Slashdot Mirror
US Court Says Motorola Can't Enforce Microsoft Injunction In Germany
First time accepted submitter Chris453 writes "A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled that Google Inc's Motorola Mobility unit cannot enforce a patent injunction that it obtained against Microsoft Corp in Germany, diminishing Google's leverage in the ongoing smartphone patent wars. Motorola won an injunction against Microsoft in May using their H.264 patents. Apparently the U.S. federal justices in California have worldwide jurisdiction over all court cases — Who knew? Maybe that is why Apple keeps winning lawsuits..."
By using the ExFat patents without a license and then claiming:
'Microsoft's patents are standard, essential parts of software and Microsoft is asking far too much in royalties for their use.'
You could try reading the article.
"At bottom, this case is a private dispute under Washington state contract law between two U.S. corporations," the court ruled.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Motorola tried to do an end run around the US court where Microsoft is trying to hold them to their obligations to grant a global licence (because they are standards essential patents). The US court has injucted Motorola from enforcing their temporary victory in Germany to stop them using the threat of a sales ban to force Microsoft to licence the patents at an unreasonable rate.
You could try reading the article.
"At bottom, this case is a private dispute under Washington state contract law between two U.S. corporations," the court ruled.
But how that ruling have effect in Germany, when that court has no authority there?
All that states is that the 2 had a contract dispute. That does not say how a US court can tell Germany what it can or can not do.
Now you only only have to ban your other thousand companies from using software patents in Europe, and we will be very thankful.
How does it work?
Drone strikes!
A US court can, however, tell a US corporation whether it can seek to enforce an injunction granted in another jurisdiction.
The court isn't telling Germany to do or not do anything. They're telling Motorola that they cannot seek to have the injunction enforced because of an ongoing lawsuit over whether Motorola acted improperly regarding the fees they requested for the standards-essential patent(s) at issue.
It's not about telling German court what they can and can't do, it's about telling Motorola what they can and can't do.
Read the Title: US Court Says Motorola Can't Enforce Microsoft Injunction in Germany.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The legal drinking age in Germany is 14 (for undistilled drinks given by a parent or guardian). By this court's reasoning, if a family went on vacation in Germany for Octoberfest and dad gave his 14 yo son a beer to drink, then it's a Washington State parent giving alcohol to an underage Washington State child, and he would be subject to fines and jail under the drinking laws of Washington State.
Oh just the normal proceeding of the USA bully with the grand-delusion of supremacy over every other country.
Culminating is such nonsense statements like "America first", "leader of the free world" or worse, like the murdering of foreign elected head of states like Allende, Arbenz, Goulart, Kwame Nkrumah, etc.
Earth to the US of A : you are NOT worth more than anyone else. Be a bit more humble. Thanks.
You see, you're sleeping over at a friends place - and your friend's mum said that you could have coke with your dinner even though your mum said you couldn't.
You can "forget" what your mum told you and have the coke anyway, you won't get in trouble at your friends house.
But you're sure gonna get it when you get home and your mum finds out. I mean, you could lie but...
And that's fine but I seriously doubt a California court can dictate what a corporation does in a foreign country.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
It really doesnt matter if its a US corporation. If its operating in Germany, then its operations in germany are under German juristiction no ifs no buts.
We've had a few instances here in australia where a US court "overrules" an australian one from having juristiction. The australian court, naturally, systematically ignores it. Those clauses of "All disagreements must be heard in x state" you see in american contracts have no validity here. To quote a lawyer friend, "Us lawyers dont actually get to invent laws or nullify them with our contracts, no matter how clever we think we are".
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
The Appeals Court turned down the preliminary because the full case is still active in District. The German case will almost certainly influence the finding but the case is still on-going. Appeals Courts are for after a decision has been reached by the lower court.
At the bottom line the injunction is german law, german folk, german territory. It does not matter if the company are US : the german market is the one concerned. So excuse me if as living in germany I find that a shitty US court imposing its view on the german market and court.
garmany is not a sovereign nation, it's a state of eu
tl;dr; they're not. Under German law, injunctions are enforced by the party, not the court. The US court has ordered that Motorola not enforce it until they've come to a conclusion in their case (which could affect the German court decision).
Long version, based on the CoA's judgment, available here:
Motorola claims to have patents in various jurisdictions covering vital steps of the H.264 video compression standard. When the ITU established H.264 as a standard, Motorola had to agree to license all relevant patents at RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) rates.
Back in 2010, Motorola asked Microsoft to licence its H.264 patents (for use in the various Windows and X-Box software) at what MS described as an unreasonable royalty rate. MS sued Motorola for breach of contract, on the grounds that Motorola's agreement with the ITU was a contract, which gave MS third-party benefits (and thus the right to sue to enforce it). [Third-party contract rights are an interesting area of law; some jurisdictions have them (e.g. the US), in some they are optional (e.g. England+Wales) and in others they don't exist (e.g. Germany).] Motorola responded by suing for patent infringement, and the cases were combined.
In 2011, while the US contract/patent case was going on, Motorola then filed a claim against MS for patent infringement in Germany, specifically for the two H.264 patents. As part of their claim, Motorola wanted an injunction banning the sale of Windows and X-Boxes in Germany. In May 2012, the German Court found in favour of Motorola and granted the injunction. However, as noted in the US CoA's judgment:
Under German law, if a party is given an injunction, they get to decide whether or not to enforce it, and if they do and it is subsequently overturned, they have to pay the other side damages to cover any losses.
So the question before the US CoA was whether or not the US courts could issue their own injunction ordering that Motorola not enforce the German injunction (Motorola, being a US-based company, is obviously within the court's jurisdiction). The District Court said they could, and the Court of Appeal have confirmed this. Their reasoning seems to be that *if* Motorola was in breach of contract by not licensing its patents to MS at RAND rates, then one remedy for MS would be a compulsory licence at such a rate. But such a licence would necessarily include *all* of Motorola's relevant patents, including the German ones. Thus MS would no longer be committing patent infringement in Germany, and the German injunction would be wrongly granted.
The US CoA's options were: allow Motorola to enforce the German injunction, and if the injunction were overturned (due to US rulings on the contract), Motorola would have to pay MS to compensate for any losses, *or* block Motorola from enforcing the German injunction and, if the injunction was not overturned (due to the US ruling), MS would have to pay Motorola to compensate for the losses.
The CoA seems to have sided with MS rather than Motorola, possibly because they felt Motorola had been a bit vexatious by suing in Germany while the US case was happening (it comes across as them trying to "forum shop" for the most friendly jurisdiction). So the CoA upheld the District Court's decision that, as the German injunction is sort of dependent on the US breach of contract case, Motorola shouldn't be allowed to enforce it until that case is over (some time in early 2013, possibly).
