decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Banning worldwide? | 173 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Banning worldwide?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 06:54 AM EST

I really don't understand how Judge Rambo thinks he can get away with a worldwide ban on injunctions.
Simples: as viewed from this side of the Pond, Americans think the whole world IS USA. Anywhere else that may exist is subservient to them and part of the[ir] world and incapable of making their own decisions; or if they do then the American decisions where they differ are the absolute correct ones and overrule them.

Rather like school children - Apple, Microsoft, etc have been doing a shining example of the school yard bully who run to teacher (judges) the moment their victims dare to stand up to them, complaining loudly (about their vicitm doing to them exactly what they had been doing to their victims) and the teacher then ignoring the fact that the school only extends as far as its boundaries and that there are other schools with their own teachers and rules.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Banning worldwide?
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 07:12 AM EST
EU bindings are effective across the EU. Of course they are. It's just that the
EU does not have the concept of State and Federal courts as distinct entities.

We have courts. They apply whatever rules/laws are appropriate to the
circumstances. The same court can apply local bye-laws, country laws, national
laws, EU laws, whatever. And the scope of the decision is controlled by the law,
not the court issuing judgement.

Okay, some things have to start at a court of appropriate level - some things
are heard by the High Court as a court of first instance, other things can be
heard by a local magistrate, and booted up if required.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Banning worldwide?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 07:28 AM EST
I'm sure I already know the answer to this.. but is this judge suggesting that
the opposite is also valid? Can a judge in South Korea prevent Microsoft from
enforcing its patents in America? Maybe we found a way to negate software
patents in the US after all.. They just need to be deemed unenforceable in other
countries and all multinational companies will have their hands tied.

But I'm sure this judge would find a way to explain why only he is allowed to
change a company's patent enforcement in other countries. The "I did it
first so you are too late" defence?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Banning worldwide?
Authored by: yacc on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 01:14 PM EST
Well, Judge Dredd can only order the US company to do or not
to do something.

A foreign subsidiary can be bound because it's owners order
them so.

But there are counter arguments:

- there are quite a bit of statutes that limit how much
owners can order around managers => you usually see talk
about this in relationship to state owned companies, but the
rules about being a managing director (CEO, GF, .., whatever
the local title is) are relevant to all companies.

- OTOH, as long the subsidiary is 100% owned by one owner,
the owner usually can just fire a misbehaving director.
OTOH, the misbehavior stands till it can be reverted if it
can be so.

- If the subsidiary has minority owners, all bets are off.

- Plus the EU has explicit statutes that make foreign legal
influence illegal. (Currently the only thing on it's
explicit lists of forbidden laws is the US Cuba embargo,
that's why European banks, even if owned fully by US owners
allow for accounts owned by Cubans, not doing so would open
them to fines and liabilities, hence the US administration
normally issues an exemption.)

Anyway, I guess Motorola is following this mostly because
the German injunction would piss off the US judge no matter
how l

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )