avon b7

anonymouse said:

I will just say to those of you cheerleading the EU on this that what you are actually cheerleading is the undermining of the rule of law. And what's going on with EU regulators "enforcing" the DMA erodes the rule of law in a way that is entirely insidious and perhaps even more dangerous than what's going on in the US right now. It doesn't matter what the regulators intentions are, they have created and are part of a process that so corrupts the notion of law as to render it meaningless.

This so-called "law" known as the DMA, and the regulatory bodies "enforcing" it, is not actually law at all. What it is is a purported "legal" framework that erodes the very concept of law in a way that leads to lawlessness. Much is talked about the "spirit of the law" in regard to the DMA, but that's not how law works. Law works according to the letter of the law, and anything that depends on "spirit" is not actually law.

Something as nebulous as "spirit" isn't law because laws must clearly state what they mean. How can anyone know if they are following the law, or breaking it, if the laws is so ill defined as to depend entirely on the "interpretation" that regulators choose to give it. Even in announcing these fines against Apple, they haven't said exactly how Apple "violated" the law, nor exactly how they could be in compliance. Instead there is hand waving verbiage that states Apple hasn't done enough and isn't in compliance, but nothing at all on what compliance would actually look like. How could anyone know if they are compliant if they don't know what compliance is? It's like posting a sign, "Speed Limit", with no indication of what that limit is but telling motorists that they must follow the spirit of the speed limit.

No, this "law" and its "enforcement" depend entirely on the whims of the regulators. Are these really the kinds of "laws" you want in the EU? "Laws" where the meaning of the "law" is whatever the authorities decide it is and you can never know if you are following or breaking it? "Laws" that can change whenever new people begin "enforcing" them? Sure, a lot of you don't care, or even think it's great, because this "law" is being used right now to target American companies. As a European, it won't affect you, right? But, who knows what the future may bring and "regulators" decide to turn "laws" like this against you. Perhaps right now there are no other "laws" like this, but there may well be more, and who knows whom they may target? You are creating a model where a pretense for law replaces real laws with entirely subjective "rules" that are whatever those in charge want them to be.

To paraphrase: First they came for the American tech companies, and I did not speak out because I was not an American tech company. I'm sure you know the reference, and this is where you are heading.

Stabitha_Christie said:

9secondkox2 said:

It’s not a “blink.” It has been mentioned a lot here on ai before the tariffs came on. Apple would get an exemption. I’ve personally posted this a few times. 

Smart people do smart things. It’s why cook preemptively met with the president prior to the election and why the admin is letting some of the fine tuning show now. It’s always shock and awe to rile up the immoveable players. Then settles into the details. It’s why you hear the phrase/torle “art of the deal” being so talked about lately. 

As I’ve BEEN saying, Apple willl be fine. 

And the delusional cult continues on unabated, Dear Leader must not be questioned. 

Meanwhile in reality Trump has shown how much of a lame duck president he is and U.S. is much weaker on the world stage than it was a week ago.  

And because you pointed out in an other thread that you woefully uninformed on trade, let me help you out. What you and Trumpty Dumpty seem to be missing is Trump can't protect Apple or any other company from China. If China decides to start targeting U.S. companies like Apple or Tesla and just boots them from the country then they are absolutely screwed. The U.S. doesn't have the advanced manufacturing capabilities of China and that is something that would take at least a decade to build out. China does almost all of the world's refining of rare earth minerals. Replacing that capability will take a decade to do. China holds way more cards in this trade war than just tariffs. Turmpty Dumpty has brought a squirt gun to a gun fight. 

Maybe, just maybe, ponder the potential consequences of Trumps actions rather than blindly cheerleading for him 

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

beowulfschmidt said:

If they had said, "ATT is fine, but Apple has to follow the same rules, so since you didn't, we're fining you," that would have been pretty legit.

Instead they said, "ATT is fine, nothing wrong with it.  But we're going to fine you anyway.  Because we can, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it."

The Reuters article is a little clearer on that point. 

"Coeuré told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling.

The compliance process could take some time, he added, because Apple was waiting for rulings on regulators in Germany, Italy, Poland and Romania who are also investigating the ATT tool."

https://www.reuters.com/technology/french-antitrust-regulator-fines-apple-150-million-euros-over-privacy-tool-2025-03-31/

On the size of the fine, that was also tackled head on (it was proportional):

"We apply competition law in an apolitical manner," Benoit Coeure told a press conference."

While maximum fines can be up to 10% of global revenue (and it's global as a dissuasory measure), the fines still have to be proportional and take into account other factors such as reincidence. 

Like everything else the EU and Eropean countries do, this is like a bad joke. "We didn't say what you needed to do, but, because you didn't do what we wanted, we're fining you."

That's like deciding you want a low speed limit, not setting or posting it, then fining "speeders" for being over the limit by whatever amount you want them to be. Europe and the EU no longer operate under the rule of law, they operate under the whims of the "regulators".

MplsP said:

one potential issue/question that I haven't seen answered is how much Apple is paying in patent royalties to QC for their C1 modem. Given QC's cellular patent portfolio it's unlikely Apple could produce a competitive modem without licensing at least some patents. Even if they're covered under FRAND there's still a 'reasonable' fee. If Apple were to put the modem in every MBP then they would likely have to pay a fee for each device, unless they could somehow get an agreement to only pay for the modems in use.

beowulfschmidt said:

If they had said, "ATT is fine, but Apple has to follow the same rules, so since you didn't, we're fining you," that would have been pretty legit.

Instead they said, "ATT is fine, nothing wrong with it.  But we're going to fine you anyway.  Because we can, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it."