Actually, in terms of jurisdiction, this might well fly in the UK if you were unable to prove that the defendant is lying (I'm currently covering International Commercial Law in my law post-grad ).Verlander said:I don't know about America, but in the UK I'm damn sure that wouldn't fly. Ignorance doesn't shield you from the law. If Sony provided those manuals, it's his responsibility to read them.
Everyone seems to be mistaking the use of ignorance as evidence for proving which country/state has jurisdiction for using ignorance of the law as a defence against the actual charges in the actual court case. The actual case hasn't started yet, and he's not using ignorance as a defence against the charges against him, he's using it as evidence as to why California doesn't have jurisdiction. For this part, ignorance is perfectly usable.
It's a brilliantly clever tactic, if he pulls it off. Otherwise it's just going to add another charge to the list against him.
I hope he wins, because Sony suck.