But IANAL, nor an expert in US or German patent
The difference is, the Australian court system will generally not hear cases between two American companies while a similar action is ongoing in their home country. They will also generally uphold the American ruling, unless it conflicts with Australian statutory law or legal principles.
Australia is a common law jurisdiction, although rulings from other common law jurisdictions is not binding precedent, it is certainly given a huge amount of respect. Germany uses a civil law system and does not consider itself connected in any way.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
"And that's fine but I seriously doubt a California court can dictate what a corporation does in a foreign country."
But be prepared to pay heavy fines in California.
But in this case it's more like the mum of your friend says "no coke in my house" and your mum says "don't care about what she says, I allow you to drink coke there, that's all that counts."
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Can a German court tell a US corporation not to do something or another in the US?
Can a US court tell British Petroleum to do or not do something in Nigeria?
Can a US court tell a Korean corp to do or not do something in Europe?
Can a Korean court tell a California corporation to knock it off?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Negative. At bottom it is a private dispute between Microsoft Germany and Google Germany. The fact that these are in turn, owned by US companies is immaterial. If these were really just "US corporations", they could not have filed a case in Germany in the first place. The judge is a moron.
An injunction is a court order instructing a party to do or not do something. Injunctions are enforced via threat of more legal action. In this context:
Microsoft sued Motorola Mobility / Google in the US in 2010 to enforce MM's licensing promise on a worldwide basis.
Motorola Mobility / Google sued Microsoft in Germany eight months later.
The German court granted an injunction in the German case to stop Microsoft from selling Xboxen and Windows in Germany while the court decides if Microsoft is violating Google's patents. Despite what might show up in headlines this is not the same thing as the German government banning those products. There is a whole bunch of nuance involved, but if Microsoft continued to sell the infringing products Google would need to bring a suit and the German court evaluates whether Microsoft did indeed violate the order and if so what to do about it.
What the US court did was grant an injunction to stop Google from bringing that suit while the US case is still going on. Basically the court is calling Google out on using the German court to try and get leverage to force Microsoft to settle the US suit that had been filed first. Google could ignore the US order and it is unlikely the German court would factor the US court's injunction into what it decides; however, if Google did that Microsoft could bring a suit against them in the US and the court would likely put quite a smack down in response.
In other words, the problem is the language used by the journalist. The US court didn't decide "Google can't enforce German Microsoft injunction" and the German court didn't "ban the sell of windows".
No, it is like the friend's mum says: "From what I understand about your mum's rules, you can't have any coke" and then your mum says: "No. You misunderstand how it works in our house. We haven't decided to forbid him from coke at this point, and until we hear his argument about why we should keep letting him drink it he can continue to drink it."
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Does the recent Apple vs Samsung patent case ring any bells?
Look its actually VERY simple: The Germans can do whatever they want and they ruled Motorola can have MSFT products blocked. the US courts have said that if Motorola uses that right then they will lay the smack down on Motorola because they are basically trying to do an end run around the court because the MSFT suit was filed first.
So Motorola can STILL choose to block in Germany, but by doing so they may as well accept they have lost the lawsuit in the USA because the courts will punish them for doing so. It doesn't have a thing to do with the Germans, it has EVERYTHING to do with Motorola and their position in the court.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
yeah.. except in this case, "coke" was the injunction, not Microsoft's use of H.264
Of course they can. Countries are (mostly) sovereign, meaning they can pass any law they want, covering anyone, anywhere. The only limitation is the practicality of enforcing such laws (including, traditionally, the various wars that spring up when country A tries to assert control over part of country B). While this can cause problems with natural people (as the US has found with Assange; they can't really enforce their laws against him unless they can get hold of him, and they can't do that without breaking various international conventions, which will be diplomatically awkward), with companies it becomes really easy; you just enforce the ruling against any assets that company has in your jurisdiction.
Here, both Microsoft and Motorola are US-based companies (although the German ruling involved a subsidiary of Motorola), meaning many of their assets, and directors, will be in the US and thus within the reach of the US courts.
As a general rule, each company has to obey the laws of every country in which they operate (unlike people, companies can be in several countries at once*). If they break a law, and a court tries to enforce it against them, they either have to abandon that jurisdiction (and any connected ones), possibly surrendering all assets there, or comply, even if they are mainly based elsewhere. Of course, sometimes this can lead to major problems, as with Google and the Streetview screw-up; after revealing it had collected huge chunks of potentially-personal data, Google was ordered by some countries to immediately destroy it, but by others to preserve it so that official investigations could be carried out.
*Ok, there are a few points in the world where a person can do that as well, but there tends to be not a lot you can do at them.
You're doing it wrong. The EU is not a country, it's a union of like-minded sovereign nations.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Microsoft has said that Motorola's patents are standard, essential parts of its software and that Motorola is asking far too much in royalties for their use.
WTF? Go cry me a river. Since when does a company ( that isn't a monopoly ) have to be fair and charge 'reasonable' prices? Especially to the competition...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
even if actual, proper courts with jurisdiction over Germany say they can? Sounds like an act of war to me if so...
He may be more like a pawn.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
They're not doing an end run around the court. If, according to German law, Motorola is in the right, then they have the right to enjoin (in Germany).
Many companies have to do a lot of things in foreign jurisdictions because of European (or other) laws. It's out of line for a US court to say that they can't do so because a case in a US court.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Or is it OK for US corps only to decide what the fair price is?
No-one can tell British Petroleum to do anything because there's no such company any more: it changed its name to BP PLC in 2001, after briefly being BP Amoco PLC from 2000.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
And how is that not the equivalent of claiming global jurisdiction? If you operate in territories A and B and a court with jurisdiction A wants to punish you for something you did in jurisdiction B, then that's effectively claiming jurisdiction. Particularly when it comes to fines you can nullify any foreign law, if Microsoft owes Motorola $100M in Germany and the US court gives $100M back then you're de facto rewriting German law, as long as both are big multinationals with no other choice than to have a US presence.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Apparently the U.S. federal justices in California have worldwide jurisdiction over all court cases — Who knew? Maybe that is why Apple keeps winning lawsuits."
When he turns up in Europe for a meeting? "Hello Mr President. We have a warrant for your arrest here. Please follow these men.".
So Motorola should go to the Mannheim court where it got the injunction and file a "contempt of court" motion against Microsoft for trying to circumvent the injunction without following proper procedure (filing a motion to lift the injunction in the proper courts in Germany). It won't help Motorola directly, but Microsoft might get some hefty fine for it.
Yeah, how would it go over if a Korean court awarded Samsung $1 billion to make up for the case against Apple in California?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Now Motorola should ask the German court to order MS to give up that request on the US court, or face heavy fines.
Because god forbid a corporation allow anyone to infer from their name they are subordinate or owe allegiance to any particular national government any more. The scale has tipped. The corporations now tell the governments what to do. Let the bribing and arm twisting of the courts begin.
