Mink, a Texas resident, had experience and expertise in the retail furniture business. He developed a computer program called the Opportunity Tracking Computer System (OTCS) that was designed to analyze information regarding retail furniture sales to pinpoint potential new leads for use in the furniture industry. Stark approached Mink to gauge interest in the possibility of marketing the OTCS software bundled with Stark’s existing software through the use of Stark’s marketing company called AAAA Development (AAAA). During the discussions, Stark allegedly shared Mink’s ideas and information on the OTCS with Stark’s AAAA business partner. AAAA was a Vermont corporation.

Eventually, Mink filed suit in a federal district court in Texas against AAAA Development and its principals, alleging that they conspired to copy Mink’s patent-pending OTCS system for their own financial gain. None of the defendants owned property or had any other contact in Texas. In the course of its business, AAAA maintained a website advertising its software products on the Internet. The site was available to all users, including residents of Texas, and Mink argued that the website alone was sufficient contact to warrant jurisdiction

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Where does the AAAA website fall on the sliding scale of the Zippo standard?
2. As a practical matter, what happens to Mink’s case now? May he refile it in another court?