In English judgment is spelt without the extra e when it refers to a legal judgment given by a judge. I don't know why, it just is. Usually the two spellings can be used interchangeably, but if it is an English legal thing, it never has the extra e.
One merely needs to look at actual definitions of to steal:
to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
I gather the intent here is that copyright is not property, even though it is legally treated as property.
to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
This definition doesn't even require that something be considered property.
Firstly, either use legal definitions throughout, or don't use them at all. Otherwise you end up (as you have), selecting whether to use legal or vernacular terms to support your case ("it's taking property" - vernacular definition, "copyright is property" - legal definition). If we're going with legal definitions, though, we then have to talk jurisdiction.
With your first point - yes, copyright is often regarded at law as being property. Except that's not what is being taken. The copyright is simply being ignored. If I ignore your car, I'm not stealing it. Stealing copyright is, in theory, possible - copyfraud (dishonestly pretending to own the copyright in something and enforcing it, including against the real copyright owner) could be an example, but you really have to be a big record label or Hollywood studio to pull that off (and they do).
The second definition is a much more non-legal definition. So we can respond to that in the same terms. Copyright infringement isn't stealing (under that definition) because nothing is being "taken" or "appropriated"; it is merely being copied (although then we can get into the semantics of "take" and "appropriate"; your same dictionary gives "to take exclusive possession of " or "to take or make use of without authority or right" for appropriate, both of which bring us back to "take"; "to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control", or perhaps "to transfer into one's own keeping" - I am obviously biased, but both of those seem to imply something more than copying).
It's also worth noting that the term "intellectual property" has been used to describe things like copyright and such for a century and a half. Under that model/viewpoint, unlawful copying is indeed theft.
The term has been around for a while, but it only really took off in the 70s, after a pretty intensive lobbying effort by the film, TV and music industries. It was their way of conflating copyright with "industrial property", pretty much in order to get the "it's stealing" comparison. That's also about the time the "Home Taping is killing music" and "Piracy is theft!" campaigns kicked off.
But still, no. Copying in breach of copyright still isn't theft, because the "property" part refers to the "copyright", not the information.
Of course, in some jurisdictions the act of theft occurs when you put the thing in your pocket (i.e. when you appropriate the item), rather than you walk out. However, it is often more convenient to try to stop the people as they walk out as it is easier to prove that the intend to walk off with it without paying.
That isn't to say the grandparent's argument was sensible, but your counter isn't always true.
In France's defence, the UK got the bloody parts of its revolution done during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1630-50s), which killed off something like 4%, 6% and 40% of the English, Scottish and Irish populations respectively, or around 800,000 people (including Charles I; you can't get a much clearer rejection of the notion of an absolute monarch than Parliament finding one guilty of treason and executing him).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
...the downloader might still need to be responsible for their own contribution to being an accessory of that fact by willingly participating with the uploader.
That's more or less what the English+Welsh law enforcement have been going with; using an antiquated (and evil) conspiracy law (i.e. the downloader is conspiring with the uploader, therefore both are guilty of a crime even though the acts of downloading or uploading are, on their own, not criminal). However, I'm not aware of any case successfully applying that in this context. I don't know how that would extend to other jurisdictions, but to use accessories/aiding and abetting etc., you'd need still need a primary criminal offence, which normal uploading isn't usually. I'm not sure what the Civil Law equivalent would be (both Portugal and Japan have Civil Law legal systems, rather than Common Law ones).
For non-criminal liability, at common law you'd be looking at joint tortfeasance (but that's not particularly relevant as I think most common law jurisdictions have downloading as illegal as well) - again I'm not sure if there is a civil law equivalent.
[Apologies for possibly butchering legal terminology.]
I think you may have just defeated your own argument there:
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?
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.
No, but *downloading* for personal use does qualify as "personal use". In various parts of Europe (and elsewhere) downloading stuff is perfectly legal (sometimes 'subsidised' by media levies). It is the uploading that is illegal.
What Japan seems to have done (I haven't RTFA) is not only make downloading for personal use illegal, but also criminal. Off the top of my head I'm not aware of any other jurisdictions in which this is the case (although the UK law enforcement groups have been suggesting that it could be for a while now).
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).
Permit me to introduce you and the said Judges to the concept of International law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.]
The German courts can, of course, examine the contract, but it couldn't be raised in that specific case.
