anonymouse

mikethemartian said:

anonymouse said:

So, did Bezos finally grow a pair or will he step in and scuttle this plan? If he's grown a pair, maybe he'll decide it's time to restore WAPO to being an actually newspaper. If not, he should sell it.

It's funny and disgusting at the same time that the "White House" considers it a "hostile and political" act to tell the American public the truth about Trump's tariffs.

Bezos will cave.

Stabitha_Christie said:

anonymouse said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

anonymouse said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

anonymouse said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

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.

It's a 'law'. It's a regulation and has to be complied with.

If you want to trace the legal why and the how you can go right back to one of the pillars of the EU: The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as it is now known).

As for the spirit of the law. I suggest you read up on 'floor' clauses in mortgage contracts which were deemed illegal in virtually all cases, not that they are (in fact, they are perfectly legal) but because they were not communicated to consumers in a suitable fashion. In spite of being very clearly laid out in the mortgage deeds and having a public notary read them at the signing.

The case was escalated to the ECB by a Spanish judge. 

The ruling (now firm) led to banks returning billions to consumers. Other similar banking abuses have also fallen foul to the ECB. I, myself am in the process of reclaiming mortgage charges that were applied to me in 2004 and that the ECB has considered unfair. Some banks are automatically calculating and refunding those charges (most without applying legal interest to the sums and hoping consumers will accept it) and others are basically dragging their feet and seeing if consumers will take them to court. If that happens and consumers have the relevant invoices etc, the bank will lose have to pay the costs and very probably the interest. 

Of course, this isn't DSA/DMA related. That is too new to speak of, and Apple has already said it will appeal. We will see how that goes but Apple won't be claiming it isn't a law. 

It's not only US companies that get whacked, of course. 

So, tell us, based solely on the DMA and statements by regulators prior to announcing fines, what exactly would compliance look like? Please support your explanation by citing the appropriate sections of the DMA and/or regulator statements made prior to announcing fines that spell this out. Oh, and for regulator statements, please give dates and who made the statement.

Why? That is not my job. That is for the people who dealing with this issue. Does that not make sense to you?

In fact, it has already been done and Apple will base its appeal on that information. 

You are not going to get spoon-fed compliance directives - ever. 

Looking for that would be foolish. 

Did the GDPR get that? NO. Again, interpretation is key. There have been literally thousands of cases presented and every day new situations (and interpretations) come to light. And that legislation is now relatively old. 

Apple can (and will) appeal. That is the nature of the beast. 

That said, this is a law and there is interpretation involved. The spirit, or whatever you want to call it. 

IMO, you need only to read the preamble to the text to understand why Apple is in the current situation. 

Does Apple have a dominant position (gatekeeper status)? Yes. 

Has Apple knowingly and deliberately acted to harm competition? Yes. 

Let's not ignore what is painfully obvious. Apple got away with abusing its position until someone decided to try and level things up. New legislation was required. And that 'someone' isn't anybody. It's the EU with support of its member states. The same has happened all over the place and something similar is very likely to spring up in the US at some point. 

These rulings (once investigations have been finalised) are the result. 

Apple (and everyone else in similar positions) is free to compete on a more level playing field, stop its willful restrictions on competition - or leave. 

The DSA/DMA will be revised and updated over time but right now there has been a ruling and a fine. 

The idea that laws require everyone to "read between the lines" and "follow the unwritten rule" (and what, hire a medium to call on its spirit?) is simply preposterous. 

It is really difficult to tell if you are simply being disingenuous or are demonstrating a stunning level of ignorance.  Laws and regulations rarely are so detailed as to define every instance in which they are applicable. In part because it would take forever to do so and because their authors cannot predict the future and in what instances they will need to be applied. And while your inclination may be to invoke the supernatural when you don’t understand something that isn’t what happens with laws/regulations and we also don't require everyone to read between the lines. We have clearly defined groups of people (with expertise) and a clearly defined process for doing this. Interpreting the intent of law is the role of the judiciary. Have you never seen, heard or read about court ruling?  This is why Apple is afforded due process and the right to appeal when they think the law/regulation has been misapplied. Nothing preposterous about it. 

