If the EU regulated ASML and their monopoly like they do Apple then ASML would be forced to give competitors and startups access to their proprietary technology so ASML doesn’t have an unfair advantage.
avonb7 is still an idiot, I see. To bad blocking losers doesn’t also block you from seeing them when they’re quoted. How pathetic to find you still here after all these years doing the same old shtick.
If the EU regulated ASML and their monopoly like they do Apple then ASML would be forced to give competitors and startups access to their proprietary technology so ASML doesn’t have an unfair advantage.
Having a monopoly/dominant position/being a gatekeeper isn't illegal in the EU. It comes with certain responsibilities. If ASML decided to sell only to some customers or told their vendors not to deliver to competitors or their customers that they had to be 100% ASML to get support then ASML would be hit as well.
Apple owns its products not the EU. The EU has no right to dictate to Apple how its products operate. As I’ve said before, the EU has every right to build their own platforms but it’s obvious they don’t have the ability or talent to design and manufacture anything people, including those in EU countries, want. It’s time to boycott everything made in the EU but I’m not so sure there’s actually anything they make I really want.
The EU absolutely can dictate to Apple how aspects of its products operate, that's what EU law is for. If you want to sell tech, fruit, cars, aeroplanes, clothes or whatever to members states of the EU then those products must abide by the rules that the EU sets. This will be in just the same way that the USA dictates the standards products sold there must meet (unless the USA is content to have dog meat sold as beef and TVs sold with totally unsafe wiring and cars made of old bits of rusty tin). They can be challenged, as Apple is doing and depending on the result Apple can either comply or withdraw from the market. In this case, I think the EU is overreaching and Apple is in the right (in what I know of the issue) but what is relevant is what the lawyers say.
To say that "they [EU member countries] don’t have the ability or talent to design and manufacture anything people, including those in EU countries, want" is just ridiculous and verifiably so. So, nobody wants cars from BMW, Ferrari, or Mercedes? Nobody wants British HiFi or ARM's tech? Not even in Europe? Are you seriously suggesting that?
Boycotting everything made in the EU? So no more French cheese or Champagne? No Italian clothing or wine? No Belgian chocolates? No IKEA or Lego? No Airbus? You seem to be using the same playbook as Trump! Hilariously, given his "Made in the USA" obsession, none of the merch in his Trump shop is made in the USA - most is from his evil enemy, China. You can't make up this kind of blinkered economic foolishness.
This comment was fine until the end. There was no need to make this comment at the end, which just makes the few Trump supporters here angry. I'm leaving this comment up because it is on topic for the most part, but I've removed the responses that focus on the merch comment and not on the actual topic at hand.
The reality: Trump merch sold on his website is likely made in America, which is also why it costs $50 for a hat. However, the merch sold at rallies and in physical Trump stores and booths are not from the official website (generally). Those products are made in China and cost a fifth as much, which sells much better at mass gatherings like rallies.
There's no reason to use this as some kind of jab. There's way more important topics around this administration beyond where its headwear is sourced. Stay on topic please.
It's important to note that ALL official Trump/MAGA merch is made in the USA.
Invested Third party vendors may also have their products made in the USA as well. But it's not guaranteed and some not so invested third parties are going to get it from wherever, including overseas, in order to make a buck.
But all official Trump/ MAGA merch is made in the USA, no matter where it is bought. When it comes to unofficial third party stuff, all bets are off. It's like buying unofficial Apple, Nintendo, etc. stuff. No guarantees. The problem is that some of the third parties are pretty good at copying. Just like knockoffs of anything anywhere - usually from China.
Trump campaign: “We have made it clear all along that all of our merchandise is 100% made in the USA. Any vendor who claims to have a relationship with us otherwise is lying or violating our protected trademark rights,” the campaign’s chief operating officer said in a statement at the time. “This applies to all of the recent fake news about Made in China products for the 2020 campaign.”
If you buy merch from the Trump campaign, it's made in the USA regardless of where you buy it. If you buy a knockoff, then you get a knockoff from wherever.
