www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP89...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhKx...

It going to get exponentially "air pirates" and they have no idea what they are doing.

It's been a MASSIVE waste of court resources and Valve's lawyers may get launched to the Dark Side of the Moon themselves by the Judge's boot!
Go easy on them Judge but teach them a lesson. I'm actually a forgiving kind of chap in my own way. 🙂

it still has to look for the 'authorship issue' subject matter from the place the work was "first published". And like a person's date and place of birth - there is only one date and place of first publication (subject to a 30 window for simultaneous publication (not applicable here)).

Never the less, Valve should have known they shouldn't be misleading the Judge on "choice of law" because subject matter jurisdiction isn't waiveable and although the US court has it's own ability to hear a foreign case for lex loci protectionis (Berne Con Article 5(2))...

I also filed a Notice of Reliance on Foreign law and gave them the German Copyright Act. The Court seem to accidentally strike it as "premature" because we hadn't had a Status Report which is also one of the first things to do so, even I messed up that a bit due to not quite knowing the process.

Valve essentially got a Federal Court Judge to apply Comity and Collateral estoppel - to a "Hollywood Reporter article" by the look of it! :)

Valve essentially got a Federal Court Judge to apply Comity and Collateral estoppel - to a "Hollywood Reporter article" by the look of it! :)

You may actually be one of the few people I know to grasp what has happened! :)

The average layperson won't get why lack of subject matter jurisdiction is so relevant.

Indeed. Hope, Faith and of course Charity, and all that. ;)

"First published" in BERLIN - 11th February 2012. Not in Finland until after 30 days later. (Berne Con. articles 3-5)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP89...

It means US ruling is null and void too

My Rule 59 motion explains. I filed a Notice to 9th Circ. too but Judges hands are tied - Finland NEVER had "Subject Matter Jurisdiction"
Doesn't matter even if the Rule 59 is denied. The judge has no power. There is lack of Finnish subject matter jurisdiction
www.courtlistener.com/docket/67927...

It means, motion for summary judgement on Comity and Collateral estoppel is essentially null and void too. So there's a pending Rule 59(e) which Valve tried to get out of answering, and the Judge just told them to respond.
There's nothing Valve can say. They LIED about "subject mater jurisdiction".

We are not quite done- almost. The judge granted Valve motion for summary judgement on Comity and Collateral estoppel to Finnish Ruling MAO302/18 - and then "plot twist" Finland NEVER had "subject matter jurisdiction". MAO302/18 has ALWAYS been null and void. Valve never read MAO302/18 it seems.