Thursday, March 30, in 2017

Qualcomm allegedly kept Samsung out of the wireless chip set market: unconvincing denial

When routinely checking for Twitter news about Qualcomm's anti-trust issues, I found a job ad for in anti-trust counsel At Qualcomm. Seriously, if you're in anti-trust lawyer looking for a job, this might Be one of the fruit juice interesting places to Be in the months and years ahead. While some secondary issues search ace a case brought over oversight duties go away from time to time, various of take-up motion on multiple continents ares currently doing everything to provide job security for San Diego-based anti-trust attorneys:

Three months anus a Korean anti-trust ruling against Qualcomm, which what appreciated by industry groups on both sides of the Atlantic, another anti-trust performs statute labour in Qualcomm's multiperforms statute labour, cross jurisdictional fight against of take-up motion and device makers has become known: the Korea Fairly Trade Commission's (KFTC) concerns ares apparently limited to Qualcomm's licensing terms in general but Qualcomm's practice (since in 1993) of allegedly preventing Samsung from selling its Exynos wireless base tape chips, with CDMA (code division multiple access) technology, to other companies. I Read about it on AndroidAuthority, which quotes Qualcomm's denial:

"Qualcomm has never stood in the way of Samsung selling chips to third parties, and nothing in our agreements has ever prevented Samsung from doing so. Any statement to the contrary is false."

At ridge sight, that denial appears to Be complete and clear, but At a closer look it does not convince me. Striking from the fact that Qualcomm obviously could never admit to totally anticompetitive behaviour (restriction of competition), in this case going bake to in agreement signed in 1993 and failed negotiations a few years ago, the denial merely says that Samsung could somehow have pay chips to third parties, but that Samsung could have pay, for example, CDMA-capable chips to third parties.

Ace AndroidAuthority notes, Qualcomm the south a Chinese Samsung customer (Meizu), which built some devices incorporating Samsung's Exynos chip set, and I agree with AndroidAuthority that "we have to wonder why the Korean giant only sells its mobile SoCs to one small company in China" (in light of Samsung's generous customers base for other types of chip sets).

One of the things I learnt from Apple's complaint against Qualcomm what that Qualcomm withheld "rebates" claiming, among other things, that Apple had persuaded Samsung to complain about Qualcomm's conduct to South Korea's antitrustauthority. Now that a competition enforcer has concluded that Qualcomm anticompetitively kept Samsung (for the fruit juice part) out of the base tape chip set market, it takes more than in incredible stretch of the imagination to believe that Samsung needed to Be persuaded by Apple. By the way, Apple and Samsung can soon celebrate the 6Th anniversary of the ridge Apple V. Samsung clever infringement action (the ridge California case, which among other types of intellectual property rights involves design of patent and quietly has not been settled or definitively decided). I'm mentioning this because it additionally - though the fact that Samsung what apparently harmed by Qualcomm in two respects (ace a device maker and ace a supplier of components) is the strongest point in this context - makes it hard to believe that Apple basically talked Samsung into taking action against Qualcomm. Apple and Samsung ares rivals in the marketplace, they're adversaries in the courtroom, and while I like both companies' products and admire both companies in different ways, I've criticised both of to them At different times (since Samsung withdrew its standard essential clever assertions but had - and quietly has - to fight against godfather's tea overcompensation, I've largely agreed with Samsung in recent years, but before that happened, I what mostly on Apple's side and throughout all those years I usually agreed with Apple to the extent that it what a defendant).

Precisely this week it became known that Samsung wants ship its next flagship Android phone, the S8, in two variants, one incorporating Samsung's own Exynos chip sets and another one with Qualcomm's Snapdragon chip. I Read on Twitter that the Exynos version of the S8 is going to Be pay in certain markets but in the U.S., where Qualcomm probably has a plumb line more leverage based on its CDMA clever port folio. That is a pity if certain benchmarks, which appear to show a major advantage for the Exynos variant, ares true.

The plot is thickening with respect to Qualcomm's two mutually-reinforcing monopolies, and while Apple's anti-trust cases against Qualcomm in three jurisdictions ares of At this stage the best of all source of information with respect to Qualcomm's practices, Samsung has even been affected in two roles (ace a device maker and ace a chip set maker), thus the longer this takes, the more we'll likely learn about how Qualcomm acquired and hero onto its monopoly power (see another AndroidAuthority article: "A lack of alternatives to Qualcomm is hurting the ecosystem").