If the EU regulated ASML and their monopoly like they do Apple then ASML would be forced to give competitors and startups access to their proprietary technology so ASML doesn’t have an unfair advantage.
avonb7 is still an idiot, I see. To bad blocking losers doesn’t also block you from seeing them when they’re quoted. How pathetic to find you still here after all these years doing the same old shtick.
It's worth pointing out that my opinion, while only being my opinion, is actually shared by authorities across the globe. It isn't 'shtick'.
Unfortunately, you never actually read the rulings on the investigations carried out on Apple (and others) nor do you read the legislation that is created as a result of Big Tech control of the digital space.
If you did, you would have a better understanding of what is going on and why it is going on.
You might not like those decisions and that's fine, but at least try to accept that we're talking about subjects that have, in many cases, been through years of investigations and the resulting fines and regulations have been well reasoned and laid out.
And you could be well unaware of this, but there are plenty of Apple users (and let's not forget that I am a long time Apple user) who share my opinion. Not all MEPs are scurrying around with Android handsets in there pockets.
ASML is where it is today because US companies (and companies from other parts of the world), faced with multi-billion dollar R&D investments (to get where ASML is today), pulled back (many years ago) as there were no guarantees of overcoming the challenges involved.
Ditto 5G. The US should have seen the strategic importance of that 15 years ago, but it didn't.
ASML moved ahead and has reaped the rewards.
On the chip manufacturing side Intel took a whole list of wrong decisions and TSMC came to lead.
ASML has a de-facto monopoly of sorts but where is the problem with that? Have they acted to stifle competition? Nope. The US government (of either colour) has done that through pressure on the Dutch government combined with extra territorial export restrictions.
ASML would like to sell to whoever is willing to buy.
Are they open to competition? Yep! And they are probably going to get it some time next year if rumours prove true.
Also ASML is not even in the same business category of Apple and as such is not even covered by the DSA/DMA.
The EU has every right to level playing fields and counter consumer harm and the stifling of innovation.
...
Is there anything the EU could possibly demand of Apple that you would not call "leveling the playing field"? Should Apple's chip team be required to provide chips to Apple's competitors? Should Apple be required to license iOS to its competitors? Should it be required to allow installation of alternate OSes on iPhone and iPad? Do you have any sane legal theory of which features of its products a company should be allowed to control, and which it should be forced to turn into third-party flea markets — or do you say "leveling the playing field" when you really mean leveling Apple with any frightfully damaging fairness fantasy that comes down the regulatory pike, simply so that Apple won't be so successful any more, and the playing field therefore will be more "level"?
I don’t know about the history of the EU’s antitrust but in the US we have had antitrust laws for about 130 years and reviewing the famous cases of IBM and AT&T you will see that all those hypotheticals you listed were basically done to those two companies.
Both IBM and ATT had monopolies under US anti-trust laws. IBM had over 70% of the computer main frame market and ATT was a government-granted monopoly in the telecommunication market (back then that was land line telephones). Being handed a government-granted monopoly, allowed the US government to regulate ATT. Both IBM and ATT were determined to be abusing their monopoly.
What monopoly do Apple have? And how did Apple abuse it?
Just because the EU came up with some BS DMA Act, that declares Apple a "gatekeeper" by using some made up BS criteria that they had never proven to be the thresholds for anti-competitiveness, doesn't even come close to comparing how the US government "regulated" monopolies under the Sherman Act and how the EU is "regulating" Apple under the DMA Act.
The EU has every right to level playing fields and counter consumer harm and the stifling of innovation.
...
Is there anything the EU could possibly demand of Apple that you would not call "leveling the playing field"? Should Apple's chip team be required to provide chips to Apple's competitors? Should Apple be required to license iOS to its competitors? Should it be required to allow installation of alternate OSes on iPhone and iPad? Do you have any sane legal theory of which features of its products a company should be allowed to control, and which it should be forced to turn into third-party flea markets — or do you say "leveling the playing field" when you really mean leveling Apple with any frightfully damaging fairness fantasy that comes down the regulatory pike, simply so that Apple won't be so successful any more, and the playing field therefore will be more "level"?