I call bullshit and spit on the US court. Thought police come arrest me.
Oh boy.
It's a private dispute between Motorola (and hence Google) and Microsoft. But it's a cross-jurisdictional one, with lawsuits being filed all over the place (as with the Apple v Samsung fight). Yes, some of the cases involve various subsidiaries, including national branches, but there is enough cross-over between the cases that is isn't an issue, and both sides seem to have agreed that they were the same parties involved in both cases.
From footnote 7, page 10 of the US Court of Appeal's judgment:
For more details, see the argument in IV A, starting at page 18. Basically, the parties agreed that they were the same.
Also, as a Court of Appeal case, there were three judges involved, not just one, and just because someone gives a ruling you disagree with (perhaps based on factual misunderstandings), that doesn't make them morons.
... a union of (fairly) like-minded sovereign states which have agreed to give up some of their sovereignty to the EU, in return for the benefits of being involved the Union.
But IANAL, nor an expert in US or German patent law, or in multi-jurisdiction injunctive relief.
And yet, you've done a very clear and accurate summary of the issues here. Nice job.
Skimming the Wikipedia page of the Apple v Samsung battle, Apple have lost 4 rounds and Samsung 5 rounds. However, in some cases they've both lost, and some are being appealed (or have been appealed). Then some also involve counter-claims, whereas others are just one-sided. At the moment they're up to about 50 lawsuits in nearly a dozen countries. It's rather depressing.
However, I wouldn't say that Apple *keeps* winning. One hopes that the inconsistencies between the rulings are due to differences in laws (and as to what can be patented etc.) rather than due to judicial misconduct (although the US ruling seems to have involved a jury screw-up; although that may not be a deciding factor).
But yes, this was probably an inappropriate place for an Apple dig.
Considering the Jury misconduct that transpired with their lawsuit on the Samsung deal, you might want to dial that fanboism back a bit... But then, this is /. and you posted as an anon coward...unsurprising.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
There's an additional layer of subtlety in that if MS's claim is correct (and they win their case), one of the possible remedies the US court could order is that Motorola retroactively licenses their patents to MS at a FRAND rate. If that happens, then MS won't have infringed Motorola's patents in Germany (because they would have been licensed) and so the German injunction (which is only an interim one, iirc) would be wrongly granted, and Motorola would have to compensate MS (probably to the tune of hundreds of millions of €s or $s) for the lost sales.
So the US breach of contract case has a very significant bearing on the German patent infringement case, and Motorola really shouldn't have started the latter before the first was finished.
[As an aside, MS couldn't bring the contract case in Germany because Germany doesn't have the relevant third-party contract laws that they need to use. However, Motorola have counter-claimed in the US with the patent infringement stuff.]
Californians are the new Nigerians. But without any old culture. Cheap booze, crack, surfers, mexicans, polluted air, courts smoking crack and child molesters. What more could you ask for? Porn? Sure, it is there too.
If that happens, then MS won't have infringed Motorola's patents in Germany (because they would have been licensed) and so the German injunction (which is only an interim one, iirc) would be wrongly granted, and Motorola would have to compensate MS (probably to the tune of hundreds of millions of €s or $s) for the lost sales.
No, thats like saying you can a conviction for driving without a license after you've been found guilty if you get a license at a later date. Motorola would only be liable for losses after the license is granted but the injunction would still have been valid.
The fact that you don't like their ruling, or their reason for making the ruling, doesn't make it misconduct. But nice anti-Apple trolling nonetheless.
Foreigners, your puny laws are no match for our U.S. Courts Of Appeal.
I see you take "activist judge" to mean any judge who disagrees with you rather than basing their rulings on the law.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Global jurisdiction would imply that jurisdiction C can claim jurisdiction, and you don't operate there at all. The US Constitution doesn't allow that, and even the international criminal court (probably as close to global jurisdiction as it gets) is technically complementary jurisdiction IIRC, since countries still have jurisdiction to try their own war criminals--the ICC only does it if they don't. And it generally only applies to countries which are party to the Rome Statute, so they've consented.
If it really were global jurisdiction, people like Kaderov would not be protected just because they do whatever Putin wants.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
It's not a PATENT dispute at the core, it's a CONTRACT dispute, and Morotola sued about the breach in the US. International contract law is a huge, complicated area, so I'm going to have to assume a Federal judge knows more about the field than a bunch of armchair contract lawyers on slashdot - especially when both of the countries who entered into the contract are American, making the jurisdiction pretty obvious.
Here's a starting point if you really care... http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/sale_goods/1980CISG.html
Because that is in anyway what happened.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Fascinating. But there's also a specific case where MMI won in the US but there's an injunction in Germany ('762 patent). Both Apple and MS use Germany to block products, so this is more related to the fact that there's an open case in the US still?
Well, yes, the question is basically if it's legal from a German point of view, e.g. there are limits how much share owners can dictate behavior to officers of a GmbH or AG (where the companies are basically legal persons, and the officers of the company are kind of guardians for it).
For example the EU does have explicit laws that criminalize applying Helms-Burton inside Europe, the usual way is that the OFAC gives exceptions for US-owned EU companies.
So I guess Motorola could probably construct it in such a way that they enforce the injunction, BUT the question is, do they want to piss of the US judge?
No. You can't tell something that doesn't exist to do anything.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
go read the treaty of lisbon
yes because having a juror who uses incorrect personal information is winning on the merits......
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The US court has no business looking at what is happening in Germany. German courts hold sway over what happens in Germany. US courts hold sway over what happens in the US, and that's where their 'dominion' ends. Even if the legal contract say some blurb about 'in the state of' whatever, the laws apply based on the jurisdiction wherever its at. Even their "Destructive Mighty Corporations Act" (DMCA), stops at the border. It doesn't apply anywhere else. They might want to rule the world, and I want a pony, but neither is about to happen. They can try and convince other countries to create laws as abusive as the "Destructive Mighty Corporations Act", but most other countries aren't ruled by corporations and thus, see these laws as abusive, undemocratic, and fly in the face of free and open democracies. The German courts will cheerfully ignore anything that any California judge says.
There is something called "in personam" jurisdiction, it basically means that you can be sued wherever you live, for any cause of action, regardless of whether that cause of action accrued in the jurisdiction. Like if I owe someone money for a debt incurred in Turkey, they could come sue me in the U.S., since I'm in the U.S., and so is all my money. "Global Jurisdiction" or whatever it seems you are talking about, would seem to imply I could sue a Russian in the U.S. who has no ties to the u.s. over a debt incurred in Turkey, which is just quite simply not the case.
And it also is quite simply not the case that the U.S. law doesn't have jurisdiction over its citizens for actions which occur abroad, even criminal liability can be imposed, for example for doing business with an embargoed country.
This is not true. I tell my pet dragon to paint sunset seascapes for me all the time, but it kind of sucks at it.