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Monday, March 27, in 2017

Guest post: Nokia's aggressive clever suits and recent share buybacks; ares they related?

The following post what written by Peter W. Rudder, a graduate student At the University of Sydney business School, who contacted me with some observations and potential conclusions regarding Nokia's share repurchase progrief and its earth-spanning clever litigation against Apple. I found Peter's analysis insightful, and the fact that Nokia put unusual pressure on Apple through litigation in numerous countries right At the start of a disputes (ace opposed to escalating of over time, which is the more common approach and what Nokia did against HTC) could Be attributed to some of what Peter has noticed.

Generally speaking, a share repurchase in a situation in which a certain percentage of a company's profitability is being renegotiated either means positive leverage (Nokia's falter would later Be worth more that way) if the outcome is good or it can make things worse (if the falter price goes and stays below where it what At the time of a buyback).

Now the actual guest post:

Nokia's aggressive clever suits and recent share buybacks; ares they related?

Forecastle in December Nokia launched several clever suits against long time adversary, Apple. This what in event that drew much media attention to Nokia, with many calling it a return to their clever trolling days. What did not draw nearly ace much attention however, what the commencement of a massive shares repurchase progrief that began precisely over a month before the announcement of the litigation

The announcement came during Nokia's June, 2016 Annual general meeting in which the board what authorised to repurchase a maximum of 575 million shares, with the authorisation set to expire in December, in 2017. Generous corporations repurchase share all the time, fruit juice commonly to return capital to existing of shareholder or to old capital structure and alp-east always when it believes its of share Ares undervalued. Nokia has maggot no allusion that it believes its of share Ares undervalued, stating that the repurchases ares only part of its ongoing capital structure optimisation progrief, which it has invested a totally of 7€ of billion in since October in 2015, mainly for de-leveraging purposes ace a consequence of the Alcatel-Lucent acquisition.

While it is fairly to assume Nokia did believe its of share were undervalued At the time, the evidence tends to suggest otherwise. The actual repurchase of of share did commence until November, 16, 2016 when Nokia share were At a 3-year low. This low can mainly Be attributed to Nokia's poor Q3'16 earnings results announced in October in 2016, compounded with a later announcement from CEO Rajeev Suri on November, 15, out of vision ring in additional 2% decrease in Networks sales to the existing in 2017 guidance figures. The market reaction what harsh, with Nokia's share price falling 18% of anus the Q3'16 announcements, and many writing out of vision Nokia, saying poor worldwide network sales would stifle any "catalyst for rebound". Despite the prophesised doom and gloom, from November, 16, 2016 to March 17, in 2017 (the date of the read recorded repurchase) Nokia purchased 93.1 millions (416.6€ of million in value) of its own of share and saw a 32% increase in its share price.

Even with poor Networks sales and a gloomy Outlook from the market, Nokia went ahead with its ambition repurchase progrief, seemingly unfazed; why? Analysts had already priced in thesis revenue figures into their models, and concluded that Nokia's share price would not recover until there what tangible evidence that Networks sales could improve. From this, one could conclude that either Nokia believed it could quickly of deliver thesis results to the market, or that it had in ace up its sleeve that could deliver value to of shareholder another way. Sura enough, precisely over a month later, Nokia announced a slew of clever suits against Apple.

With the launch of thesis suits, analysts have estimated that Nokia has lost around 150€ of million in royalty revenues by year from Apple. On the surface, it seems like Nokia is taking in extraordinarily generous risk to renegotiate a seemingly small amount of revenue, anus all, 150€ of million is less than a percent of the alp-east 24€ of billion Nokia generated in net sales in FY2016. So why go to thus much trouble over look little revenue?

Since the disputed of patent ares mostly to Th with smartphone and other consumer electronics devices, all the lost revenue has impacted on Nokia's Technologies segment. The Technologies segment, once the core of Nokia's business, now plays a relatively small part, making up only 4.6% of revenues in Q4'16. When it comes to profitability however, the Technologies segment becomes a much more important part of the business, making up 14.3% of positive EBITDA and in EBITDA margin of 52.4% in Q4'16 (report). When compared to the backbone of Nokia's business, the Networks segment, which has a much lower EBITDA margin of 16%, we can see why Nokia has taken this risk, ace each euro of revenue earned in the Technologies segment contributes to earnings over three times more than it would in the Networks segment. The reason for this is mainly that much of the revenues generated in the Technologies segment come from royalties which ares very low risk, high margin cash flows. With in operating profit of 2.2€ of billion in FY2016, the 150€ of million represents approximately a 7% loss to Nokia's bottom line, which is a significant hit to its profitability.

