|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|