No. The order to produce went to Microsoft US. The data is under the control of Microsoft Ireland, a fully owned subsidiary registered in a foreign country. Since Microsoft Ireland has the legal obligation to refuse the data to Microsoft US, Microsoft US neither owns not controls the data and cannot be compelled to produce it.

Microsoft US does not control the data. A separate company (Microsoft Ireland) does. Now it may be a fully owned subsidiary but it is still a separate legal entity. The question here is not what people think it is. Does the judge have the right to demand that Microsoft US instruct Microsoft Ireland to break Irish law. The answer to is no because the data is not in the possession or control of Microsoft US. If Microsoft US were to make the request of Microsoft Ireland the correct (and required) response from Microsoft Ireland would be "Sorry, we cannot do that even though you own us.". So since Microsoft US does not control the data the request from the judge would be invalid. Microsoft US cannot comply with the directive since they do not have direct access in their own right.

Because the US constitution requires that international treaties become part of US law when signed.

Excuse me but you appear to be mistaken. it is written in the US constitution that international treaties become part of US law. Where that introduces contradictions the treaty law applies. And judges have to repeat this. It may not apply in this particular case but it remains true.

Any "dick move" would be at minimum, contempt of court. That is extraditable and yes, the U.S. And Australia have a treaty. Many treaties. Not all are economic. You have no idea how deep this could go. No one enjoys a shit fight. It would not be allowed to get that far. Most probably this is happening and happening right because the ACCC wants to get up the nose of the horribly consumer unfriendly new Abbot government.

Have you any idea of the complexity of international trading laws? None of your hypothetical is possible.

Stop digging? You are digging fast enough for both of us. I am not and never claimed to be a lawyer. Nor do I need to be. I have access to a sufficiency. Not that I have consulted them over this as I would not trust them as most of them since they have other specialities.

My sentence was meant to be read as your current one does not seem to be that good. Yet you fastened on a less likely alternative and latched on to it with certainty as if it were an absolute truth.

And there is the issue, 'certainty'. The reason I mentioned common law is that common law is flexible and evolves. There seem to be a number of people saying that this all means that the government has given up. Do not be certain about that. I am suspicious, paranoid if you would and consider it sensible to be so. Time will show the truth or falsity of this. Nothing else.

You are quite welcome to the last word.

Commercial or not it is a legally proscribed act from which you obtain a benefit, I also point out that the UK law is based on common law not constitutional law. If you disagree with me then ask another lawyer. Relying on that reasoning when caught will not work.

I followed the link you gave me and I am not sure that I agree. Anyone using a female pseudonym for over five years is going to wind up a little gender bent even if they did not start out that way. If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and is treated as a duck then it becomes a duck. Neuroplasticity and all that. But even greater than the number of gender bent is the number of gender confused. Transition is not the objective of all tg people. That would be far from the truth. I think I would like to stand by what I said, i.e.. that by all means maintain and continue your arguments with this person but I would recommend not chastising someone for gender issues or expressed gender issues. No one wants to be tg. Nobody would choose it.

Four point eight (4.8) furlongs.

Snowden is not an agent. Even NSA says that.

Why did you call hims a piece of firewood or baked potato?

Snowden gave nothing to Russia or China. Even the head of the NSA has stated that. He gave nothing to any national party. It makes me wonder what you are. But I doubt you will ever be a little star.

But there is a benefit gained (profit is the wrong word). The benefit gained from the supply of the blocks you have already received is getting g the remaining blocks.

When you use a torrent you are also sending data blocks. So even if you leach you are still "supplying" while you are downloading. This make the situation civilly more precarious and becomes criminal too.