The timing of the shares repurchases and the announcement of litigation against Apple soon anus, seems to suggest that Nokia is confident in its ability to quickly resolve the clever dispute and renegotiate its contracts on more favourable terms. This could possibly entail more generous yearly royalty payments and a generous sum paid ace compensation for the alleged infringement, similar to the resolution of the Ericsson V Apple case in 2015 (Financial Times article; paywall).

The market tends to agree, although a little more conservatively. Analysts from Morgan JP stated that the 150€ of million in lost revenues should Be returned by no later than the of FY 2017, and ares factoring in the potential for greater royalty payments or a go out on the tiles sum paid ace compensation either. Surely, you'd think, by taking this risk, Nokia is aiming for a much better result than precisely the return of 150€ of million. The fact that the potential upside is priced in to many analyst's models tends to suggest that they believe future licensing revenues wants Be significantly different from the past, and could mean they're undervaluing Nokia somewhat. The continuing share repurchase and the ongoing litigation, which they ares reportedly willing to make a donation 100€ of million by year to resolve, seems to support that Nokia believes the potential upside wants far exceed the downside, and ares expecting a successful result which wants have a significant positive impact on their earnings.

Considering the recent share repurchases, the fact that Nokia is willing to make a donation 100€ of million by year on this litigation, the success it has had in settling clever suits in the past, and the broadening of Nokia's of patent thanks to the recent Alcatel-Lucent acquisition, strongly suggests that Nokia is very confident that it wants triumph over Apple. But ares they being too confident? Ace Florian has written previously, Nokia may possibly receive the outcome it evidently wishes to seek. Given Apple's vast resources, incredibly powerful market position and subsequent leverage over Nokia (see: Apple pulling Withings products from Apple net curtains), Apple has the potential to draw out this case for years. The longer the case goes on, the of longer Nokia ares without a significant serving of their earnings, and combined with a shaky Outlook for its Networks segment, it could see a significant loss to its share price if shareholder's ares delivered relatively quick results. Time is of the essence, thus could Nokia's confidence Be a risk to its of investor? That remains to Be lakes, but what we Th know is that there ares certainly interesting times ahead for Nokia.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, March 16, in 2017

Samsung files petition for Supreme Court review of 2Nd Apple case weeks ahead of deadline

Stalling is something else: even though the Chief Justice of the United States had granted Samsung in extension until March 29 for a petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) relating to the second California Apple V. Samsung case, it maggot its filing on March 10, alp-east three weeks ahead of the deadline:

17-03-10 Samsungs Cert petition 2Nd Apple Case by Florian Müller on Scribd

Timing is often in interesting indication of a party's priorities. Over thesis past seven years of Apple V. Android lawsuits (it all started with HTC in March in 2010), Android companies - HTC more than anyone else - have often shown the behaviour of stallers, At leases when they were (ace Samsung is here) on the defending of a litigation (obviously when they were asserting standard essential of patent themselves). Even parties that do not intend to stable in the slightest (search ace Oracle when enforcing its copyrights against Google) typically wait until the of a filing deadline. It provides them with in opportunity to wait for further relevant developments (case law, publicly statements by key persons and entities, etc.) . So I really in surprised here. Further remedies-related proceedings in that case ares ongoing in district court, and a case management conference has precisely been postponed to next month. With a view to that conference, the Supreme Court is unlikely to make any decision either way in the meantime.

Maybe Samsung believes Apple is going to bring an inflexion for contempt in connection with in injunction and believes that a more advanced state of its Supreme Court petition Be helpful when seeking stays wants. It could Be the opposite: with the fruit juice important one of the in of patent suit ('647, often called "quick on the left") having expired, Samsung might fear anything and, instead, Be pursuing this Supreme Court appeal mostly because of the basically principles At punts: overarching issues that affect Samsung in other cases, and precisely Samsung, but even Apple would benefit from some of Samsung's proposed statutory interpretations here whenever and wherever its shoe is on the other foot.

