This thread has taken a very unfortunate turn. It should have recognized the expertise of the contributors up to the point they were proven to be incorrect.
Any reasonable person reading this thread would likely conclude that
@Samoyed has a background in law. He's quoted case law which, while somewhat less authoritative than a test bench measurement, carries some weight in the legal arena.
Similarly,
@amirm and
@restorer-john have demonstrated extensive technical background.
@amirm has considerable senior leadership experience in the technological field.
What's missing, therefore, is an acknowledgement of both sides' expertise. Were that to occur, we'd have a situation where
@amirm and
@restorer-john could legitimately school
@Samoyed on how sub components or technologies form part of a finished product for sale worldwide AND
@Samoyed could then provide views on how this may or may not strengthen a case of uncompetitive behaviour in certain jurisdictions. THAT would be interesting reading, though (to me) not as interesting as reading about the measurements of the latest piece of gear crossing the bench of
@amirm
But that didn't occur. Instead, folks started wandering into each others' sandboxes when it might have been better to ask questions of those in the
best position to answer them
most correctly.
Since the content of this thread is of interest, perhaps the best solution would be to delete all of the posts from the point where this went into "the bunker" and continue the discussion.
This post likely won't endear me to anyone. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a mod, I'm not an engineer or tech, and I'm not Australian. I'm just somebody who hates to see intellectual talent being squandered because a few misplaced words led to a flame war.