I wouldn't write off their chances if they are doing this in USA. I mean some would have considered protecting the rights of "imaginary children"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996) pretty stupid as well, but this IS America after all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
You should wake up and smell the coffee sometime. India has been too controlling of Nepal and in resentment, Nepal has allied itself with China which has begun heavily investing in Nepal. In other words, the "buffer nation"(this was the reason for Nepal and Bhutan not being annexed by India in 40s), is now practically Chinese territory and a buffer no more.
You missed the point, I am afraid. But you were not alone. Other folks here arguing that Hitler lost, and you with your focus on WWII analysis too are overlooking the point, that Hitler should have been contained much earlier on, in the first place. USA companies kept supplying it with strategic supplies like oil(the stuff they used for their tanks, you know?) and steel and so on. Romanians were doing the same. And even when Hitler started threatening neighboring countries, USA very conveniently decided to stay "neutral"... till the war was brought to their door finally. It can be pretty much argued that without Standards Oil(Exxon) greedily and generously supplying oil to Germany, there would not HAVE been a World War II in the first place, since Germany would have lacked the fuel for its tanks. And like a true idiot, American companies are doing it all over again. With all of your manufacturing transferred to China, you have already given it the financing for all its future military adventurism, and by transfer of technology as part of said manufacturing(and by allowing Chinese students/employees to steal secrets), you are simply repeating your old mistake again. And if that was not enough, you are failing to contain China's posturing as well towards its immediate neighbors. If India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Japan etc become Chinese colonies(Like India was a British colony earlier on), it gives China complete dominance of Asia, and their next move will be to neutralize Russia, and then move on to Europe(and a financial take over country-by-country will suffice frankly. They do not NEED to invade. None of the European countries can take on China military-wise so there will not be any military resistance to begin with). And then finally when the most powerful opponent has been isolated from all other allies, it can be simply starved based on trade-bans etc. The only slight hope you have of containing them is NOW.
Germany was initially only limited to their own immediate neighborhood in Europe back in World War 2, right? How did that work out last time? China has a huge population that needs more resources. And this being a small planet, your resources are eventually on the menu, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
I will grant that your analysis is correct as things stand currently. But that kind of short-term thinking is the problem in the first place, isn't it? Intertwined dependent economies just mean that your ability to protect your interests in Asia is heavily compromised. If you actually took any real action whatsoever against China, your economy is toast. They will survive without you regardless, even if they will damage themselves too in the process. I mean isn't this exactly what happened in World war 2? USA was actually supplying Germany for its war machinery and let it grow unchecked. It just stood by and watched, till Germany actually became a serious potential threat. And now you want to do the same thing all over again with China. I mean most of the countries in Asia are already aligned to China, with exception of India, Japan and Korea. And if China starts a war against either, your only real option left is now to either do a Kamikaze with your economy or just let China do whatever it want, in order to buy some more time, at end of which USA status will simply be same as that of Japan, in relation to USA... an unofficial province/lackey. The real solution was to play the good guy card to marshal world support against China, and to shield your economy from Chinese influence. And you guys have already failed on both ends. You do have the option to wait till the end. But problem is that it will by then, be too late and just that for you... the end.
Interpretation is fine. It is the execution that is different. They can indeed classify him as a terrorist in same category as Al-Qaeda and Taliban and yet opt not do anything about him. There is such a thing called world-opinion that determines what you can and cannot do. Plus USA won't DARE to try out stunts that a rival power like China then can try against it. Imagine China declaring the rich and powerful in USA its own enemy of states, using the logic that their patents and policies harm "Chinese interest", and then launching their own drone strikes. Seems unreal? Sure. For now. Thing about tricks and weapons however is, that if they are seen to work, your enemies start using them too. If you are seen as a good guy, who has simply been doing the right thing, the world sides with you. But if it seems like two equally bad bullies duking it out, world simply gets some popcorn and watches. And USA has long since lost the power advantage it used to enjoy. Hell, they are pretty much China's pet dog by now. If you stop giving a damn about "political consequences", you squander the last bit of good will you might have ever had. And USA in its current state could sure as hell, use any good will it has still got left.
