First off Sony has already lost millions from the hacking. How would a bombing have cost millions to Sony?

I can't do much about this and neither can you. But if you would to be a little bit constructive I started a petition:
https://www.change.org/p/regal...

I went to events where there were terrorist threats. New Years 2000 being a great example. No you don't live in fear and no you don't let them create hysteria.

Note the difference between "flow" and "revenue". Two completely different things. The reason why most of google's money flow goes through EU is various tax break arrangements. As a result, if it were to get kicked out, not only would it lose the market, it would lose lucrative tax deals.

I have no idea where Google is hiding money. But I'm sure there are plenty of African and Latin American countries that would happy to play the role of illicit bank.

Suggesting that EU is "losing" here sounds a lot like "oh EU is losing to microsoft, what can it do?" back in the days of browser monopoly fight. Until EU decided to actually take action and suddenly "oh EU is losing" whine changed to "oh evil EU is oppressing this nice US company" tune here on slashdot

What are you talking about? Microsoft managed to hold the line on browsers for almost a decade and thereby prevent the transition to web based applications. They finally lost share to Safari, Firefox, Chrome... as those browsers advanced. The evidence for that being the transition happened in the USA as well as the EU. There is no evidence that the EU was able to effectuate an early switch.

Well yes actually. That's what they are being sued for. I know it sounds ridiculous but that is the plaintiff's claim.

The more appropriate question is whether their prevention of competitors DRM Schemes on the iPod drove up prices of either the music itself or the iPod devices upon which said digitally purchased tracks could be obtained.

That's a hard question to answer in a suit against Apple. Certainly the RIAA wanted Apple to be nothing but a device manufacturer allowing a host of other formats and selling agents. At the same time the other ones available like Real they didn't want. So it is hard to find a monopolistic act where Apple wasn't under contract. That's a much better question for an anti-trust suit against the RIAA.
 

These two questions:

A) Is DRM a bad thing?
B) Did Apple's DRM raise the price of iPods?

are two very different questions. If is very easy to see how someone could answer the questions differently. The court was asked to decide B not A.

FWIW I've bought software before where the contract has both a license agreement and a limited patent license when the software is designed to throw me into violation of their patents. I've never heard of a company arguing they can sell the one and not the other while claiming both however.

That's not true. In all contract law there is a concept called "the form of the contract" which means contracts are interpreted inside of a context and that context is included in the contract unless explicitly excluded. For example if X signs a service contract with Y which lists the services by X and payments by Y but never says that X will perform the services or that Y will deliver those payments it is assumed from the form. On the other hand an insurance list is just a list.

Either side could call Stallman as a witness. I can't imagine that some percentage of the plethora of materials explaining what a derived work is and what is meant that has been written by open source advocates over the past 3 decades won't make its way into evidence.

I'm not assuming in the case of cellular we have good data on spends and profits.

well as overwhelming majority of google's money flow is in Europe

Google's revenues don't come majority from Europe. Europe is about 20%. That's smaller BTW than the 27% that Google had in China when they started fighting with the Chinese government. They halved their Chinese revenue but didn't have to impose censorship. And that required the Chinese government funding a major non-Google competitor in China. I think the Spanish government would have a harder time for a variety of reasons.

All of these have vested interest in google staying in Europe.

That's right. In terms of the monopolist position that may not be possible. Google may simply decide they would rather go offshore than agree to European governments breaking them up. This is a company with a track record of doing exactly that with China. And as you can see Spain is getting ready to cave. The EU governments are losing. "We will shift the news Spanish citizens consume away from news produced in Spain" was a fairly credible counter threat.

Now obviously if the governments are concerned enough they can win a war against Google. But given that Google has a monopoly in Europe because their citizenry likes Google, backlash wouldn't be shocking.

Companies win fights against governments all the time. Ask Latin America about American Fruit Co. if you want a really extreme example. The USA governments has had problems with OPEC (a cartel but close enough) for 4 decades.
___

As for climate denialism I'm not sure how that contradicts global culture. That seems to support it, showing people gathering not by geography but by political / idealogical affiliation.

Yes. And likely grow. But more importantly the old media that decides they want to transform may have to move their internet operations including financially out of Spain.

No like them actually caring and voting for the minority party in the next election.

You are confusing the American people with American business. American business benefits from goods sold abroad but doesn't like the price suppression domestically from foreign competition.

The American people's welfare has become only loosely correlated with American business. Sales abroad which are mainly services do very little for them because the labor is often offshored.

As far as Smoot-Hawley major disruption handled badly is a bad thing. Though frankly other policies were far more destructive than the drop in trade as the post WWII economy which was low trade demonstrated. Moreover at the time the USA was a manufacturing economy running large trade surpluses. That's not remotely the situation today nor what anyone is suggesting.