The only thing we know for certain is that we'll never know exactly what happened. Too many people with good reasons for lying. Saying they got in serves a purpose whether they did or not. What they found, if they did - hurts their case if it was nothing, might get found out if they fabricate. Certainly they'll never release real details. Give Apple information that might make it harder next time? Don't make me laugh.
How about thirteen cents? I never watch sports, and have actually edited all the sports channels from my TiVo channel list. I really only watch five or six channels, but they're in the top tier, so I have 160+ unused.
I'm active in local government, in a VERY small town. Even there, the city attorney spends time looking for loopholes to deny FOI requests. Not necessarily because we have anything to hide, just... because.
"I have never understood why someone would rather charge large amounts and make a few sales verses selling for cheaper and making lots of smaller sales."
Really? There's a cost associated with shipping, storing, and selling a product, and it doesn't vary much with the price of the item. MUCH more economical to sell a single million-dollar item than a million $1 items.
If you can sell a million $1,000,000 items... better still.
Sadly, I'm pretty sure they'd be found to have fulfilled the contract terms. Which of course they carefully crafted and buried in the fine print. Funny, you'd think politicians would have experience with such, from crafting budgets.
So, they'd have to get a judge to find the contract terms to have been unconscionable, or patently unfair. Problem is, while companies can't push those who make the laws too far, politicians won't push major contributors too far.
All we'll get, at best, is "They tricked us! There's nothing we can do!" while they wait for things to dies down before the next contract/donation comes around.
Since they like to pass laws, wouldn't it be simplest just to pass one saying French citizens aren't allowed to use Google search other than the .fr one? It makes as much sense, and would be effective.
Probably because the engine runs better or more economically in "normal" mode. I had a Ford that was the same way; you had to set a certain switch for emissions testing; difference was the testing stations (and presumably the EPA) knew about it.
This case is so blatant I figure we're not hearing the whole story. Gigantic multinational companies don't admit wrongdoing so easily. Either things are not what they seem, or the company believed what they were doing was legal through some loophole.
I don't know - wouldn't this depend on the terms of the contract under which the trademarks were sold? Since they were separate from the physical location, failure to pay rent may not have invalidated that sale. Perhaps the former restauranteurs plan to use the trademarks when they re-open in another location.
Certainly company names and trademarks have been sold and re-used before.
Careful about that. Research shows most adults unwittingly commit several felonies a day, under some obscure (or not so obscure) law or another. Would you like your days exposed to that scrutiny, and accept the consequences? It's the LAW, after all.