If so, then what exactly is the USA case again Assange? He is neither subject to US laws, nor is he as a non-citizen, non-resident owed anything to USA to protect its so-called secrets, since it is a country he owes no allegiance to. Please decide if you want to have your cake or whether you want to eat it.
Yup. They must be very rabid. That is why not only the minority muslims are allowed to have their own set of special laws, *defined by mulims* for them, but they even get special quotas in schools/universities as well as jobs. The hindus are so intoolerant, that they elected muslims to be Presidents repeatedly. The mumbai riots recently carried by Indian muslims were for protesting the prosecution of mulims *outside* India, and for supporting their "brother" illegal muslim immigrant invaders from neighbouring country who were rioting in north-east region and attacking actual Indian citizens. They desecrated Indian equivalent of US air force memorial. The people they targeted in these riots were by the way, non-muslims. Treason is apparently just a "perceived" offense.
GP is right. As an Indian I can tell you that for being majority, Hindus *usually* tend to be surprisingly tolerant of other communities. Not even USA comes close. I mean check out the plight of non-muslims in almost any Muslim-majority nation for example. Minorities, including muslims get reserved quotas in schools/universities and Jobs. Muslims have been even Presidents. And how the muslim usually repay this all, is by going hair-trigger every time they can get the remotest chance to do so. In this case, the illegal muslim immigrants from neighbouring Bangaladesh sneaked in the north-east region and started harassing the native local Bodo populace. Eventually the local populace retaliated, ending in riots. All well and good. You would think that Indian muslims would side with their own country against this wave of illegal invaders. But they actually carried out riots in mumbai to protest prosescution of muslims in Burma(India has nothing to do with this) and of their "brother muslims" in north-east. They would readily put their religion over their country and openly support treason. And the flaw of Hindus is to tolerate this nuisance and allow the minority muslims to have their own special laws and even protect their rights.
I will assume that by nice you mean rational and the competent. Unlike the very top, mid high-level positions are ones filled with people who are actually good at what they do. And these are the guys who left. The ones stepping in, will quite likely be less competent by definition. And you are assuming that the new guy has exactly the same vision, idea and team-relationship. These are people, not cogs. You cannot just pick up the next guy in queue, and fill up the position and expect to have things go on same as before, normally. Normally organizations are designed to deal with occasional such hiccups. But several of these at once, would be the equivalent of multiple cardiac arrests at once. You might pretty much assume that the top management knew something we didn't and decided to cash in, while going was good, since they decided that after that point things would only go downhill. There is no other explanation for the entire IPO fiasco.
The exodus of high level leaders at same time, however can definitely kill a company. Think of it this way, if several generals or even majors of an army quit at the same time, it leads the army directionless for a fair bit. If the competition is shrewd, this will be the perfect time to throw in some innovative twists and come up with something new. And if that happens, cash, which essentially comes from advts. will dry up instantly. And that will lead to even more mass exodus. One way to beat vicious cycles is to not to get into one.
To clarify, it is perfectly okay for people to lobby in terms of vote. Lobbying by corporations in terms of campaign donations, and bribes(e.g. future job offers post-office) should be illegal and should mean dissolution of the corporation if it was sanctioned by board of directors, or serious punishment crime amounting to life imprisonment.
No it doesn't. What democracy actually is supposed to do is fool people into thinking they have any options or alternatives, and guaranteeing the physical safety and lives of ruling elites. Think of it this way. The french revolution was pretty much two power-hungry factions vying for control. One faction used the common people for this. However this involved the other faction having their necks chopped. And people will occasionally grow too angry and discontent, and will want to replace the rulers. Democracy is really a way to avoid the bloodshed of over-thrown elites in such case. Both sides get to loot the people, and grow rich in turns without any actual risk of life and limb. There are not really any options here, if you think honestly about it. Take USA as example. Having no anti-lobbying laws in USA, no proper limits on campaign donations pretty much ensures that USA can never be a democracy in any sense of the word, except as a mere meaningless label.
Right! So if I don't like something you are doing(even if it is completely legal), I and my friends can jump you and kick the shit out of you and damage your stuff? Good to know.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't write off their chances if they are doing this in USA. I mean some would have considered protecting the rights of "imaginary children"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996) pretty stupid as well, but this IS America after all.
