https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#2010–2016:_Giving...
Google had no problem with censoring the search results in China. They exited the country after it began hacking into their data centers.
> Since arriving here in 2006 under an arrangement with the government that purged its Chinese search results of banned topics, Google has come under fire for abetting a system that increasingly restricts what citizens can read online.
Google linked its decision to sophisticated cyberattacks on its computer systems that it suspected originated in China and that were aimed, at least in part, at the Gmail user accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/asia/13beijing.html
I won’t be surprised if they’ll retry to enter China soon.
Of course, such elected are replaced every few years.
> The Dragonfly project was an Internet search engine prototype created by Google that was designed to be compatible with China's state censorship provisions.
> The public learned of Dragonfly's existence in August 2018, when The Intercept leaked an internal memo written by a Google employee about the project.
> […]
> However, according to employees, work on Dragonfly was still continuing as of March 2019, with some 100 people still allocated to it.
> In July 2019, Google announced that work on Dragonfly had been terminated.
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine), literally the first Google search result on that keyword)
Does this mean S&P would be more receptive to operations in China or less receptive to it?
> Google employees are calling on the company to cancel Project Dragonfly, an effort to create a censored search engine in China.
“Many of us accepted employment at Google with the company’s values in mind, including its previous position on Chinese censorship and surveillance, and an understanding that Google was a company willing to place its values above its profits,” an open letter signed by Google employees published Tuesday on Medium says. “After a year of disappointments including Project Maven, Dragonfly, and Google’s support for abusers, we no longer believe this is the case.”
Google’s Chinese search app would have reportedly complied with demands to remove content that the government ruled sensitive and linked users’ searches to their personal phone numbers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/read-google-employees-open-l...
But they still make hardware there like everyone else
How is abiding by the decision of a court not following a principled view? Wouldn’t going against the rule of law be non-principles behavior? Apple is not required to license the patent nor is the holder required to ever license their patent. They can tell Apple to go pound sand as this isn’t the seemingly typical cell phone FRAND dispute.
Trying to find a way to build an Apple Watch 9 that doesn’t infringe on a patent is a valid and principled way of behaving, even if it’s perhaps a bad business choice. If it takes them a week or two and stands in court it’ll be seen as a good decision. If they can’t and pony up anyway it’ll be seen as a poor choice of action. We’ll certainly know soon enough.
Selfishly* principled. There's no exclusively abstract benefit here the way there is with e.g privacy rights; there's both the benefit of not having to pay royalties if they prevail as well as the second order benefit of deterring others from submitting patent litigation because other plaintiffs will know that Apple would rather burn cash reserves on litigation than on paying.
It's precisely for that reason that Apple should lose.
As for privacy, as an aside, Apple's track record is substantially better than Google's.