Hawker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
 |
October 21, 2011, 06:22:50 PM |
|
...snip...
They are suing in a court of the country that issued the pattent, since that is a dispute. Had the issue been defective hardware from Samsung, or Apple not honoring a contract to pay for Samsung's hardware, Apple would've wanted to settle this is US court, Samsumng in Korean court, and both would likely end up settling in international court.
I'm not making this international court thing up. It's a real issue that businesses are trying to solve.
A court requires the ability to issue a summons so that if one party to the dispute is refusing to show up, he can be forcibly brought to court. I don't think you are thinking of courts but of arbitration venues. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 21, 2011, 06:29:39 PM |
|
...snip...
They are suing in a court of the country that issued the pattent, since that is a dispute. Had the issue been defective hardware from Samsung, or Apple not honoring a contract to pay for Samsung's hardware, Apple would've wanted to settle this is US court, Samsumng in Korean court, and both would likely end up settling in international court.
I'm not making this international court thing up. It's a real issue that businesses are trying to solve.
A court requires the ability to issue a summons so that if one party to the dispute is refusing to show up, he can be forcibly brought to court. I don't think you are thinking of courts but of arbitration venues. No it doesn't  If Apple and Samsung are doing business, it would be mutually beneficial for them to continue to do business, so both have an incentive to get the issue settled. Summons is usually needed for things like tort (intentional or unintentional harm). And if Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 21, 2011, 06:33:04 PM |
|
...snip... No it doesn't If Apple and Samsung are doing business, it would be mutually beneficial for them to continue to do business, so both have an incentive to get the issue settled. Summons is usually needed for things like tort (intentional or unintentional harm). And if Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again. So Peter cheats Paul in a business deal. Peter sues Paul to get his money back. Paul refuses to attend court. And Peter is told "And if Paul Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again." That's an interesting twist on justice. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 21, 2011, 06:46:55 PM |
|
...snip... No it doesn't If Apple and Samsung are doing business, it would be mutually beneficial for them to continue to do business, so both have an incentive to get the issue settled. Summons is usually needed for things like tort (intentional or unintentional harm). And if Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again. So Paul cheats Peter in a business deal. Peter sues Paul to get his money back. Paul refuses to attend court. And Peter is told "And if Paul Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again." That's an interesting twist on justice. First of all, businesses are not stupid enough to cheat other businesses. If you cheat someone, no other business will ever deal with you, and you might as well close shop. If the issue is that Peter promised working gadgets to Paul by a certain date, and the gadgets came in a week late with a lot of them broken, after which Paul decided not to pay Peter, then either Paul can walk away from the settlement, and risk others not wanting to deal with him out of fear he won't pay them either, or they can both come together for a mutually agreed upon decision, such as Paul will pay Peter for the gadgets, and will older another full batch, but will pay 1/3rd the price for the new batch. Both companies get what they want in that case. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 21, 2011, 06:49:35 PM |
|
...snip... No it doesn't If Apple and Samsung are doing business, it would be mutually beneficial for them to continue to do business, so both have an incentive to get the issue settled. Summons is usually needed for things like tort (intentional or unintentional harm). And if Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again. So Paul cheats Peter in a business deal. Peter sues Paul to get his money back. Paul refuses to attend court. And Peter is told "And if Paul Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again." That's an interesting twist on justice. First of all, businesses are not stupid enough to cheat other businesses. If you cheat someone, no other business will ever deal with you, and you might as well close shop. If the issue is that Peter promised working gadgets to Paul by a certain date, and the gadgets came in a week late with a lot of them broken, after which Paul decided not to pay Peter, then either Paul can walk away from the settlement, and risk others not wanting to deal with him out of fear he won't pay them either, or they can both come together for a mutually agreed upon decision, such as Paul will pay Peter for the gadgets, and will older another full batch, but will pay 1/3rd the price for the new batch. Both companies get what they want in that case. People cheat on contracts all the time and they do just fine. That's why litigation is needed. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
October 21, 2011, 06:52:21 PM |
|
...snip... No it doesn't If Apple and Samsung are doing business, it would be mutually beneficial for them to continue to do business, so both have an incentive to get the issue settled. Summons is usually needed for things like tort (intentional or unintentional harm). And if Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again. So Paul cheats Peter in a business deal. Peter sues Paul to get his money back. Paul refuses to attend court. And Peter is told "And if Paul Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again." That's an interesting twist on justice. First of all, businesses are not stupid enough to cheat other businesses. If you cheat someone, no other business will ever deal with you, and you might as well close shop. If the issue is that Peter promised working gadgets to Paul by a certain date, and the gadgets came in a week late with a lot of them broken, after which Paul decided not to pay Peter, then either Paul can walk away from the settlement, and risk others not wanting to deal with him out of fear he won't pay them either, or they can both come together for a mutually agreed upon decision, such as Paul will pay Peter for the gadgets, and will older another full batch, but will pay 1/3rd the price for the new batch. Both companies get what they want in that case. People cheat on contracts all the time and they do just fine. That's why litigation is needed. You're projecting. What business are you in, again? |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 21, 2011, 06:55:38 PM |