Spitting counts as thinking now? Mensa here I come!
If you purposely disobey a court order, expect jail time for contempt.
Can a EU commission base a fine on sales made outside it's jurisdiction?
Apparently.
Apparently AC's don't understand the word or concept of "retroactively".
No, thats like saying you can a conviction for driving without a license after you've been found guilty if you get a license at a later date.
Actually, you can have a case thrown out for driving without a license, if you file to have a case that caused you to lose your license and have it overturned or changed to a supervision -- in the US. I can't claim anything in other countries.
Because the EU commission has fined MS Europe on sales made inside EU jurisdiction.
Apparently, you're an idiot.
But if the USA wants to ignore German Soverignty, they'll ignore presidential privilege for the USA too.
This is what happens when you think the laws don't apply to you: people start not bothering thinking the laws apply to you.
It's not a PATENT dispute at the core, it's a CONTRACT dispute,
No; even if Microsoft has the right to get a RAND license, they have not done that. Until they have a RAND license or a clear statement that they have a right to it they do not have a right to use the patent (aside from arguments that patents are inherently invalid; not available to Microsoft since they never advance such arguments). Microsoft should be paying the Motorola license and then suing to recover any part which is not "reasonable". In the worst case, Microsoft should at least be paying the amount that they consider "reasonable" and keeping the rest in escrow for Motorola.
As it is, there are two disputes
Any link between those is purely speculative and should be treated by the German court as a clear and very illegal attempt at an end run around German justice.
The German judge should simply impose a "contempt of court" ruling banning all Microsoft products from sale in Germany until such time as the threat against Motorola is lifted. This should be done on the basis of Microsoft's failure to submit to the German court and in such a way that Motorola has no involvement in or control over the order so that Motorola cannot be punished for it in the USA. I guess the correct way would be for some concerned German citizen to report this serious crime to the judge.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
The Ninth Circuit addresses that argument in some detail: it points out that just because a foreign suit is meritorious doesn't mean it isn't an attempt to do an end run round the US court. The US action was filed first, and Motorola's attempt to seek an injunction in a more favorable jurisdiction seems like a transparent attempt to apply pressure in the first-filed action. The US courts take international comity seriously; one of the three factors the court considered was whether the injunction was an intolerable affront to US-German relations. But here the US action, in addition to being first, would also plainly resolve the German action, since what the US court is deciding is whether Motorola is obligated to grant a worldwide license to Microsoft. If it does, then Microsoft gets a license and Motorola isn't allowed to assert its patents against Microsoft *anywhere*.
I don't think Motorola should do this; they have far more assets under the jurisdiction of the US court than in Germany and so too much to lose. However, I believe in Germany any person can initiate some kinds of actions against people who are in breach of the law. If a few concerned German Slashdot readers wrote in to check that the Judge was aware of Microsoft's contempt of the court, that might turn out to be an interesting situation. Judges inevitably come down much harder on contempt of court than whatever penalty the miscreant would have had otherwise.
Anyone knowledgeable in German law want to comment here?
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Which end run around the court? US patent law != German patent law and in fact the patents even need to be filed separately.
What this, and most other posters ignore, is that the German court already had available the fact that the US action was ongoing. It also already knew about the contracts. Even so it ruled that Motorola had a right to stop Microsoft.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
No, its operations are subject to both jurisdictions.
There have been certain countries with no laws against bribery. US companies operating in those jurisdictions were still absolutely required to abide by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This is why multinational operations are so complex. They must abide by multiple sets of rules at the same time. Some of those conflict. This is not a new development.
So yes, while there are many, many contradictory regulations that do not need to be abided by in certain circumstances, there are also many which do. Examples of those which can be ignored safely, as you noted, do nothing to invalidate the existence of examples which cannot be safely ignored.
All of those things are correct except the last part.
The US has the authority, as a sovereign nation, to require whatever of corporations constituted within its jurisdiction. When a corporation is subject to multiple, contradictory jurisdictions, it then must choose a course of action and accept the consequences of that action. Not all consequences are pretty.
Yes, to all of the above.
The question then comes whether they ignore the order and face the consequences in the jurisdiction whose judicial system they are ignoring.
Welcome to the world of operating in multiple national jurisdictions.
And prepare to pay heavy fines if you do not fulfill your local obligations, the way US courts behave, many local judges are quite pissed. (E.g. the US court tends not to comply with requests for legal help, but expects the local peons to supply all the stuff pronto.
E.g. the US does not follow court orders concerning giving evidence to the defense in the NZ Mega DotCom case.
The US also has this "funny" notation that it's agents abroad are above the law, e.g. see the verdicts against CIA agents in Italy, somehow the US seems to willing to extradite these so they can serve their sentences.
Well, the interesting part is how much owners of company with legal person status (GmbH/AG) may influence the officers of the company before it becomes legally awkward/criminal.
Motorola Germany.
Well, it's a member country of the EU.
The passing of sovereignty to the EU is a very slow process, taking decades usually.
So, there are no federal taxes, there is mostly no federal law enforcement (there are some special offices to combat fraud related to EU money, there is a "supreme" (kind of) European Court, but there is no European police in general).
Foreign policy is still mostly done on the country level. That's why the UK often plays the lap dog for Washington. There is no common currency as such, the Euro is only the currency of a subset of the EU member countries. While for most of Western Europe, border controls are a thing of the past, that's not universal also.
The European Parliament has been for decades only a fig leaf, and has gained powers as a counter weight to the Council in recent years. The EU has been for most of it's existence a system where the governments of the member countries choose EU officials, the Parliament being the only part that is chosen by the population. Think a House that has not many rights (e.g. it at least has now gained the right to veto most of the EU stuff), and a Senate that is stuffed directly with state governors that more or less trade horses for deciding who will be the administration for the next term. Ah, did I mention that for half a century, all decisions in the EU could be vetoed by any member country, decisions by double majority (majority of countries plus population) in some areas are also new stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution the Communist threat was handled by NATO, technically speaking the UK and France are nuclear powers. It's way harder to argue for compromise and solidarity if you are all driving nice cars and have not many pressing problems, OTOH enemy soldiers on the border, pirates and so on are a way stronger motive to cooperate.
But the funny part is, because of the common market, a sale ban in Germany amounts practically to an European wide sale ban, as US companies often choose only one member country as a distribution base.
You would have thought that the multinational corporations like to slip up their locations of their company into independent corporations to handle the local tax and laws.
This is the crux of the issue I think. Neither of the US courts have the right to second guess the German court. There is no question of fact that the injunction is wrongly granted. The German court has already decided this: the injunction is correctly granted, period.
Thus, the interesting question is: by compelling Motorola to forego its rights in Germany, are the US courts unduly meddling with a victim's rightfully granted legal relief against its aggressor? The US courts seem to be acting in contempt of the intent of German law.