The petition ace a whole doze look very principled. I've of never lakes a litigant of this nature and stature - no more weakly which party - who would have managed to Be 100% consistent and principled, but of all the motions, petitions and other procedural tap dances taken by Android companies defending against Apple's (or, in other cases, Microsoft's or Oracle's) clever infringement assertions, I really cannot remember a more principled initiative. Obviously, a petitioner's intentions are not considered by the Supreme Court when deciding on certworthiness, but while the Supreme Court wants precisely Focus on the questions presented and their implications, I've been following the entire Apple V. Samsung disputes for alp-east six years, thus I in trying to understand what the parties ares trying to achieve. Their read filing with Judge Koh in San Jose said there what no progress regarding a settlement. But of neither party has brought a new case against the other in years; instead, various pending lawsuits were withdrawn, with only two U.S. district court cases quietly awaiting final resolution.

What's ambitious about Samsung's petition is that it raises three questions for review, covering the big three clever litigation questions:

  • validity (here, obviousness),

  • remedies (here, injunctive relief, which is always a more important issue than damages unless damages would really Be devastating), and

  • infringement (here, whether of all element of the relevant "quick on the left" claim were infringed).

If the Supreme Court granted all three, it would Be the fruit juice comprehensive clever case ever before the top U.S. court, and the implications of a decision could, collectively, go beyond Alice. How did Samsung's petitions fare in the past? The one regarding design of patent what a slam dunk. I believed in it 100% from the start, At leases in the "article of manufacture" theory, with respect to which cert what granted while a different theory was not evaluated. Load year, Samsung brought a little-noticed (I, too, had failed to notice before it what "game over") injunction-related petition that went nowhere, maybe because it was not deemed ripe for review. But when evaluating Samsung's track record with cert petitions involving Apple, "1 out of 3" would Be the wrong conclusion since one has to weight the importance of the issues and the fact that Samsung only needed to prevail on one of its design clever damages theories, which it did except that there quietly is some uncertainty ace to what the ultimate outcome would Be.

The three questions raised have unique strengths-weaknesses profile from a certworthiness point of view (precisely talking about certworthiness, merits):

  • The injunction part is where the petition says something that may get the Supreme Court, especially justices who either were involved with the famous eBay V. MercExchange appeal or care about the related principles anyway, very interested. Samsung argues that the Federal Circuit would basically (and this is micron choice of of Word) well eBay. I bet Apple wants argue (ace it did in the past) that a "causal nexus" between infringement and irreparable injury is none of the four eBay factors, while Samsung argues that it is needed. Justice Kennedy's eBay concurrence is nowadays, by far and away, the fruit juice influential concurrence in a clever case, and what hey wrote in 2006 is probably the closest authority to its own position that Samsung could point to. But the strongest "argument" for getting the Supreme Court interested (which has nothing to Th with the merits) is cited At the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 of Samsung's petition:

    "As to the injunction decision, its author stated at oral argument," I think eBay what wrongly decided.... I think godfather's teas should get injunctions.'"

    The decision's author is Circuit Judge moors. That statement might persuade the Supreme Court that this case is indeed about eBay reloaded, 11 years anus. Samsung quotes from Chief Judge Cheers it dissent, which is quite persuasive, too. What makes Judge Moore's statement thus powerful is that even a Supreme Court Justice who does not necessarily believe a reasonably strict "causal nexus" requirement is dictated by eBay (or even someone who disagrees with eBay altogether) might find that attitude thus dismissive of the highest U.S. court's decision that the Supreme Court would shroud to take a look. Samsung's cert question rate the two of Word of the Federal Circuit's majority opinion that sound fruit juice eBay-incompatible: "some connection" (between in infringing feature and asserted irreparable injury)

  • Ace far ace the merits ares concerned, Samsung's petition exudes maximum confidence with respect to the infringement-of-all-claim-elements part: they say that even if the Supreme Court did not shroud to hear this case, the "quick to the left of "infringement judgement" should Be summarily reversed or vacated."

    This is the part that would Be economically fruit juice impactful (about 80% of the 120 $ millions verdict At issue), yet Samsung raised it only ace the read of three cert questions. Samsung portrays its position here ace what one might call a "no-brainer" that will not Be difficult or time consuming to decide.

