It cost them a little more than that. $7 million was their contribution to Uruguay's costs. They also had to pay the costs of the tribunal itself, as well as their own costs, which would likely be in the same order as those of Uruguay.
"The key point is that it is not absolutely necessary to include corporate sovereignty provisions in a trade deal to protect companies, because there is always the state-to-state mechanism that can be invoked if necessary."
No it can't. Only if such a mechanism is specified in a relevant treaty.
>> Mind that because they were working for the government on this, all of the people involved - engineers, quality assurance, devops, management - would need top secret clearances, with added expense for that ...
No they wouldn't. They would be working for Apple.
There is no blanket Investor State Dispute System (ISDS). Various Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), although not all, have an ISDN provision. Google would have to find a BIT between its parent and the State it alleges has harmed it; prove that it is a qualified Investor under the terms of the BIT; prove that the harm was real and due to State actions; and that those actions were not done for a purpose such as the 'public good'. In this case, if all of the pre-conditions were met, I'm inclined to think that their case might fall over on the last one.
Boy am I glad - to read that another potential criminal made nitrogen tri-iodide at school. We soaked blotting paper (if anyone else can remember that) in the solution, and left the residue in the school hall on the last day of school (1965). The principal swept majestically down the aisle resplendent in his robes, and then entered the mine-field. He jumped at the first explosion, then raced through the next. We thought it was fantastic. I still do.
What is the relevance of the marginal manufacturing cost?
Far be it from me to defend price-gouging drug manufacturers, but there is far more than that one cost that has to be recovered. Even though they lie about development costs, there are development costs to be recouped, as well as the cost of marketing, insurance, legals, and many more.
It's simplistic in the extreme to say that a drug should only cost a few pennies because that's all it costs to make it.
Sure, the parents were and are grieving. I'm sorry for them also. Which is not relevant to the issue, which is 'who can we find to sue, even if it's not their fault'. And what is this affectation called 'closure' of which you write? Suing someone successfully doesn't bring 'closure', it brings 'money'. Oh.
From another report '... Witkoff, who allegedly left the facilities unattended, shirked his urine tests and bought illicit drugs online. According to the complaint, Witkoff asked for, and was given, the knife he used to crush and inhale the pills that later killed him'.
Again, it's clear who was responsible for Witkoff's death. Witkoff.