Their reasoning seems to be that *if* Motorola was in breach of contract by not licensing its patents to MS at RAND rates
Does *anyone* have any sort of concrete evidence as to what a reasonable rate is? I haven't seen anyone anywhere actually put any sort of specific values on this. I would especially love to see this fair and reasonable rate compared against the rate that Microsoft licenses their patents to Android manufacturers.
:(){
Motorola sued Microsoft in a Washington state court. For an RTFA Troll, you really didn't RTFA (or even if you did, you still want to play armchair lawyer...)
Except they're doing business in other countries, and subject to the laws there. They're international entities.
I'd like to see the US court try to inform the German court they don't have jurisdiction.
My guess is that wouldn't get very far.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
What you say is a truism, in that a judge (or the government) could do whatever they really want.
However, it doesn't make it fair or even prudent.
California has very strict standards for pollution. But they only apply them within their borders. They don't say to a company that you can only operate in CA if you keep to the CA standards all across the world.
Ordering somebody to do something within your jurisdiction seems correct to the ordinary person. Similarly, ordering it worldwide seems an overreach. The end result is going to be chaos.
In their megalomania, politicians, bureaucrats, and judges have forgotten that level of wisdom.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Motorola sued Microsoft in a Washington state court. For an RTFA Troll, you really didn't RTFA (or even if you did, you still want to play armchair lawyer...)
Motorola also sued Microsoft in Germany. I really don't get your point? Do you mean that because the USA defended its self in Pearl Harbor it would be wrong for it to defend other pacific islands? Are you trying to say that because it was a Washington court and so not bound by the rules of natural justice they can't expect to use justice elsewhere? Are you trying to suggest that; because this is Microsoft, nobody is allowed to attack the sacred company more than once?
In fact; your ideas are bizarre and interesting to me; where can I subscribe to your newsletter?
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
But they ARE doing an end run around the court, because the issue, which MSFT filed first to have decided, is whether the Motorola patents are covered under the RAND agreement that everyone signed or did they pull a Rambus and hide patents to pull out later.
If the court rules that those patents ARE covered under RAND then their entire basis for suing in Germany, which was chosen BTW because they are the East Texas of the EU and getting injunctions is trivially easy there, will be made completely moot because they will be demanding an injunction for MSFT violating patents which they already had licensed under RAND terms previously.
To use a /. car analogy it would be like you going to another state and trying to claim the right to have my car impounded because you claim I was driving without a license while ignoring that I had already filed a court case in my home state to have the entire reason my license was revoked ruled invalid. if the taking of my license was ruled invalid then you would have NO right to touch me because your case would have NO basis in fact.
If the US courts rule that the US patents, which are the ones at issue here NOT patents only filed in Germany, are licensed under RAND and MSFT had already paid their RAND fee for using them then their entire case in Germany is moot, you can't block products for not having a license which they actually do have. get it now?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It really doesnt matter if its a US corporation. If its operating in Germany, then its operations in germany are under German juristiction no ifs no buts.
We've had a few instances here in australia where a US court "overrules" an australian one from having juristiction. The australian court, naturally, systematically ignores it. Those clauses of "All disagreements must be heard in x state" you see in american contracts have no validity here. To quote a lawyer friend, "Us lawyers dont actually get to invent laws or nullify them with our contracts, no matter how clever we think we are".
How is this insightful? It's blatantly ignorant of US Contract Law.
They're not doing an end run around the court. If, according to German law, Motorola is in the right, then they have the right to enjoin (in Germany).
Many companies have to do a lot of things in foreign jurisdictions because of European (or other) laws. It's out of line for a US court to say that they can't do so because a case in a US court.
I don't give a flyin' fuck if it is in Germany. The US Corporation is under US Laws, and the accompany local laws, but never do those foreign laws supersede US Federal Laws when it concerns a US Corporation. What do you not get? Contract Law is not Patent Law and Motorola Mobility [Google] is fucking wrong.
Yeah, how would it go over if a Korean court awarded Samsung $1 billion to make up for the case against Apple in California?
And the US Military could pull all resources out of South Korea, wash it's hands with diplomatic relations and North Korea could waltz in while Samsung shats itself all over its IP assets. When a US Company attempts to subvert US Law, even in a foreign nation, it runs the risk of being shut down. Get it?
Glad the fact of Korea being nothing more than a satrapy is cleared up.
I take it that US court opinions won't be bothered with in China and India, not being dependent on the US for their defense.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Therein lies a tale. BP used to be British Petroleum used to be the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, believe it or not.
It started out as the Anglo-Persian Oil company when a millionaire Londoner negotiated a concession with the Shah of Iran.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I don't think you understand.World over, you can sue an entity in a court of your country, only and only if the said entity legally exists in your country, and as such falls under your nation's jurisdiction. You cannot for example, sue the pope in Pakistan. He has no legal presence there, and you have no way of enforcing the verdicts. Sure, you can probably shutdown all the churches and arrest the clergy, based on their association with the Pope, but for all purpose you will be working as the principles of justice, and opening a can of worms. It is only and only USA that seems to think it can enforce its laws everywhere else in the world. What a subsidiary can or cannot do in a country is and should be subject to the courts of THAT country. But here, the moron judge thinks that he can dictate what legal recourse a subsidiary existing as a local entity in another country, has or not has. It does not matters what the parties said. They can only file a case in other countries, if they exist as a local entity there, and for all purpose they would be considered an independent entity no matter who their owner in USA was. If you start dictating what legal options a person/entity in another country has, the other countries will start enforcing their own reciprocal laws, and you will be helpless to even object, without coming out as a hypocrite i.e. persecuted minorities in a country will be forbidden to open a lawsuit in USA(parties are same)... this kind of nonsense leads to breakdown of trade even. So I repeat, the judge is a moron. US courts cannot really dictate what subsidiaries may or may not do in another country. The act of limiting legal freedom in another country, is a violation and challenge to other nation's sovereignty and legal system, and is pretty much illegal itself in first place.
The problem is that the German court already did that weighting (including the US dispute) and decided that granting an injunction is the most fair course of action. So they are overriding the very core of the German court's decision, essentially forcing their opinion of "fair" onto it.
World over, you can sue an entity in a court if that court has jurisdiction over that entity (and the relevant issue). Whether or not that court has jurisdiction is a matter for that court's procedures, and the laws which govern it. The ability to enforce a judgment is entirely different to whether or not that judgment can be made (although in some cases a court could refuse to hear a claim if it is likely to be unenforceable).
While I agree that the US often appears to overreach its jurisdiction, in this case the US Court is ordering a US company not to take a particular action (whether in the US or elsewhere). That seems perfectly reasonable to me (otherwise, among other things, companies - or natural persons - could act with complete impunity in international waters). While this may undermine the German court's ruling, that is a likely side-effect of having multi-national companies suing each other over substantially similar issues, under different laws. Of course there are going to be conflicts...
