Hacker News Reader

Comment by huhtenberg | Hacker News Reader

> selling Minecraft in the US

This I don't understand. Mojang sells Minecraft in Sweden. You come to them, not the other way around (unless they have a US-based webshop).

A person from the US can fly to Sweden and buy a bottle of Absolute Absinthe (made-up) and then bring it back to the US. She may not succeed getting it through the customs, but it will be the US customs who enforce the import restriction, not the Swedish liquor store. Similarly, Mojang is a liquor store, Minecraft is a bottle. Why should Mojang be enforcing US e-com restrictions? This doesn't make any sense.

View on HN

> Why should Mojang be enforcing US e-com restrictions?

They wouldn't be expected to enforce any restrictions. The US will simply demand that all US financial branches refuse Majong business---that is VISA/Mastercard and your bank will not send money into his account or process payments for transactiosn related to him.

In addition, if he has a .us or .com name, they may try to seize it.

It'll be a headache for Mojang to try and fight it, so might as well 'self regulate' rather than have the government and use the only tool it knows 'the club'.

They are legally obliged to for any sales to the US territories. So if you are in the US and buy Minecraft, then they are exporting software to the US and have to comply with relevant law and any trade agreements between Sweden and the US.

First. A company in whatever country is legally obliged only to that country's law. Export means that company is selling something in his jurisdiction to somebody who is not. That somebody is importer. Importer has to comply with the law of the country he/she is importing. One can not expect that exporter burden is to know all UN members laws.

Second. There cannot be and there is none agreements between Sweden and US which would prevent swedish companies producing something that infringes US-only patents. Also any swedish company can produce anything that is banned in US. I guess absynthe is.

Third. Pay attention to the HTC & Apple cases. Apple is trying to prevent import of HTC phones. That is the key! Apple can not sue taiwanese company of US patent infringement, not in US, not in Taiwan. What they can do is complain to ITC and ban import and that is exactly what they ar doing: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/12/apple-wins-itc-ruling-of-...

First, A country is legally obliged to follow the laws of all countries in which they do business. For legal purposes, "doing business" means actual physical operations in a country or knowingly and deliberately selling into a country. This is basic international law.

Second. That is not how import/export law works. I do not have time to explain how it applies, so Google it.

Third. Your second statement is correct.

Fourth. Your third statement is not correct. Apple can sue HTC in the U.S. b/c HTC does business in the U.S. Apple chose to pursue this case in the ITC b/c it is asignificantly faster way to achieve its business goals (namely, interfering with a competitor's sales of a product). Patent litigation through the court system is a very slow, years-long process, and could take long enough that Apple would be on the down-cycle again.

Right. huhtenberg's analogy was flawed. His analogy to selling liquor only works if you remote-access a computer in Sweden and then buy Minecraft from that computer. Then when you copy Minecraft from the remote to your home system, you're the importer. If you buy from a US-based computer then it's Mojang acting as an importer to the US.

The liquor analogy would be if you ordered a bottle of liquor to be shipped to the US and the liquor store would be expected to comply with US import rules.

Neither your nor my interpretation of an online purchase is a correct one. An online purchase from a computer in one country at a web server in another can be treated as both an import (by a purchaser) and an export (by a seller). But since a sale is typically solicited by a purchaser (it's driven by those who purchase), I'd say it's an import rather than an export.

> liquor to be shipped to the US and the liquor store would be expected to comply with US import rules

It may want to comply with the rules, because the parcel will bounce at customs, but if there are no export restrictions, it has no other reason not to send a bottle into the US.

>it has no other reason not to send a bottle into the US

Except to serve it's customer, because if it doesn't meet import requirements then the customer's package will never arrive. I understand it may not be legally obligated so there's no repercussion except the shipment being confiscated, but it's in business to serve customers.

Generally under international law, a consumer cannot be the "importer" of record because there are all sorts of fun obligations that come with being an "importer".

Carrying stuff you bought on an overseas trip through customs is not "importation" for legal purposes.

Also, export restrictions are different from import laws. Export laws are applied by the seller's country. The buyer does not have to comply with export laws. Import laws are applied by the buyer's country. Both the buyer and seller must comply with import laws unless the buyer is an "importer of record" in which case only the buyer must comply with import laws.

"legally obliged" as per which country's law? Also, depending on how one views it, it's not them exporting, but rather their customers importing bought software.

It is always both, not one perspective or the other. You can't export something without it being imported to somewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com