The mine was closed after the approval of an amendment to the mining law which banned open-pit mining in the country.
Tough luck. Many bars and pubs were shut down under the Probation, just for one example. You couldn't expect to excepted from law just because you begun operating _before_ the law passed.
The company has already invested $92 million and it claims to have lost $1 billion in potential profit.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The company should (somewhat) rightly claim on the 92M investment it _already_ done. But what the fuck is this about the 1b it _expected_ to gain?! They did not done the work. They did not spend the money on the work, so why are they want to be paid for the resources they did not produce? Because it would have been nice?
Returning to the previous example: A liqueur shop should've sued the govt for lost profits too? They made investment, they expected profits, and they denied it because of a change in laws. If yes, how much profit are they entitled? 1 years? 2? Would that estimation include price fluctuations and other economical variables, or we should accept the word of the company that they didn't pulled the amount from their back side?
Re: Re: Re: Re: And you expect this corporation to do ... what?
It's indifferent how valuable the location is, or how much profit they _could_ make.
The only thing that counts is the real work they done. If the government take the test drill results, that's expropriation, and is cause for ISDR. If the government takes over their mine site, taking their equipment and buildings, that's expropriation.
Denying them permission to destroy the environment and health of people is not expropriation, and environmental and healthcare laws should always be enforced, regardless of corporate profits.
Re: Re: And you expect this corporation to do ... what?
What I find ridiculous is this is not about losing infrastructure, factories etc to an unlawful government.
This is about losing "expected profits", which is ridiculous. They go there, say "we have gold ore here, we expect to gain 1b$ from it (amount pulled from thin air), and if you don't ignore your laws and let us do what we want, we sue you for it.
I mean, this is as ridiculous as a bank robber suing the country for lost expected profits when he get caught.
Their only reason to exist is renting recording equipment. Multiplication and distribution is far too easy with the current technology to have to be outsourced to a recording company. This also imply that the label-owned-copyrights should come to an end asap.
The next step: corporations (big enough) declared sovereign nations. Then: When a corporation can't buy the laws, they rely on deniable assets to do the dirty work. These assets are called Shadowrunners...
This is false. M$ is a private corporation, they can do what they want with their code. Healthcare.gov was funded by taxpayer money, so the government should at least included an open source requirement in the contract, but more likely own the codebase. I work for an software developer company, and the code I write is owned by the client (it's actually stored on their servers), with no problems.