|
...snip... No it doesn't If Apple and Samsung are doing business, it would be mutually beneficial for them to continue to do business, so both have an incentive to get the issue settled. Summons is usually needed for things like tort (intentional or unintentional harm). And if Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again. So Paul cheats Peter in a business deal. Peter sues Paul to get his money back. Paul refuses to attend court. And Peter is told "And if Paul Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again." That's an interesting twist on justice. First of all, businesses are not stupid enough to cheat other businesses. If you cheat someone, no other business will ever deal with you, and you might as well close shop. If the issue is that Peter promised working gadgets to Paul by a certain date, and the gadgets came in a week late with a lot of them broken, after which Paul decided not to pay Peter, then either Paul can walk away from the settlement, and risk others not wanting to deal with him out of fear he won't pay them either, or they can both come together for a mutually agreed upon decision, such as Paul will pay Peter for the gadgets, and will older another full batch, but will pay 1/3rd the price for the new batch. Both companies get what they want in that case. People cheat on contracts all the time and they do just fine. That's why litigation is needed. You're projecting. What business are you in, again? Software and property. I regularly have had people settle cases as we wait outside the judges' chambers. And I'm sure you know that most people have the same experience. Litigation is a peaceful alternative to having to physically force people to pay up. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
October 21, 2011, 06:57:28 PM |
|
...snip... No it doesn't If Apple and Samsung are doing business, it would be mutually beneficial for them to continue to do business, so both have an incentive to get the issue settled. Summons is usually needed for things like tort (intentional or unintentional harm). And if Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again. So Paul cheats Peter in a business deal. Peter sues Paul to get his money back. Paul refuses to attend court. And Peter is told "And if Paul Apple or Samsung doesn't show up, there's not much the other party can do other than to never do business with them again." That's an interesting twist on justice. First of all, businesses are not stupid enough to cheat other businesses. If you cheat someone, no other business will ever deal with you, and you might as well close shop. If the issue is that Peter promised working gadgets to Paul by a certain date, and the gadgets came in a week late with a lot of them broken, after which Paul decided not to pay Peter, then either Paul can walk away from the settlement, and risk others not wanting to deal with him out of fear he won't pay them either, or they can both come together for a mutually agreed upon decision, such as Paul will pay Peter for the gadgets, and will older another full batch, but will pay 1/3rd the price for the new batch. Both companies get what they want in that case. People cheat on contracts all the time and they do just fine. That's why litigation is needed. You're projecting. What business are you in, again? Software and property. I regularly have had people settle cases as we wait outside the judges' chambers. And I'm sure you know that most people have the same experience. Litigation is a peaceful alternative to having to physically force people to pay up. Ah, you are a lawyer, then. A copyright lawyer, no less. No wonder you refuse to listen. It's impossible to get a educated person to see the truth when his income is dependent upon him not seeing it. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 21, 2011, 06:57:41 PM |
|
People cheat on contracts all the time and they do just fine. That's why litigation is needed.
:| Where the hell do you live? Even corrupt cesspools like mafia ridden Russia, Bulgaria, and southern Italy, and lawless places like Somalia value contracts highly and have severe penalties for breaking them. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 21, 2011, 07:00:20 PM |
|
Software and property. I regularly have had people settle cases as we wait outside the judges' chambers. And I'm sure you know that most people have the same experience. Litigation is a peaceful alternative to having to physically force people to pay up.
Oh... Why did they settle if they knew the judge would likely give them the same judgement/settlement? Or are all your cases usually the type where the person settling would otherwise get severe punishments? |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 21, 2011, 07:14:49 PM |
|
Software and property. I regularly have had people settle cases as we wait outside the judges' chambers. And I'm sure you know that most people have the same experience. Litigation is a peaceful alternative to having to physically force people to pay up.
Oh... Why did they settle if they knew the judge would likely give them the same judgement/settlement? Or are all your cases usually the type where the person settling would otherwise get severe punishments? In the property world there is a long tradition of people refusing to pay until they are on the court steps. The logic is that while you are suing, the bank may be threatening to foreclose on you so the guy being sued has the leverage to get a better deal from you than he originally agreed to. |
|
|
|
|
|