As for other countries enforcing their own reciprocal laws; this already happens, and has happened for some time. Courts in various countries are perfectly happy to rule against (or in favour of) companies based in other jurisdictions. It is one of the costs of doing business in several countries; you have to obey all their laws.
If it is illegal, under what law? Which law or legal principle says that country A cannot limit legal freedom in country B?
[Again, I submit that the judges weren't particularly moronic, but merely applied the law to a slightly awkward situation.]
Typical RAND rates are usually in the 1.5%-2.5% range. This changes if you agree to cross-license your patents.
What I expect is going on here is the same thing going on with Apple. Namely, neither Apple nor Microsoft want to have anything to do with cross-licensing, since it means they can't use their own patents to sue everyone else out of business. So they refuse the cross-licensing clause, then complain about the rates being "too high" and that no-one else pays that much, all conveniently omitting the minor detail of not being willing to cross-license patents.
This reminds me of the ruling by Judge Posner when he dismissed both Apple's and Motorola's lawsuits against each other because they couldn't agree on a rate. If e.g. the 1.5-2.5% range applies to the whole portfolio, Apple (and Posner!) interpret this to mean that using "one percent" of the portfolio means one percent of the fair rate, because any other rate is a “nonlinear royalty” and “mathematically disproportionate". Motorola failed to argue that buying the whole portfolio is like buying in bulk, and that it is reasonable and fair to provide bulk discounts. You could even say that bulk discounts constitute a "nonlinear royalty".
What this ultimately means is if Moto has 100 patents, and someone uses only one, what rate should they pay? 1% of fair rate, or "up to" 50% of fair rate?
:(){
No, I'm suggesting if you really care about it you can go read up on international contract law and the various agreements and treaties signed between different countries. I don't pretend to have read that many details of it, but I also don't pretend I somehow know more than the judges and legal experts who *have*.
My newsletter has been suspended indefinitely, as the UN has a much better one that can be found at uncitral.org
And as the article said, the US court wasn't telling German courts to do anything, anyway. They told *Motorola* they couldn't enforce the injunction in Germany because the lawsuit was still being decided in the US. I'd imagine if Motorola wanted to drop the US suit they could feel free to enforce the German injunction, but that would be moronic as their potential gain in the US is orders of magnitude greater.
Permit me to introduce you and the said Judges to the concept of International law(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law). You know, the laws which govern the conduct of companies and natural persons in international waters. And you might find that when corporations open subsidiary entities in another nation, the subsidiary always has to agree to obey the laws of the land. They cannot pick and choose and say, that hey we want to obey only US laws, since our owners are US companies. And for all purpose, they actually have to make the subsidiary a separate legal entity. To argue otherwise, will mean that they lied while entering incorporation in the said country. In case of the Union Carbide gas leak incident in Bhopal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster#Legal_proceedings_leading_to_the_settlement), the very excuse used the said parent US company Dow Chemicals/Union Carbide was that the parent company was a separate entity and as such was not under Indian Jurisdiction. So you can decide up whether these are "more or less same parties" or different ones. Else you are just advocating for opportunistic interpretation of law, on the line of "having one's cake and eating it too".
I think you still aren't getting this. There are real reasons why what is a contractual dispute in one place may not be a contractual dispute in another. For example a number of cartel like agreements would be legal in the US but not in the EU. A contract which is enforcable in the US may not be enforcable in Germany. Microsoft has the right to attempt to persuade the German that it has a potentially valid contract. It also has the right to persuade the German court that there is a clause in the contract which means the contract should be decided in the USA and that Motorola has accepted that. If it passed those barriers then it would have the right to demand, from the German court, that the German injunction should be suspended. The US court should even write to the German court and say that it has a dispute which it believes should interact with the German dispute.
If, however, the German court decides that there is no contract dispute here, even after hearing that there is a contract dispute in the USA, and decides that an injunction is needed, then that is for the German court to decide without US interference. Motorola and Microsoft agreed to follow German law when they started working in Germany. They must be made to do so. An injunction is normally granted when it is not guaranteed that a wrong will be righted with money. If Microsoft is allowed to deliver illegal products it is the German consumer that will suffer as they have before. The German court should come down extremely hard on this attempt to avoid it's jurisdiction. All Microsoft products should be banned in at least Germany and probably the whole of Europe until it is clear that Microsoft will obey the law.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Which bits were you thinking of? The unofficial agreements that ships are under the jurisdiction of the country of their flag (that is, allowing a country to extend its reach beyond its borders) or the stuff about universal jurisdiction over certain crimes (again, allowing countries to extend their reach outside their traditional borders, potentially leading to multi-jurisdiction liabilities and conflicts). Or were you referring to the "Law of the Sea", which the US has never signed? International Law is one of those things that is a huge mess, and no one really understands, so isn't usually that relevant.
Perhaps I wasn't clear; what I was trying to say was that the a company operating across several jurisdictions *has* to obey *all* sets of laws. Of course it cannot choose (well, some places give a choice of jurisdiction for tax purposes, but that varies quite a lot). As far as I know, they don't have to create a subsidiary in each country, but it tends to make things easier.
And now we get onto the issue of separate legal personality and piercing the veil of incorporation, which are really interesting areas of company law. From the link in the Bhopal case (one heavily criticised), the US Court of Appeal found that UCIL was "separate entity, owned, managed and operated exclusively by Indian citizens in India", which obviously isn't the case with Motorola. I'm not sure what the principles of veil piercing are in the US, but it is perfectly possible in some jurisdictions for a parent to be held liable for the actions of a subsidiary.
However, all of this is moot in this specific case for two reasons. Firstly, all the companies involved on the Motorola side are US companies, and General Instrument Corporation (the subsidiary which won the German injunction) is also a party to the US litigation. So you can think of the order as creating the obligation not to enforce the injunction as being placed on GIC, not Motorola Mobility Inc. if it helps. [As an aside, Microsoft Corporation is a party to both cases as well].
Secondly, and most importantly, Motorola *accepted* that the parties in both cases were the same. They're not arguing the point - they conceded jurisdiction.
Negative. No company operates across several jurisdictions directly in the first place. You HAVE to create a legal local entity to do business in a country. Almost any country at that. For example, Microsoft Japan or IBM Japan are completely different local legal entities for all legal purpose. This is done, to make it possible to sue such multi-national entities locally. Microsoft China for example, HAS to follow Chinese laws, even if these are contradicting USA laws. It would not matters what Microsoft China conceded or did did not concede regards its identity. By ruling that a US company(Microsoft here) that apparently initially subjected itself to obeying German laws, can go and neutralize and ignore the rulings of German legal system, the judge directly attacked the sovereignty of Germany. If the dispute was indeed between two US companies, how on earth would they have been allowed to file a lawsuit in Germany instead of their own country? German lawsuit and US lawsuit may be related, but are under two different jurisdictions.