...They had a schedule for achieving controlled fusion? Do they have a schedule for warp drive as well?
That will in all likelihood be much, much longer than human kind's likely survival odds. So, the answer is never.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Nepal_relations#Economic_and_strategic_relations
You missed the point, I am afraid. But you were not alone. Other folks here arguing that Hitler lost, and you with your focus on WWII analysis too are overlooking the point, that Hitler should have been contained much earlier on, in the first place. USA companies kept supplying it with strategic supplies like oil(the stuff they used for their tanks, you know?) and steel and so on. Romanians were doing the same. And even when Hitler started threatening neighboring countries, USA very conveniently decided to stay "neutral"... till the war was brought to their door finally. It can be pretty much argued that without Standards Oil(Exxon) greedily and generously supplying oil to Germany, there would not HAVE been a World War II in the first place, since Germany would have lacked the fuel for its tanks. And like a true idiot, American companies are doing it all over again. With all of your manufacturing transferred to China, you have already given it the financing for all its future military adventurism, and by transfer of technology as part of said manufacturing(and by allowing Chinese students/employees to steal secrets), you are simply repeating your old mistake again. And if that was not enough, you are failing to contain China's posturing as well towards its immediate neighbors. If India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Japan etc become Chinese colonies(Like India was a British colony earlier on), it gives China complete dominance of Asia, and their next move will be to neutralize Russia, and then move on to Europe(and a financial take over country-by-country will suffice frankly. They do not NEED to invade. None of the European countries can take on China military-wise so there will not be any military resistance to begin with). And then finally when the most powerful opponent has been isolated from all other allies, it can be simply starved based on trade-bans etc. The only slight hope you have of containing them is NOW.
Germany was initially only limited to their own immediate neighborhood in Europe back in World War 2, right? How did that work out last time? China has a huge population that needs more resources. And this being a small planet, your resources are eventually on the menu, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
I will grant that your analysis is correct as things stand currently. But that kind of short-term thinking is the problem in the first place, isn't it? Intertwined dependent economies just mean that your ability to protect your interests in Asia is heavily compromised. If you actually took any real action whatsoever against China, your economy is toast. They will survive without you regardless, even if they will damage themselves too in the process. I mean isn't this exactly what happened in World war 2? USA was actually supplying Germany for its war machinery and let it grow unchecked. It just stood by and watched, till Germany actually became a serious potential threat. And now you want to do the same thing all over again with China. I mean most of the countries in Asia are already aligned to China, with exception of India, Japan and Korea. And if China starts a war against either, your only real option left is now to either do a Kamikaze with your economy or just let China do whatever it want, in order to buy some more time, at end of which USA status will simply be same as that of Japan, in relation to USA... an unofficial province/lackey. The real solution was to play the good guy card to marshal world support against China, and to shield your economy from Chinese influence. And you guys have already failed on both ends. You do have the option to wait till the end. But problem is that it will by then, be too late and just that for you... the end.
Interpretation is fine. It is the execution that is different. They can indeed classify him as a terrorist in same category as Al-Qaeda and Taliban and yet opt not do anything about him. There is such a thing called world-opinion that determines what you can and cannot do. Plus USA won't DARE to try out stunts that a rival power like China then can try against it. Imagine China declaring the rich and powerful in USA its own enemy of states, using the logic that their patents and policies harm "Chinese interest", and then launching their own drone strikes. Seems unreal? Sure. For now. Thing about tricks and weapons however is, that if they are seen to work, your enemies start using them too. If you are seen as a good guy, who has simply been doing the right thing, the world sides with you. But if it seems like two equally bad bullies duking it out, world simply gets some popcorn and watches. And USA has long since lost the power advantage it used to enjoy. Hell, they are pretty much China's pet dog by now. If you stop giving a damn about "political consequences", you squander the last bit of good will you might have ever had. And USA in its current state could sure as hell, use any good will it has still got left.
