>
>This is where it starts to get really entertaining. Dean wants to go
>after netgate, because he can't go after their customer. The customer
>is not doing anything illegal where the customer is. Netgate is
>required to comply with uS law in so far as they are a common carrier
>which provides carriage to/from the united States. Dean may actually
>be able to cause them significant grief, unfortunately, but it is
>extremely unlikely that he will be able to do anything to the people
>he is actually trying to shut down. Worse yet, depending on NZ law,
>Dean my be able to demand under US law that netgate take action which
>is illegal under NZ law against their customer who has an contract
>in NZ and which has not violated NZ law.
Netgate may have an easy out (possibly, I haven't investigated) in
that oftentimes companies will incorporate separately in many of the
countries they do business in (I don't know WHY, although I suspect
it makes bookkeeping significantly easier when it comes to tax law).
If Netgate has done this, then Netgate (US) can point to Netgate (NZ)
and say "That's their company, talk to them..." at which point
Netgate/NZ tells the US to go pound sand.
>I sympathize with netgate in this case.
Don't we all? :)
D