I don’t know about the history of the EU’s antitrust but in the US we have had antitrust laws for about 130 years and reviewing the famous cases of IBM and AT&T you will see that all those hypotheticals you listed were basically done to those two companies.
Both IBM and ATT had monopolies under US anti-trust laws. IBM had over 70% of the computer main frame market and ATT was a government-granted monopoly in the telecommunication market (back then that was land line telephones). Being handed a government-granted monopoly, allowed the US government to regulate ATT. Both IBM and ATT were determined to be abusing their monopoly.
What monopoly do Apple have? And how did Apple abuse it?
For the 10,000th time:
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE A MONOPOLY TO BE GUILTY OF ABUSING MARKET DOMINANCE.
Antitrust (including American antitrust) is about using market position to unfairly disadvantage others.
The EU has every right to level playing fields and counter consumer harm and the stifling of innovation.
...
Is there anything the EU could possibly demand of Apple that you would not call "leveling the playing field"? Should Apple's chip team be required to provide chips to Apple's competitors? Should Apple be required to license iOS to its competitors? Should it be required to allow installation of alternate OSes on iPhone and iPad? Do you have any sane legal theory of which features of its products a company should be allowed to control, and which it should be forced to turn into third-party flea markets — or do you say "leveling the playing field" when you really mean leveling Apple with any frightfully damaging fairness fantasy that comes down the regulatory pike, simply so that Apple won't be so successful any more, and the playing field therefore will be more "level"?
I don’t know about the history of the EU’s antitrust but in the US we have had antitrust laws for about 130 years and reviewing the famous cases of IBM and AT&T you will see that all those hypotheticals you listed were basically done to those two companies.
Both IBM and ATT had monopolies under US anti-trust laws. IBM had over 70% of the computer main frame market and ATT was a government-granted monopoly in the telecommunication market (back then that was land line telephones). Being handed a government-granted monopoly, allowed the US government to regulate ATT. Both IBM and ATT were determined to be abusing their monopoly.
What monopoly do Apple have? And how did Apple abuse it?
For the 10,000th time:
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE A MONOPOLY TO BE GUILTY OF ABUSING MARKET DOMINANCE.
Antitrust (including American antitrust) is about using market position to unfairly disadvantage others.
And again for the 10,000th time.
How can the EU state what is "unfair" using laws that unfairly targeted the 5 biggest US tech firms. At least in the US, anti-trust laws applies to all industries and companies, no matter what market they are in and no matter what their market cap is.
Here in the US, market "dominance" is still determine by market share. And don't include market cap ..... how many platforms a company have ...... other markets that they in ..... what market they are in .... and other criteria that have nothing to do having a market dominance in a market.
A company, brand, product, or service that has a combined market
share exceeding 60% most probably has market power and market
dominance.
A market share of over 35% but less than 60%, held by one brand,
product or service, is an indicator of market strength but not
necessarily dominance.
A market share of less than 35%, held by one brand, product or
service, is not an indicator of strength or dominance and will not raise
anti-competitive concerns by government regulators.
But the EU have different criteria but market share is still the most important of them.
>According to the European Commission, market shares provide a useful
first indication of the structure of any market and of the relative
importance of the various undertakings active on it.[16]
In paragraph 15 of the Guidance on A102, the European Commission state
that a high market share over a long period of time can be a preliminary
indication of dominance. The International Competition Network stress
that determining whether substantial market power is apparent should not
be based on market shares alone, but instead an analysis of all factors
affecting the competitive conditions in the market, should be used.[23]
A dominant position can generally be said to exist once a market share
to the order of 40% to 45% is reached. [footnote: A dominant position
cannot even be ruled out in respect of market shares between 20% and
40%; Ninth Report on Competition Policy, point 22.] Although this share
does not in itself automatically give control of the market, if there
are large gaps between the position of the firm concerned and those of
its closest competitors and also other factors likely to place it at an
advantage as regards competition, a dominant position may well exist.