If so, then what exactly is the USA case again Assange? He is neither subject to US laws, nor is he as a non-citizen, non-resident owed anything to USA to protect its so-called secrets, since it is a country he owes no allegiance to. Please decide if you want to have your cake or whether you want to eat it.
Yup. They must be very rabid. That is why not only the minority muslims are allowed to have their own set of special laws, *defined by mulims* for them, but they even get special quotas in schools/universities as well as jobs. The hindus are so intoolerant, that they elected muslims to be Presidents repeatedly. The mumbai riots recently carried by Indian muslims were for protesting the prosecution of mulims *outside* India, and for supporting their "brother" illegal muslim immigrant invaders from neighbouring country who were rioting in north-east region and attacking actual Indian citizens. They desecrated Indian equivalent of US air force memorial. The people they targeted in these riots were by the way, non-muslims. Treason is apparently just a "perceived" offense.
GP is right. As an Indian I can tell you that for being majority, Hindus *usually* tend to be surprisingly tolerant of other communities. Not even USA comes close. I mean check out the plight of non-muslims in almost any Muslim-majority nation for example. Minorities, including muslims get reserved quotas in schools/universities and Jobs. Muslims have been even Presidents. And how the muslim usually repay this all, is by going hair-trigger every time they can get the remotest chance to do so. In this case, the illegal muslim immigrants from neighbouring Bangaladesh sneaked in the north-east region and started harassing the native local Bodo populace. Eventually the local populace retaliated, ending in riots. All well and good. You would think that Indian muslims would side with their own country against this wave of illegal invaders. But they actually carried out riots in mumbai to protest prosescution of muslims in Burma(India has nothing to do with this) and of their "brother muslims" in north-east. They would readily put their religion over their country and openly support treason. And the flaw of Hindus is to tolerate this nuisance and allow the minority muslims to have their own special laws and even protect their rights.
I will assume that by nice you mean rational and the competent. Unlike the very top, mid high-level positions are ones filled with people who are actually good at what they do. And these are the guys who left. The ones stepping in, will quite likely be less competent by definition. And you are assuming that the new guy has exactly the same vision, idea and team-relationship. These are people, not cogs. You cannot just pick up the next guy in queue, and fill up the position and expect to have things go on same as before, normally. Normally organizations are designed to deal with occasional such hiccups. But several of these at once, would be the equivalent of multiple cardiac arrests at once. You might pretty much assume that the top management knew something we didn't and decided to cash in, while going was good, since they decided that after that point things would only go downhill. There is no other explanation for the entire IPO fiasco.
The exodus of high level leaders at same time, however can definitely kill a company. Think of it this way, if several generals or even majors of an army quit at the same time, it leads the army directionless for a fair bit. If the competition is shrewd, this will be the perfect time to throw in some innovative twists and come up with something new. And if that happens, cash, which essentially comes from advts. will dry up instantly. And that will lead to even more mass exodus. One way to beat vicious cycles is to not to get into one.
To clarify, it is perfectly okay for people to lobby in terms of vote. Lobbying by corporations in terms of campaign donations, and bribes(e.g. future job offers post-office) should be illegal and should mean dissolution of the corporation if it was sanctioned by board of directors, or serious punishment crime amounting to life imprisonment.
No it doesn't. What democracy actually is supposed to do is fool people into thinking they have any options or alternatives, and guaranteeing the physical safety and lives of ruling elites. Think of it this way. The french revolution was pretty much two power-hungry factions vying for control. One faction used the common people for this. However this involved the other faction having their necks chopped. And people will occasionally grow too angry and discontent, and will want to replace the rulers. Democracy is really a way to avoid the bloodshed of over-thrown elites in such case. Both sides get to loot the people, and grow rich in turns without any actual risk of life and limb. There are not really any options here, if you think honestly about it. Take USA as example. Having no anti-lobbying laws in USA, no proper limits on campaign donations pretty much ensures that USA can never be a democracy in any sense of the word, except as a mere meaningless label.
Which allows you to call the police and get him arrested for trespassing. It still does not however allow you to assault someone.
So are you perp#1 or perp#2?
Right! So if I don't like something you are doing(even if it is completely legal), I and my friends can jump you and kick the shit out of you and damage your stuff? Good to know.