Do you have a source for any of that?
Because I have a source contradicting it. A quick check through recent reported case decisions of the English courts includes this case, dated 5th September, where the defendant is a US company, and also this one where the claimant is a US company, dated 31st July. And that was just a quick search for "Inc" (which is a US abbreviation; the UK equivalents are Ltd or plc., or their Welsh translations).
And I can quote several copyright cases too to add to yours, where the claimants are American. Well obviously, you do not necessarily have to be a local, to sue, if the other party at least, is local. If local copyright law makes something illegal, you can pretty much go and sue the other person in same jurisdiction. If someone stole your entire book verbatim to make a local TV serial or un-authorised film, you will obviously go to that country and sue the culprits there, no matter what your own citizenship is. So let us take your other case then, where a so-called "US company" is defendant. Based on your first case, HGS is apparently bought over by the British company GSK, which is mentioned in your linked court ruling itself btw. So is HGS trying to enforce its patents in Britain or not? If it is, then why on Earth can it not be sued in English courts, since it has sufficient local presence? If the patent dispute is for USA market, then English ruling will hold no water, since Britain has no way of enforcing these in USA in absence of an actual treaty. I can pretty well try to sue Walmarts in Japan(Seiyu does not counts btw), but I will be laughed out of the court. On the other hand, I can go and sue Starbucks in Japan, which does indeed have local presence. Most of the other countries understand this, and acknowledge and respect this fact.
I think you may have just defeated your own argument there:
HGS is a US company, based in the US, registered in the US. It is owned by an English company. So... is it American or British? From your earlier post:
No company operates across several jurisdictions directly in the first place
If that is true, and the company operates in the US (which it does, or at least claims to), then it cannot operate in England, and so won't have the "sufficient local presence" you seem to suggest it needs to bring a claim. But it can bring a claim (or, at least, be sued), so one of those statements must be wrong. Who owns HGS either matters (in which case, the Motorola and MS subsidiaries in the German case are under US jurisdiction due to having US parent companies, so the US court is perfectly justified in giving the order it did) or doesn't matter (in which case, HGS shouldn't be able to sue or be sued in English courts as it is an American company). So either way you've got something wrong.
So, two points;
- Companies can operate anywhere they are legally allowed to. This includes operating across jurisdictions (otherwise think of the mess US companies would have in needed to have separate companies in each state, or English companies having to set up a new company just to operate in Scotland).
- A company operating in several jurisdictions must obey the laws of each. If a court in one jurisdiction orders it not to do something anywhere, it mustn't do that, or it will face punishments in that jurisdiction. This is what is happening with Motorola
While it is rare for one court to directly interfere with the rulings of another (which the US court hasn't quite done), it makes sense in this case because the outcome of the ongoing US case could affect the outcome of the German one (which is ongoing). Perhaps the title is a bit misleading, in that Motorola *can* enforce the German injunction, but if it does so, it may be held in contempt of court in the US and fined.
And I think what you are not getting is that it's Motorola's *option* to have the injunction enforced (or as the 9th circuit said, the injunction is "not self-enforcing" as Morotola has to put up a $300M bond to cover damages to Microsoft in the event it's reversed). And the US court absolutely has a right to tell *Motorola* not to enforce it *if* they feel doing so, as they said, "frustrated [the district court’s] ability to adjudicate issues properly before it”.
Actually, another poster already provided a reasonable analogy: if a child's mom forbids him from doing something and he goes over to a friend's house where his friend's mother ignores that and allows it, that doesn't mean his mother isn't going to punish him for breaking her rule when he gets home. If it's "my house, my rules" you're best off obeying the rules where you live.
In case you want to RTFO (I thought it was interesting): http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/09/28/1235352.pdf
What I pointing out was that your quoted case regards HGS was too murky. You are speculating yourself. HGS does apparently operates in UK regardless, since the case clearly mentions GKS as an associated company, not as a party to the suit. And further, world-over, when companies enter the market of a country they can do so only by incorporating as a new legal entity under the laws of that country. Companies thus operating in several jurisdiction have their different local subsidiaries obeying the laws of the country THEY are operating in. Case in point, Microsoft USA has to obey only USA laws. Microsoft China does NOT has to obey USA laws. This is particularly important since USA laws pertaining to privacy and human rights, may actually be in conflict with Chinese laws. Your understanding of International laws is pretty flawed. And the line in your first point is pure bullshit I am afraid. Do you mean to say that if the court in India order Google India to share private emails of American Senators, Google USA has to comply,since these are "same entities"? Keep in mind, that by undergoing incorporation in India, Google India is obligated to follow India's jurisdiction. But something tells me that Google USA will tell Google India to get lost in such case. So much for that theory. If you want to sue some company, you need not have local presence in that country. You do NOT need to open a local new company. But you cannot sue a local company like Seiyu in Switzerland for example, which has no presence in Switzerland owing to its being a Japan only company. I mean even if the Switzerland gave a ruling against Seiyu in absentia, how will it get enforced? Do they invade Japan to enforce it? Your understanding of how the international law works in such case is seriously flawed, probably due to USA's abuse of the payment system monopoly. USA is able to enforce out-of-jurisdiction rulings simply by abusing its monopoly control of credit card systems, banking systems, .com domain control systems etc. i.e. you may not come under our jurisdiction but we can still get at you by forcing your local bank to freeze your accounts(if they don't want to be blacklisted), by freezing your credit cards, your paypal account(remember the completely illegal freeze of wikileaks' paypal account?) or simply illegally seizing your .com domain name. Outcome of USA case technically has zero bearing on German one, since German courts simply do not recognize the rulings of any other courts. They will simply check if patent claimed is valid under EPO, and rule based on that. You might be shocked to know that USPTO and EPO are different entities and certain patents granted by USPTO are actually invalid under EPO(Check their approach to Software patents and Stem cells etc for example). US court is trying to interfere directly with rulings of German court. In effect what the US judge is saying is, I don't give a crap about what German court decides, I forbid you to do X or we will seize your assets here in USA. Not only is this undiplomatic(i.e. flipping Germans a finger), it is also unethical as well as a clear undue exploitation of Google USA's relationship with Motorola Germany.
Ok, so I spoke to an expert in company law today about this, and basically the rules on multi-jurisdiction incorporation come down to whatever each country's laws say. So you can have a company operating in different jurisdictions, provided it complies with the rules for incorporation in both countries.
Obviously is is possible for a company to work in different countries, otherwise how would it be able to set up/own/run a subsidiary in that country.
