I think this may be wandering (understandably) from the original topic of grey market lawsuits, but I can't help making a few observations.
Countries like the US, Japan, Germany, etc function function because of specialization in a society. The history of mankind is the story of developing the ability to generate surplus, at first of essentials like food, and eventually things with perceived rather than innate value. (Pretty beads or iPads rather than food or animal hides for warmth) Once a single person could grow enough food to support several people, these other people could do useful things in exchange for their services or products. I may knap you some arrowheads, for instance, or trade honey for baskets. This obviously carries through to the current day.
The statement made by the president is incendiary to those who have built a business from the ground up, risking their own money, on their own time, with no protection should they fail or struggle. Nobody else took any risk when startup company A was formed. But, as California pointed out, there is more to the story.
While the risks are all on the intrepid businessman with the idea, it is only civil society that allows things like this to develop. Some of the first first signs of civilization were walled cities, to separate "us" from "them," because the lure of this massive surplus generated by cooperative specialization drew the barbarians to plunder. At first houses were built touching one another, with their exterior walls forming the barriers, but eventually an organization was needed to build bigger, longer, higher, stronger walls, because the barriers were to the benefit of all.
Foundations of civil society require the government to do useful things that individuals cannot do for themselves, and is also predicated on individual specialization. Cardoc's shop needs power. He could generate his own electricity. He may be able to build his own generator, but likely cannot both mine the materials, cast them, machine them, bore for oil, and then refine the petroleum into useful fuel. He took all the risks in his business, as I did when I first was a framing contractor. But I didn't make my own nails, or saw my own lumber. I had "help" in the form of the remainder of society.
I know I can drink the water from my tap because many other people have drilled hundreds of miles of tunnel and piped water from the Sacramento and Colorado rivers, the filtered and treated it in a way that lets me turn a knob and get potable water at will. We help each other, and this is good, I think. It is misleading and politically manipulative to imply that because we live in society we are entitled to a cut of everyone's success. But the massive accumulation of wealth possible in civilized countries today is ONLY because of the help those individuals and companies have received. Otherwise, criminals, the poor, the selfish, or anyone whom felt like it could take it by brute force, with no recourse part from their own ability and willingness to do violence upon the thieves.
The way we find balance between protecting each other because we all benefit against the relative burden that protection inflicts is the fundamental question of government. We have, as a society, decided that border patrol agents and soldiers are less valuable than water plant managers or highway department supervisors for a variety of reasons most can figure out. Similarly, we believe teachers are less valuable in their labor than physicians or attorneys. The help we provide by learning to do something useful is the cornerstone that enables society to grow and flourish.
I think most here are more alike than different in their belief about the basic principles of what we all want. The details may vary some, and there may be disagreement over the particular avenue of best results, but nobody wants to live in Somalia. Or Haiti. Those places fail because whenever people begin to help one another in cooperative society that fabric is destroyed, through one means or another.
We shouldn't denigrate or diminish the success of businesses in taking risks for which only they are responsible, but we also shouldn't pretend that having even the fouled up court system we use isn't better than no legal system other than tribal warfare, ala Afghanistan.
In my opinion, and all that. I sure like this section of the forum.
