cbsnews.com]

    If the USA government does that to protect a state which it considers an enemy (Iran), imagine what they will do to protect the PRC to which they owe a trillion dollars or so.

    Those hostages are alive and free today because of an agreement known as the Algiers Accords [wikipedia.org] (wikipedia). Part of the aggreement that freed them stated that they could not sue Iran. If we reneged after making the accord we would forever lose the option to recover hostages through such an aggreement. This type of action is down to protect US interests and its citizens abroad.

  • by UltraOne (79272) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @06:27PM (#35256048) Homepage

    Almost all of the US Treasury debt owned by China (and in general) is in the form of book-entry securities [wikipedia.org]. This means there is no physical document for the treasury bill, note or bond. It exists as an entry in the database of a broker or the US Treasury. The court could simply order ownership of an appropriate value of those securities to be transferred from the Chinese government to the successful plaintiff.

When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"

Working...