Who is the CEO of Kaspersky to claim authority on these issues? Why does he feel entitled to to be in a position to even make suggestions, affecting basically the entire human population?

What do you do when you have friends over and you want to play a round of video games? Or do all your friends own laptops and carry them everywhere?

There are games for Wii published by third-party major labels. It's just that third parties do an absolutely fecal job of promoting them to players.

One solution is to apply the very same punitive penalty, but award the punitive part of it to a fund/charity. In essence, whenever a major company causes somebody harm, that person is eligible to receive whatever amount is considered reasonable depending on the damages. In addition to that, the company is also fined an amount that is relative to its size and financial status, simply as a form of punishment. The latter amount never comes in contact with the victim.

What this does is ensure that company's are probably punished for causing harm, but removes the incentive to sue for enormous amounts for trivial issues (or not-so-trivial issues that don't justify $X million). This system is relatively common, and it always surprised me that people find it reasonable that the amount of damages awarded should be relative to the offenders ability to pay - Not primarily the crime itself.

Asia is not a country, you silly people! You're thinking of Africa.

Regards,
Sarah P.