[free-sklyarov] Re: free-sklyarov digest, Vol 1 #233 - 13 msgs

[Kevin]

Okay, this is what I thought.  So, back to the hypothetical situation of
Adobe execs in Russia:  Russian authorities could arrest and try them
because Adobe has a website where someone in Russia could buy their
product; this gives Russia the jurisdiction to nab Adobe, if and when
representatives from that company were in Russia.

That being the case, I wouldn't want to be a programmer for Adobe and find
myself travelling in Russia...

Is this correct?

thanks,
K

-- 
[The] haters need to realize that if you mess with the man upstairs,
you will get your ass smote. True dat.
http://astroturfgarden.com/~ktneely

On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, J.E. Cripps wrote:

> > Could someone explain or point out the link that explains why American
> > courts are able to arrest/detain/try Dmitry and Dmitry's company?  This I
> > don't understand.  If the Russian court doesn't have jurisdiction over
> > Adobe, how do the U.S. courts have jurisdiction over Dmitry and Elcomsoft?
> >
> > thanks,
>
> It's called jurisdiction. As AIUC (IANAL) one can only arrest or sue
> ppl when this exists.  Doing business in a country  or state has
> been held to give jurisdiction (at one time, maybe 1700, ppl had to
> be in the state or country IIRC).  Elcomsoft had a website, and
> supposedly someone in the U.S. bought their product. It probably
> would be an interesting and useful defence, except this is such
> a dangerous law with the criminal penalties.
>
>