However, there may be instances where Federal court is preferred. The laws and rulings may favor be more favorable for the litigant in Federal court. For CompuServe, they may have chosen Federal court because it would have clearly had jurisdiction, whereas Ohio may not have had jurisdiction. This could have given Patterson an avenue for dismissal or appeal on jurisdiction grounds and CompuServe may have wished to mitigate this risk.

In determining the appropriateness of Ohio state court as a jurisdiction, we must consider the tests that would allow this case to be heard by a Federal court. Federal courts rely on the "minimum contacts" test to establish personal jurisdiction. "Minimum contacts" often relies on a three-prong test. The CompuServe v. Patterson case met all three prongs, meaning that Ohio had jurisdiction. The Federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction in the event that the state court cannot establish jurisdiction, but in this case Ohio deemed that the case arose from Patterson's contacts in Ohio (CompuServe), his purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in Ohio and that the maintenance of the suit did not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (Conner, 1998).

There was some debate about the jurisdiction because it was an Internet case, but the following was taken into consideration. The defendant had willfully entered into a contract with the plaintiff, as evidenced by agreeing to the terms and conditions. The plaintiff...

The defendant purposefully availed himself of his privilege to conduct activities in Ohio. Once the initial contact with CompuServe was made, he uploaded software onto CompuServe's Ohio-based computers.
This alone did would constitute purposeful availment if no business transaction took place between the two parties. The defendant in fact marketed the product in Texas, not Ohio. However, the terms of the agreement entered into with CompuServe had CompuServe conducting the sale and paying a percentage to Patterson. In this way, the transaction was now taking place in Ohio, using an Ohio-based intermediary and Ohio-based computers. This relationship was sufficient to establish purposeful availment in the state of Ohio.

Works Cited

Conner, Cheryl L. (1998) Compuserve v. Patterson: Creating Jurisdiction Through Internet Contacts. The Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. Retrieved March 11, 2009 at http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v4i3/conner.html

Samson, Martin. (2009). CompuServe v. Patterson. Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions. Retrieved March 11, 2009 at http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case163.cfm

No author. (No date). Jurisdiction. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved March 11, 2009 at http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction

Encyclopedia Britannica: Conflict of Laws. Retrieved March 11, 2009 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/333023/conflict-of-laws/276355/Rationale-behind-choice-of-jurisdiction