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.
...which is rapidly tipping to one side. Traffic laws were written with the assumption that most offenses would never been seen, prosecuted or fined. Fines were high enough to discourage the behavior, but no one expected everyone to be paying them.
Now the surveillance state wants to catch everyone, at everything. That being the case, I think we have to re-think a lot of our laws.
I work for a Chrysler dealer. Yesterday, we had training session on the Uconnect internet-enabled electronics systems in our cars. We were told "People don't buy cars these days. They buy car radios; the rest of the car is just to carry the radio around." Know what wasn't mentioned? Security - at all.
There's no such thing as "enough money" - that's basic corporate governance. The question is, do the expenditures to stop "piracy" exceed the losses from that activity? If we can demonstrate the program costs, including campaign contributions, exceed the losses - maybe the stockholders will make them stop.
Claims like this are already unsupported by law. Problem is, the cost of proving it, for the umpteenth time, are so high many defendants back down. What would be ideal is a rapid way for judges to look at one of these, say "bullsh*t" and throw it back, with a finding for costs.