(European Commission's Tenth Report on Competition, page 103, paragraph
150.)<
So again, tell us what EU market is Apple dominate in? What market do Apple control over 40% of, in the EU, that they are abusing. The DMA don't even address market dominance as a reason to regulate. In fact, with the DMA, the EU don't even need to prove abuse. The only criteria needed for the EU government to regulate any of the 5 targeted US tech firms is that they think there's potential for abuse and that they were already determined to be "gatekeepers" before the DMA was even drafted.
The EU DMA is based on ex-ante policies. In other words, the EU is using the DMA to regulate the targeted 5 biggest US tech companies by trying to "forecast" any anti-competitive behavior by a company, before they occur, without needing any proof that they will occur.
>The European Commission is interested in regulating digital service
providers before supposed anticompetitive practices occur to preempt
long probes into such practices after they are claimed to have occurred.<
US anti-trust laws on the other hand regulate companies based on ex-facto policies. (Except for mergers). In other words, the US regulates a company after they determine that a company had abused their market power, dominance or monopoly. Which is why in the US, having a monopoly is not by itself .... illegal or proof of any anti-competitive behavior.
Comments
If the EU regulated ASML and their monopoly like they do Apple then ASML would be forced to give competitors and startups access to their proprietary technology so ASML doesn’t have an unfair advantage.
avonb7 is still an idiot, I see. To bad blocking losers doesn’t also block you from seeing them when they’re quoted. How pathetic to find you still here after all these years doing the same old shtick.
A rather short and concise page about it:
https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/competition-between-businesses/competition-rules-eu/index_en.htm
Invested Third party vendors may also have their products made in the USA as well. But it's not guaranteed and some not so invested third parties are going to get it from wherever, including overseas, in order to make a buck.
But all official Trump/ MAGA merch is made in the USA, no matter where it is bought. When it comes to unofficial third party stuff, all bets are off. It's like buying unofficial Apple, Nintendo, etc. stuff. No guarantees. The problem is that some of the third parties are pretty good at copying. Just like knockoffs of anything anywhere - usually from China.
Trump campaign: “We have made it clear all along that all of our merchandise is 100% made in the USA. Any vendor who claims to have a relationship with us otherwise is lying or violating our protected trademark rights,” the campaign’s chief operating officer said in a statement at the time. “This applies to all of the recent fake news about Made in China products for the 2020 campaign.”
If you buy merch from the Trump campaign, it's made in the USA regardless of where you buy it. If you buy a knockoff, then you get a knockoff from wherever.
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/where-is-maga-merchandise-made
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/08/fact-check-trump-campaigns-official-maga-hats-made-america/5658106002/
Unfortunately, you never actually read the rulings on the investigations carried out on Apple (and others) nor do you read the legislation that is created as a result of Big Tech control of the digital space.
If you did, you would have a better understanding of what is going on and why it is going on.
You might not like those decisions and that's fine, but at least try to accept that we're talking about subjects that have, in many cases, been through years of investigations and the resulting fines and regulations have been well reasoned and laid out.
And you could be well unaware of this, but there are plenty of Apple users (and let's not forget that I am a long time Apple user) who share my opinion. Not all MEPs are scurrying around with Android handsets in there pockets.
ASML is where it is today because US companies (and companies from other parts of the world), faced with multi-billion dollar R&D investments (to get where ASML is today), pulled back (many years ago) as there were no guarantees of overcoming the challenges involved.
Ditto 5G. The US should have seen the strategic importance of that 15 years ago, but it didn't.
ASML moved ahead and has reaped the rewards.
On the chip manufacturing side Intel took a whole list of wrong decisions and TSMC came to lead.
ASML has a de-facto monopoly of sorts but where is the problem with that? Have they acted to stifle competition? Nope. The US government (of either colour) has done that through pressure on the Dutch government combined with extra territorial export restrictions.
ASML would like to sell to whoever is willing to buy.
Are they open to competition? Yep! And they are probably going to get it some time next year if rumours prove true.
Also ASML is not even in the same business category of Apple and as such is not even covered by the DSA/DMA.
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE A MONOPOLY TO BE GUILTY OF ABUSING MARKET DOMINANCE.
Antitrust (including American antitrust) is about using market position to unfairly disadvantage others.