The contract was between Motorola and the ITU. Microsoft wasn't a primary party to the contract, and so normally, MS wouldn't be able to sue on the basis of it. However, under certain countries' laws (including the US, but not Germany), a third party can sue for breach of a contract if they benefit in some way under the contract. So in the US, MS was able to sue Motorola for breaching its contract (by not licensing the patents to MS at a RAND rate), but they couldn't bring up the contract in the German court because German law doesn't let them.
The issue is that if MS is able to enforce the contract in the US, Motorola will have to license its patents, including the German ones to MS, and thus MS won't be infringing on those patents in Germany, and Motorola's German infringement case falls apart.
IANAL either (but hopefully will be in a couple of years) and I have no idea how this case made it through two courts.
From the original Daily Mail article (I find it hard to believe I'm using that as a reliable source, but...) he was convicted under s10 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sort of NSFW). It states that a person (A) commits an offence if he "intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in [a sexual] activity" and "B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over."
So somehow he is supposed to have "intentionally incited" the teenagers by sending that text message. Now, I can see that he may have intentionally sent the message, but I fail to see how he could have intentionally incited them to carry out the act. It is pretty clear on the facts available that it wasn't at all intentional.
Hopefully the court will publish a written judgment and we can see how they've managed to warp this offence to fit the facts (unless the Daily Mail is lying, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility).
I've done some digging, but can't find any judgments, however the case is real. From the Daily List for Wednesday:
LORD JUSTICE ELIAS MR JUSTICE COULSON MRS JUSTICE THIRLWALL DBE WEDNESDAY 26/09/2012 At 10:30am
201204801 A6 Craig Daniel Evans (Reporting Restrictions: Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies)
So those judges did hear an appeal, on Wednesday, against someone called Craig Evans, which involved some sort of sexual offence (that reporting restriction prevents anyone from publishing the names of the victims). So it could be true.
Hopefully the judgment will be published somewhere soon (if there was a written one). If not, I guess only the DM turned up and/or bothered to read the press release from his legal team (if he sent one).
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.]
... since that company entered into a contract, one of the terms of which was that it would issue fair and non-discriminatory licences (that being a condition of getting the processes covered by the patents involved adopted as an official standard by the ITU).
Whether or not it has done so is something the court may rule on later this year, but a contract is a contract.
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.
... 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.
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.
The plaintiff in the German suit is General Instrument Corporation, a defendant in [the US] case and a subsidiary of the Motorola Group. The defendants in the German suit are Microsoft Corporation, the plaintiff in this case, as well as Microsoft Deutschland GmbH and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd.
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.
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.
How can a court in one country overturn a ruling from another sovereign nation's court?
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:
[t]he German injunction is not self-enforcing.... to enforce the German patent injunction, Motorola would have to post a security bond covering potential damages to Microsoft should the infringement ruling be reversed on appeal.
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).
*polite cough* For the record Great Britain is not a country; it is an island (or an island with a few of the small, close ones as well, politically). In the same way that America is not a country but a landmass/pair of continents so maybe it is not that big of an issue...
You: We can't vote for the EU Commission Me: Name n* countries where you can vote for top people in the executive? Also me: The President of the Commission has to be elected by the Parliament, so you get to vote for a candidate who gets to vote for the President.
The people who make the REAL choice are the council
And the council is appointed by the governments of the member states, who are, in theory, democratically elected (mostly indirectly). However, following the Lisbon Treaty, the power balance is swinging more in favour of the Parliament, and they're increasingly throwing their weight around (e.g. ACTA). Yes, there are more improvements needed (such as giving the Parliament the power to start legislation), but in time it will happen.
*Off the top of my head, I can't think of any, so n=1. However, I have limited knowledge of most government structures, so there probably is one somewhere. Perhaps try for n=3?
If I want to sack Gordon Brown, I can vote for David Cameron, there is a clear choice which causes the change.
You can't actually vote for David Cameron unless you are in Witney, Oxfordshire (which has had at least a 10% Conservative lead since its creation), and then only once every 5 years. And that would only be in elections for Parliament, not for Prime Minister.