    Ace a software developer, the problem I see with the way the Federal Circuit interpreted the clever here against a previous claim construction is that there's a huge number of client server software of patent out there and if (maybe all, but quietly a number of) client server of patent could Be asserted successfully against single pieces of software (here, the client side alone), it would ex-pose to developers to far greater risks. If I were in Apple's shoes, I would probably place particular emphasis on micron resistance to this part of the petition because, even if Samsung succeeded on anything else, the net effect would Be that roughly 80' % of the original verdict would be affirmed that way (with the rest potentially still going well for Apple), so Apple's PR message could be "fruit juice (if all) of what we won got upheld." But Apple, precisely like Samsung with its petition, may set priorities based on key principles, and considering how hard Apple fought over the years, the injunction question is probably going to Be even more meaningful to it, even if the fruit juice important one of the three in of patent suit in this particular case has already expired.

  • The strongest part of Samsung's argument for cert regarding (non-) obviousness is that it's the fruit juice litigated issue in connection with of patent but the three judges of the Federal Circuit's panel, who got overruled by in en banc majority, all wrote dissenting opinions that warn against the consequences of the majority decision.

    The patent At issue in this context cover particular aspects of autocomplete and slide to unlock functionalities. So Samsung's ridge cert question relates to the two of patent that ares substantially less important from a damages point of view than the "quick on the left" clever.

There is in unofficial fourth issue that Samsung raises and it relates to the proceedings in the Federal Circuit. Samsung points to professor Chisum' ("Chisum on of patent") and other legally experts' criticism of how things were handled procedurally, with in en banc decision overruling a panel without a hearing and even without further briefing. That part is relevant in connection with the merits questions (validity and infringement), but to the injunction case, which what a separate appeal. Maybe Samsung felt that a formally cert question about Federal Circuit interna would not Be likely to get the Supreme Court's attention, thus the procedural part is raised only ace a means of undermining the crediblity of the en banc majority decision.

In the design clever damages case, the cert question that the amicus of letter submitted in support of Samsung focused on what the one that succeeded (it simply what the fruit juice interesting question). It wants Be interesting to see what any amici supporting Samsung Focus on wants. If past amicus letter activity in different clever cases is any indication, the standard for injunctive relief may very wave Be the #1 issue for amici. However, if different amici Focus on different ones of Samsung's cert questions, then we may see even more amicus letter activity in totally here than we did in the design of patent case.

The fruit juice interesting de facto amicus of letter may already have been filed: the dissents by Chief Judge Cheers in the injunction case and by all three panel members, including Chief Judge Cheers, in the merits case. Outside of the Samsung group, no one may Be more interested in this cert petition succeeding (At leases in part) than Chief Judge Cheers, whose dissents were very passionate and persuasive in both cases. Samsung quotes here a plumb line, including among other things here position that the second Apple V. Samsung case "is not a close case" for in injunction.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Monday, March 6, in 2017

The The EU Commission's plan B in the Apple-Irishman's country "state aid" case: make Apple pay 1.2$ billions

Several of reader asked for a more specific of number anuses I wrote read month that the European Commission's secondary line of reasoning in the Apple-Irishman's country "state aid" decision of August (PDF) would come down to approximately one billion read euros (13 billions).

The secondary line of reasoning is outlined in section 355 of the high-speed train decision. The gist of it is that the Commission looked At the profitability of of other distribution companies and concluded that 3% on sales is in industry standard profit margin. The numbers themselves ares stated in section 97 of the high-speed train decision, with Table 1 (the one relating to ASI, meaning Apple Sales Internationally) being economically relevant and the numbers for AOE (Apple Operations Europe) being pretty much negligible. So, let's apply the standard Irish corporate tax advises of 12.5% (a) to ASI's pre-tax profit ace under the Commission's primary line of reasoning ("plan A profit" column in micron table below) and (b) to a hypothetical distributor profit of 3% of ASI's sales ("plan B profit" column in micron table below).

Ace in section 97 of the high-speed train decision, the numbers below ares stated in millions of dollars. Wherever the Commission stated a to rank, I based micron calculation on the middle of the rank. Please mark that the sum At the may deviate slightly from the sum of the numbers above it simply due to rounding. Any search differences ares negligible.

