<div>Responding: </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, agreed, in some senses it may be axiomatic that 'jurisdictional predicates' may always be in play in the Law - in that Law invokes forum features, and this includes Intellectual Property domains. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>And/but the current focus was/is Intellectual Property,. and the Summits much about Jurisdiction, e.g. quite openly: Internet governance. .(Another area might be <em>Cybertorts / online defamation (CyberlLbel)</em>
, again not to exclude <em>CyberCrime</em> etc. so let's say <em>CyberInfractions</em> - where jurisdiction to invoke revieweing authority and judgments requires establishing the jurisdictional predicates).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So ... I'd say that more broadly than IP, your generalization is certainly compelling inasmuch as it's interesting to contemplate that maybe all Law has its jurisdictional components; yet there are contrasts between when these are frontal or surface-apparent, and when "in the wings."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here, where clearly jurisdiction is a frontal matter yet discussion is sparse, then of course relative silence might be deemed 'a statement in itself'.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Reply and reference to "incoherent category [of IP] " noted, and sending best wishes, LDMF.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff</div>
<div>* Respectful Interfaces * .</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/14/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Richard M. Stallman</b> <<a href="mailto:rms@gnu.org">rms@gnu.org</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> Fallut: sometimes Intellectual Property discussions can get sidelined not<br> only per their own substance but because of implications for matters of
<br> jurisdictional authority - not a tiny topic and not all that simple.<br><br>Isn't that true for discussions about any law?<br>What you said is true, but your statement would be<br>more fully correct if it were not artificially limited to
<br>the incoherent category of "intellectual property".<br></blockquote></div><br>