[OSM-talk] FCC public documents license and submarine cables mapping

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Mon Apr 15 16:07:32 UTC 2019

Hi Martin,
Yes, Google might already have a subsidiary in a country (since they have
them in many but certainly not in all countries) but they would still have
to "go" there in the sense that: 1) I very much doubt the subsidiary would
already have a plaintiff-side copyright attorney on speed dial, so they'd
have to get one; 2) they'd have to produce the paperwork that shows that
subsidiary owns the copyright in question. Given that this was a filing
with the US FCC, odds are that all the people involved in producing the
filing are in the US, and therefore the paperwork is in the US and would
need to be transferred to the subsidiary in order for the subsidiary to
sue... (Frankly, I don't think it'd be cheaper to that, vs the default
ownership entity hiring local lawyers and filing suit in its own name, so I
don't think the existence of the subsidiaries matters.)

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:47 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>

> sent from a phone
> On 14. Apr 2019, at 10:48, Kathleen Lu <kathleen.lu at mapbox.com> wrote:
> For Berne counties, I think it technically depends on where the
> "infringement" takes place, whatever that would mean in this scenario
> the information is stored and distributed from the UK, the mapper is more
> likely to come from a different country.
> but the idea that Google would go to another country to spend $$$ to sue
> over this one line is preposterous to me.
> what I meant is that they are already there.
> Cheers, Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190415/721bbcfa/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list