cropr

anonymouse said:

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".

There is a fundamental difference between the way American laws and European laws are applied.   American laws are applied very strictly.  You must do exactly X to comply to the law.  In Europe the spirit of the law is as important as the letter of the law, and it is up to the people to apply the law in good faith according to common sense.   Disclaimers for  products sold in the US are on average 5 times longer than their European counterparts.

I understand that a lot of Americans have cultural issues accepting the way European law is working.  In this case, the court stated that Apple did not fulfill the requirements and that is for Europeans more than sufficient to understand what is meant: Apple should apply ATT for its own apps as well, but it is up to Apple to decide which changes should be made to comply to the rule.

You last sentence is clearly an indication that you fail to understand that any non US law system can have its own merits

mknelson said:

gatorguy said:

beowulfschmidt said:

Apple, being an American company, is probably going to take the position that, "We don't need to prove our innocence.  If you think we're guilty, prove it."

If DoC thinks Apple is doing the nefarious things, prove it.  It seems at least possible that Apple is indirectly responsible for some of them.  Apple's suppliers might not be as scrupulous as Apple itself, and also might also be victims of bad actors even farther down the chain.

The cases are being heard in France and Belgium, where the DRC has filed its evidence. It's not a case of prove your innocence.

Completing your thought… in that those jurisdictions also assume innocent until proven guilty, so the DRC would have to provide credible evidence to prove guilt. "none of its smelters or refiners have financed armed gangs selling the conflict materials outside of official channels." That's an odd sentence. They finance armed gangs through official channels?

The legal system in Belgium and France are both based on the code Napoleon, which in this case means that Apple is assumed to be innocent until proven, but contrary to American legal system, DRC has not to provide any prove of guilt.  In both countries the the complaint will be handled by an "investigation judge", who will decide how to procede. The investigating judge assembles evidence for and against the complaint, he is assumed to be impartial.  In order to do that he has a lot of power: he can instruct the police to investigate certain aspects, he can arrest people, he can confiscate documents, he can issue search warrants, ....  If the investigating judge concludes the case has its merits, he will transfer the case to a criminal court where a criminal judge will decide (no jury).

kiltedgreen said:

Until Apple released the iPhone I doubt Spotify even had personal streaming as a viable proposition (if they even existed then). Given Apple have charged right from the start, Spotify could just have said “We don’t want to use your expensive delivery system” and done it themselves. But they didn’t. And now they complain (or at least some people are).

strongy said:

cropr said:

The title is misleading:  Apple must not pay the amount to the EU, but to the Irish government.     The court has decided that the reduced tax rate  must be considered as illegal government aid to a private company.  This illegal aid must be reimbursed to Ireland.    

Ireland is on apple's side they said as much, i bet you the all the EU wanted was get its hand on all that money at least they don't get any of it.

Ireland was in competition with other European countries to become Apple's EU headquarter.   The EU commisioner Vestager said from the start that reduced tax rate should be considered as Irish government aid and that Ireland should apply the "nomal" tax rate.    The court just confirmed the position Vestager held all these years.