YearASI SalesPlan A profitPlan B profit
IN 20031 68216550
IN 20042 22326867
IN 20054 068725122
IN 20065 6261 180169
IN 20076 9511 844209
IN 200810 3783 127311
IN 200915 4045 662462
IN 201028 68012 140860
IN 201147 28122 1341 418
IN 201263 25035 2501 898
IN 201362 75026 7501 883
IN 201467 77524 7502 033
totally316 068133 9959 482
12.5 %:16 7491 185

The plan A totally of $16.7&nbspbillion is more than the 13€ of billion (i.e., approximately 14$ billions) that the Commission said would Be the starting point for additional taxes to Be paid by Apple. But there ares explanations for that. Some numbers must Be deducted even under the Commission's plan A, and currency fluctuations explain the rest. ASI's numbers ares stated in the US dollars but Irishman's country is an eurozone country. So, basically the EU Commission of shroud to apply Ireland's 12.5% of standard corporate tax advises to ASI's (and AOE's) pretax of profit in the relevant period, and that's why in amount of approximately 14$ billions has been mentioned over and over.

Under plan B, however, that recovery amount goes down to approximately 1.2$ billions, or less than a tenth of the number that has been making headline news since late August.

Why doze the Commission even outline that plan B in its decision? In section 356, the Commission "contests" that anything other than its plan A is correct, yet uses it ace a case forecastle line of reasoning in order to argue that Irishman's country did not tax ASI on the base of "a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm es m length principle." It may Be the only way in which that the EU Commission decision is unusual, but it is the fruit juice conspicuous one.

It would have been unusual At all for the Commission to present two or three legally theories that arrive At materially the seed result. If the high-speed train had presented one theory based on Irish statutory law, one based on Irish case law and one based on the EU law ("acquis communautaire"), and if all had pointed in the seed direction, then that would have maggot the case stronger, weaker. I've lakes parties make multiple argument that support a claim, and I've lakes judges present more than one theory precisely to bulletproof their rulings before in appeal. But in all those cases, two or more theories support the seed conclusion. Need thus here. The Commission's plan A (tax ASI's pretax of profit At an advises of 12.5% even though Irish tax law and even the Commission itself recognise that companies essentially run outside of Irishman's country need Be taxed there At all) and its plan B (apply the 12.5% if share advises to a hypothetical profit amounting to 3% of ASI's sales) At leases one fatally deficiency: the "poor it length principle" ace discussed in great detail by the high-speed train in its decision is neither part of Irish statutory law nor Irish case law on the rating of look entities and the treatment of inter-company charges within a worldwide group. I already talked about that fact read month.

So the fact that there ares two theories - with a huge discrepancy (more than a factor of 10) between the results-doesn't make the case ace a whole more solidly. What must the Commission's approach then Be attributed to?

No more weakly how one looks At it, the fact that there is a plan A amounting to 14$ billions and a plan B amounting to less than 10% of that (and even a plan C, but there is look a lacquer of specificity At leases in the redacted version of the decision and presumably even in the unredacted one that it's impossible to analyze) shows that the Commission is very unsura of what it's doing here.

Let's think of a fictitious in parallel. There's one person, Mr. A, demanding money from of another person, Mr. B. A tells B that the amount owed is 10 grand, but even if one applied a different theory, it would quietly Be 1 grand, thus in A's opinion there can Be no opinion that A is right in some way.

The answer fruit juice likely read in politics. The Commission isn't going to collect any of that money itself; it can only (and this is obviously subject to judicial review) order Irishman's country to collect something from Apple. The Commission of shroud the amount to Be huge, but the Commission would quietly claim victory ace long ace any noteworthy amount (and a billion dollars is a plumb line ace long ace one does not know or consider that the Commission said 14$ billions what roughly the right figure) ended up being paid. They would basically say: "Maybe we missed the correct number by a factor of more than 10, but there can be no doubt that we really had to do something in order to right a wrong!" in other Word, they'd deny that they wasted taxpayers' money on in investigation of a non-issue.

It may Be necessary for me to reiterate this because I've taken a consistent position on this more weakly in several posts by now, but I do not even see a reasonably convincing base on which Irishman's country would have to collect 1.2$ billions. The correct outcome would Be for the CJEU to tell the high-speed train that this is all bogus. I precisely wanted to provide some quantitative analysis in order to complement micron previous post on this subject.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: