On the “doing homework” side of things, I hope that courts (at least those somewhat willing to put lip service to “address not known” and “reasonable diligence” under 4(f)(3)) stop falling for the plaintiffs’ bar’s lame “I googled it and didn’t find nothing” submissions.

In the age of AI – Claude, ChatGPT, Lexis Protege and my new personal favorite in this area Baidu’s Ernie – it has become so much easier to be “reasonably diligent” in searching for and validating China-based addresses. Hopefully, the ubiquity of AI Chatbots raises the bar for courts looking at this issue.

The transliterations listed on Amazon are often easily reverted back to Chinese characters. Ernie also does a pretty good job of searching QCC, Tianyancha and other Chinese-language government databases that are otherwise REALLY challenging for non-Chinese speakers. Where the location of exact Chinese characters is difficult based on the transliteration, adding in an Amazon-listed seller address in China often closes the loop.

Hopefully, courts realize that resort to AI assistance in searching for Defendants’ addresses is eminently reasonable under the circumstances and stops pretending that Plaintiff’s have been diligent in searching databases that are not even accessible in China.

Full disclosure – I’ve defended many Chinese e-sellers accused of infringement in “Schedule A” cases.

Good point!

Also because in the UK a defamation case has to be filed within a year, and this was broadcast Oct 24.

Also, I don’t mind criticism at all—I welcome it—but if you are going to write that I “often veer into caricature or half-truth,” perhaps tell me who you are?

Thanks for reading! Doesn’t your point strengthen, rather than weaken, my argument? The new mayor also promised, I think, to retain the old mayor’s commission on antisemitism, even though it was established after his indictment. So what we can take from that is that the mayor has enabled BDS and rejected the IHRA working definition not because of a process concern, but because he is opposed to them.

I suspect it’s because in the UK the loser can be on the hook for the winner’s fees.