I saw that article. That article is saying, yes the courts (in Cineplex, in 2021) said the opposite of what we're saying, but we think this is what they should have said. Holds about zero weight. I mean, nice legal theorizing and everything, but not going to cut it here.
The Singapore is not bound by either US or Canadian precedent (only Cayman precedent in this case, and general international law precedent in general, which is as vague as it sounds), but as a rule these tribunals generally do look to the well-known respected courts for precedents to tell them how to rule. Even if they don't absolutely have to.
To be slightly cynical here, Silicon Motion gets to pick one arbitrator, MaxLinear gets to pick another, and the two arbitrators together pick a third who sits as president of the tribunal (and if they can't agree, SIAC picks one for them). Lo and behold, in the majority of cases, the final vote is 2-1. Silicon Motion's handpicked arbitrator will rule in their favor and MaxLinear's handpicked arbitrator will rule in their favor, and it will basically come down to the opinion of the independent middle guy. Not always, but usually that's how it goes. |