I'm going to use the Google UK because I have better access to UK legal and corporate stuffs, so here we go, after some digging:
So, the UK version is Google UK Ltd (a private company limited by shares). You can find details at Companies House (the site doesn't seem to like linking). According to this site, Google UK Ltd is wholly owned by Google International LLC (a US limited liability company). According to this document (and the previous site, but this is probably more reliable; there's at least one mistake/out of date bit of info on that one), Google International LLC is wholly owned by Google Inc (the US public company).
Aren't group structures fun...
So, let's say Google UK Ltd breaks English law, the principle of incorporation probably means that any judgment can only be enforced against Google UK Ltd. However, were an English court to issue a judgment against Google Inc, they might be able enforce it against Google UK Ltd (due to it being an asset of Google International LLC and thus of Google Inc. That will depend on the various rules of tracing etc.
Now, can Google Inc be sued in the UK? Probably. While not conclusive, there is this case. In this one, Google Inc and Google UK Ltd were sued for defamation under English law. At paragraph 2, the court notes that Google Inc is a US-registered company, and at paragraph 4, that Google UK Ltd was "improperly joined" to the proceedings, so aren't relevant. Google Inc had applied to the court to not exercise its jurisdiction (under CPR 11(1) and (6) - if you want more details, examples of when claim forms can be served out of jurisdiction - that is, on foreign persons - can be found in 6D PD 3.1 here).
It's not conclusive because the court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction because it didn't think the claim had a decent chance of success, rather than because it didn't think it had jurisdiction. However, it may be being appealed.
Anyway, so yes; if court in the UK ordered Google UK Ltd (or Google Inc) to hand over private emails of US senators, either Google would be required to do so, or face a fine for contempt of court (which, if made against Google Inc might be enforceable by seizing Google UK Ltd, as an asset of Google Inc - but probably wouldn't work the other way around unless there was a statutory method of going back up the chain). It could try to dispute jurisdiction, but could lose.
International law doesn't really come into it, as it is all done within each country's own jurisdiction (and international law is fairly wishy-washy anyway).
So... erm, yes, isn't law fun, or something?
First part of your argument WAS what I was saying actually. To do business in a new country, a company has to usually open a new subsidiary and enter incorporation. So in short, the subsidiary has to comply to local laws, while parent company will not need to. The wordings you are choosing make it seem like, Google USA has to comply with laws in China, India, UK, USA etc. all at same time, which is not the case. Google India has to comply with Indian laws, but can ignore the laws and regulations in China, and Google China need not comply with US regulations at all. Different companies even if parent owner is same. Ownership grants the parent control, but the subsidiary still has to comply with local laws (and only local laws). And btw, you forgot the union carbide case I referred to. Dow Chemicals distanced itself from any actions of Union Carbide India. Warren Anderson, CEO of Union Carbide who was in India at time of Bhopal disaster, was arrested and skipped bail, and simply disowned the subsidiary(one wonders if UCIL India was independent entity not owned by UCC USA, what on earth was Warren doing there)... and USA courts/government apparently disagree with your interpretation of Google UK/Google USA example you stated above, and said that UCC USA was not responsible for actions of UCIL India. So there is that. And then again, Indian government actually tried to get Yahoo, Google, Blackberry etc. to allow them to monitor communications. Yahoo USA simply refused on grounds of jurisdiction(Yahoo India had to comply). Basically jurisdiction is something more like an etiquette(come to think of it almost anything international comes down to same, be it laws, treaties, conventions). Most countries try not to overreach and have mutual agreements spoken/unspoken. USA's stance has been that it doesn't gives a crap about such etiquette and tries to claim international jurisdiction wherever it thinks it can get away with it, and keeps quiet where it thinks it will get an ass-kicking and will be forced to eat crow(You don't see it making too much noise in respect to China for example, despite IP violations, currency fixing and human rights violation. RIAA/MPAA have been unable to force US government to take any actual concrete action whatsoever against China regards its lax piracy laws, for example). That is all it boils down to, in the end.
But that isn't quite what I was saying; the company has to comply with the local rules for being an incorporated foreign company, not that it has to re-incorporate as a new company (because then it would be a new, different company).
What some companies (but not all) will do is set up local subsidiaries (usually to handle their local business and thus limit the liability of the parent company). So a company like Google International LLC ("GI") will set up a subsidiary, Google UK Ltd ("GU") in the UK. But for that to happen, GI must have legal personality in the UK (otherwise it cannot own GU), and therefore "exists" in the UK, and has assets there (at least GU). In practice, not all UK-based Google stuff is done by GU, for example, Google Inc ("G") appears to own the various .uk domain names, and also runs some of the UK services that it would be impractical or silly for GU to run.
So how does this work for liability? The principle of separate legal personality (at least, in the UK) means that GU is distinct from GI and G, so if a case is brought against GU, it can't (aside from in certain specific circumstances*) be escalated to GI. However, what if a case is brought against G or GI (as noted, this can be done)? While they don't have to comply with UK laws (in theory, no one has to comply with any laws; you just get punished for not doing so), if GI breaks a UK law, and judgment is entered against them, in theory, a court could order that any of GI's UK-based assets (including GU) be seized as part of the judgment. This means that a company operating (even through a subsidiary) in a certain jurisdiction must follow those laws.
Of course, if the company has no assets in the jurisdiction, there's not much the court can do, even if it does break the law. But that's a general principle of law (although then you have things such as extradition).
As for the Bhopal case; that is one big mess. From what I'm reading, the US court didn't say UCC wasn't liable, but transferred the case (against both UCC and UCIL) to the Indian court system, saying it was for them to deal with. In the end UCC ended up paying $420m in the settlement (UCIL covering the remaining $50m). So both UCC and UCIL ended up being sort of liable (UCC owned 50.1% of UCIL, hence it was a subsidiary of UCC, but not wholly owned, like the various Googles). Dow Chemical wasn't involved for the simple reason that it didn't buy UCC until 2001, 17 years after the disaster (and 7 years after UCC sold its stake in UCIL). It was therefore able to deny liability. Also, it seems UCC CEO Anderson was allowed to leave India (possibly "for his own safety", on a government plane) but extradition proceedings against him are pending.
Anyway, the main point is that liability generally stays within each separate legal entity, unless the local law allows it to spread (either up or down the chain). However, liability can sort of flow down the chain (to a subsidiary) in the sense that it is an asset of the parent, and so can be used as collateral.
Companies do operate across jurisdictions, and they do have to obey all laws (or face punishment).
Most countries try not to overreach because it looks silly, but that doesn't always stop them, particularly when there is strong public opinion in favour (see the Bhopal case).
In general, the big multinationals can get away with pretty much whatever due to having complex enough group structures, and being big enough that no government wants to annoy them (although the EU and US try to do so, as they're big enough to take most companies on, and sometimes have the requisite political will).
*This does happen. Sometimes for statutory reasons, sometimes courts get around it for policy reasons using joint tortfeasance or similar principles.