3 ms·

A very interesting comment on the page: >>Counter measures please, just like we neutered the Helms Burton act at the time. It's simple: Any person/company in

A very interesting comment on the page: >>Counter measures please, just like we neutered the Helms Burton act at the time. It's simple: Any person/company in Europe that suffers losses due to a unilateral domain seizure in the US, can sue for damage any US company (and all their holdings in Europe) for damages + costs, and maybe even plus punitive damages. Board members of such companies would be denied entry in the EU/EEA. It worked for Helms Burton it will work for SOPA / PROTECT-IP / E-PARASITES or whatever bullshit name they give that act. << Link to Helms-Burton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms–Burton_Act#Reactions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms–Burton_Act#Reactions

tedunangst 15y ago
I realize that's not your comment, but the listed reactions to Helms-Burton do not appear to be anything like the proposed counter measures.
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  From the provided link: >EU law also applied sanctions against US companies and their executives for making Title III complaints. >The United Kingdom had previously introduced provisions by statutory instrument[8] extending its Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (originally passed in the wake of extraterritorial claims by the U.S. in the 1970s) to United States rules on trade with Cuba. United Kingdom law was later extended to counter-act the Helms–Burton Act as well. >Mexico passed a law in October 1996 aimed at neutralizing the Helms–Burton Act. The law provides for a fine of 2.2 million pesos, or $280,254, against anyone who while in Mexican territory obeys another country's laws aimed at reducing Mexican trade or foreign investment in a third country. >Similarly, Canada passed a law to counteract the effect of Helms-Burton Not the same counter measures as the ones proposed by the original user but it seems to have the same effect of "neutering" a foreign law.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    I think there's a pretty big difference between "US companies that make Title III complaints" and "any US company".
    - bmunro 15y ago
      The original comment had an reply/update: *"Mistake: It's any US company involved with the complaint that led to the seizure in the US. Not just any US company."

tedunangst 15y ago

I realize that's not your comment, but the listed reactions to Helms-Burton do not appear to be anything like the proposed counter measures.

felipemnoa 15y ago
From the provided link: >EU law also applied sanctions against US companies and their executives for making Title III complaints. >The United Kingdom had previously introduced provisions by statutory instrument[8] extending its Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (originally passed in the wake of extraterritorial claims by the U.S. in the 1970s) to United States rules on trade with Cuba. United Kingdom law was later extended to counter-act the Helms–Burton Act as well. >Mexico passed a law in October 1996 aimed at neutralizing the Helms–Burton Act. The law provides for a fine of 2.2 million pesos, or $280,254, against anyone who while in Mexican territory obeys another country's laws aimed at reducing Mexican trade or foreign investment in a third country. >Similarly, Canada passed a law to counteract the effect of Helms-Burton Not the same counter measures as the ones proposed by the original user but it seems to have the same effect of "neutering" a foreign law.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  I think there's a pretty big difference between "US companies that make Title III complaints" and "any US company".
  - bmunro 15y ago
    The original comment had an reply/update: *"Mistake: It's any US company involved with the complaint that led to the seizure in the US. Not just any US company."