In the UK, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, traditionally being the leader of the Party with a majority in the House of Commons (currently the Party with the most members in the HoC). The Queen also appoints the Cabinet (on the advice of the Prime Minister), traditionally the majority being from the House of Commons, but some from the unelected House of Lords (and on rare occasions when someone else is wanted, they get created a Lord). The Prime Minister and the Cabinet run the executive branch of the UK government, and while in theory they are answerable to the Parliament, in practice they run the country without much opposition (the last successful vote of no confidence was in 1979).
Compared with the UK, the EU is pretty democratic; it has better separation of powers and more proportional elections, it has a Parliament that isn't entirely dependent on the executive (and is willing to vote against them when needed; ACTA was a big step in that direction) and is quite happy to "fire" Commissioners when needed. Combine that with the fact that the President of the Commission has to be elected by the Parliament, and it's pretty shiny. That said, it needs work.
Slashdot Mirror
In English judgment is spelt without the extra e when it refers to a legal judgment given by a judge. I don't know why, it just is. Usually the two spellings can be used interchangeably, but if it is an English legal thing, it never has the extra e.
Firstly, either use legal definitions throughout, or don't use them at all. Otherwise you end up (as you have), selecting whether to use legal or vernacular terms to support your case ("it's taking property" - vernacular definition, "copyright is property" - legal definition). If we're going with legal definitions, though, we then have to talk jurisdiction.
With your first point - yes, copyright is often regarded at law as being property. Except that's not what is being taken. The copyright is simply being ignored. If I ignore your car, I'm not stealing it. Stealing copyright is, in theory, possible - copyfraud (dishonestly pretending to own the copyright in something and enforcing it, including against the real copyright owner) could be an example, but you really have to be a big record label or Hollywood studio to pull that off (and they do).
The second definition is a much more non-legal definition. So we can respond to that in the same terms. Copyright infringement isn't stealing (under that definition) because nothing is being "taken" or "appropriated"; it is merely being copied (although then we can get into the semantics of "take" and "appropriate"; your same dictionary gives "to take exclusive possession of " or "to take or make use of without authority or right" for appropriate, both of which bring us back to "take"; "to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control", or perhaps "to transfer into one's own keeping" - I am obviously biased, but both of those seem to imply something more than copying).
The term has been around for a while, but it only really took off in the 70s, after a pretty intensive lobbying effort by the film, TV and music industries. It was their way of conflating copyright with "industrial property", pretty much in order to get the "it's stealing" comparison. That's also about the time the "Home Taping is killing music" and "Piracy is theft!" campaigns kicked off.
But still, no. Copying in breach of copyright still isn't theft, because the "property" part refers to the "copyright", not the information.
Of course, in some jurisdictions the act of theft occurs when you put the thing in your pocket (i.e. when you appropriate the item), rather than you walk out. However, it is often more convenient to try to stop the people as they walk out as it is easier to prove that the intend to walk off with it without paying.
That isn't to say the grandparent's argument was sensible, but your counter isn't always true.
In France's defence, the UK got the bloody parts of its revolution done during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1630-50s), which killed off something like 4%, 6% and 40% of the English, Scottish and Irish populations respectively, or around 800,000 people (including Charles I; you can't get a much clearer rejection of the notion of an absolute monarch than Parliament finding one guilty of treason and executing him).
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.
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?
That's more or less what the English+Welsh law enforcement have been going with; using an antiquated (and evil) conspiracy law (i.e. the downloader is conspiring with the uploader, therefore both are guilty of a crime even though the acts of downloading or uploading are, on their own, not criminal). However, I'm not aware of any case successfully applying that in this context. I don't know how that would extend to other jurisdictions, but to use accessories/aiding and abetting etc., you'd need still need a primary criminal offence, which normal uploading isn't usually. I'm not sure what the Civil Law equivalent would be (both Portugal and Japan have Civil Law legal systems, rather than Common Law ones).
For non-criminal liability, at common law you'd be looking at joint tortfeasance (but that's not particularly relevant as I think most common law jurisdictions have downloading as illegal as well) - again I'm not sure if there is a civil law equivalent.
[Apologies for possibly butchering legal terminology.]
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.
No, but *downloading* for personal use does qualify as "personal use". In various parts of Europe (and elsewhere) downloading stuff is perfectly legal (sometimes 'subsidised' by media levies). It is the uploading that is illegal.
What Japan seems to have done (I haven't RTFA) is not only make downloading for personal use illegal, but also criminal. Off the top of my head I'm not aware of any other jurisdictions in which this is the case (although the UK law enforcement groups have been suggesting that it could be for a while now).
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).
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.
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.]
The German courts can, of course, examine the contract, but it couldn't be raised in that specific case.
The contract was between Motorola and the ITU. Microsoft wasn't a primary party to the contract, and so normally, MS wouldn't be able to sue on the basis of it. However, under certain countries' laws (including the US, but not Germany), a third party can sue for breach of a contract if they benefit in some way under the contract. So in the US, MS was able to sue Motorola for breaching its contract (by not licensing the patents to MS at a RAND rate), but they couldn't bring up the contract in the German court because German law doesn't let them.
The issue is that if MS is able to enforce the contract in the US, Motorola will have to license its patents, including the German ones to MS, and thus MS won't be infringing on those patents in Germany, and Motorola's German infringement case falls apart.
IANAL either (but hopefully will be in a couple of years) and I have no idea how this case made it through two courts.
From the original Daily Mail article (I find it hard to believe I'm using that as a reliable source, but...) he was convicted under s10 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sort of NSFW).
It states that a person (A) commits an offence if he "intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in [a sexual] activity" and "B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over."
So somehow he is supposed to have "intentionally incited" the teenagers by sending that text message. Now, I can see that he may have intentionally sent the message, but I fail to see how he could have intentionally incited them to carry out the act. It is pretty clear on the facts available that it wasn't at all intentional.
Hopefully the court will publish a written judgment and we can see how they've managed to warp this offence to fit the facts (unless the Daily Mail is lying, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility).
I've done some digging, but can't find any judgments, however the case is real. From the Daily List for Wednesday:
So those judges did hear an appeal, on Wednesday, against someone called Craig Evans, which involved some sort of sexual offence (that reporting restriction prevents anyone from publishing the names of the victims). So it could be true.
Hopefully the judgment will be published somewhere soon (if there was a written one). If not, I guess only the DM turned up and/or bothered to read the press release from his legal team (if he sent one).
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.]
... since that company entered into a contract, one of the terms of which was that it would issue fair and non-discriminatory licences (that being a condition of getting the processes covered by the patents involved adopted as an official standard by the ITU).
Whether or not it has done so is something the court may rule on later this year, but a contract is a contract.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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
*polite cough*
For the record Great Britain is not a country; it is an island (or an island with a few of the small, close ones as well, politically). In the same way that America is not a country but a landmass/pair of continents so maybe it is not that big of an issue...
You: We can't vote for the EU Commission
Me: Name n* countries where you can vote for top people in the executive?
Also me: The President of the Commission has to be elected by the Parliament, so you get to vote for a candidate who gets to vote for the President.
And the council is appointed by the governments of the member states, who are, in theory, democratically elected (mostly indirectly). However, following the Lisbon Treaty, the power balance is swinging more in favour of the Parliament, and they're increasingly throwing their weight around (e.g. ACTA). Yes, there are more improvements needed (such as giving the Parliament the power to start legislation), but in time it will happen.
*Off the top of my head, I can't think of any, so n=1. However, I have limited knowledge of most government structures, so there probably is one somewhere. Perhaps try for n=3?
You can't actually vote for David Cameron unless you are in Witney, Oxfordshire (which has had at least a 10% Conservative lead since its creation), and then only once every 5 years. And that would only be in elections for Parliament, not for Prime Minister.
In the UK, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, traditionally being the leader of the Party with a majority in the House of Commons (currently the Party with the most members in the HoC). The Queen also appoints the Cabinet (on the advice of the Prime Minister), traditionally the majority being from the House of Commons, but some from the unelected House of Lords (and on rare occasions when someone else is wanted, they get created a Lord). The Prime Minister and the Cabinet run the executive branch of the UK government, and while in theory they are answerable to the Parliament, in practice they run the country without much opposition (the last successful vote of no confidence was in 1979).
Compared with the UK, the EU is pretty democratic; it has better separation of powers and more proportional elections, it has a Parliament that isn't entirely dependent on the executive (and is willing to vote against them when needed; ACTA was a big step in that direction) and is quite happy to "fire" Commissioners when needed. Combine that with the fact that the President of the Commission has to be elected by the Parliament, and it's pretty shiny. That said, it needs work.