There is a very real and substantial difference between a constitution and/or existing law not covering every eventuality and crafting a catchall law that is deliberately designed to mean whatever the "authorities" want it to mean. You are describing the former, while the DMA is clearly an instance of the latter and it evidences either an extreme degree of disingenuousness or a stunning level of ignorance to pretend otherwise.

You are selectively responding to my comment and just sidestepping the part where the judiciary is the independent arbiter of the DMAs implementation while pretending that the crafters are some sort of unilateral authority when they don't.  It is fantastic example of conformation bias and answers the question of ignorance vs. disingenuous.  It's you being disingenuous for sure. Should you choose to alter your path and have an honest discussion let me know. 

Well, that's assuming the judiciary is actually independent and unbiased, which, after Ireland, clearly seems not to be the case, and equally clearly it seems they will just rubber stamp whatever the EU wants to do, particularly if it is relation to interests outside the EU. I'm afraid I'm not the one who is being disingenuous or ignorant, and you are assuring us you aren't being the former.

If you have evidence that the EU judiciary is not independent or carries a bias the feel free to share it along with all relevant citations. As it stands all you are offering is conjecture and opinion. You are obviously free to whatever onions you chose to hold but I’d rather stick with the world of facts. 

Also, is think I’m ignorant, please point out where I am mistaken. My claim is pretty simple. The EU has laws and regulations and disputes are handled via the judiciary. Which of those claims am I incorrect about. Thanks. 

As already mentioned, but conveniently ignored by you, the Ireland case has already proven that Apple will never get any justice from the EU and that the judiciary are as biased as the so-called "regulators" — i.e., the extortionists — and clearly controlled by them. So, lack of independence, bias, corruption, the judiciary are all in on the game. Someone above mentioned a "kangaroo court", and that's exactly what we see in these cases.

It's really kind of sad that you guys fell so far behind on everything, but it's really not acceptable that you just steal it from us to "level the playing field" as you like to say.

You didn’t address what I said and simply stating your option as fact. Again, should you chose to have an intellectually honest conversation let me know. 

oxonrich said:

anonymouse said:

oxonrich said:

anonymouse said:

oxonrich said:

The DMA isn't an extortion racket.

Sorry, but if it weren't an extortion racket they would publish actual regulations that tell companies like Apple precisely what compliance consists of. Do they do that? No, they don't, they just "find" that whatever these companies, with no concrete guidance at all on what is expected, did do "wasn't sufficient". Classic racket.

The regulations are clear. Others manage to comply. 

Others? Oh good one, thought you were being serious for a moment. I know, the whole "gatekeeper" pretense makes this so ridiculous.

Your ignorance is showing. 

If you're really not a fan of kangaroo courts, perhaps it is time to speak up about the disgrace that is your SC. 

red oak said:

avon b7 said:

red oak said:

krawall said:

I think it's time for the gloves to come off. honestly... this is a disgrace. How long are you guys across the pond (westwards, to be clear) watching this disaster unfolding?

Yes the US are very important for the whole world's economy, but there's limits to everything. We should stop this appeasing and just call out things what they are. The US government decided that diplomacy is no longer "in", so the rest of the world should not be trying to uphold principles towards the US that are not reciprocated. 

“Time for the gloves to come off”.    LoL.  The EU has no technology.    Zero. Nothing.   That is why it spends all its time with bureaucracy  and trying to fine everyone 

Go ahead and “take your gloves off”  LoL 

Technology isn't everything.

There is an EU document out there from the pandemic period analysing strategic dependencies between the EU and other countries/trading blocs.

The US was dependent on the EU for over 260 products. 

The EU was dependent on the US for 15.

Areas where the EU was ahead included Advanced manufacturing, IoT, security, advanced materials, photonics and active ingredients for the pharmaceutical industry. 

Most of that happens to involve 'technology'. 

“An EU document out there”.   LoL 

The EU is a leader in NONE of those examples you give.   NONE.    You really think the EU leads the US in advanced materials?    What are you smoking.   I’m surprised you did not list Spotify as your leading tech company