anonymouse

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. 

oxonrich said:

The DMA isn't an extortion racket.

gatorguy said:

AppleZulu said:

shrave10 said:

AppleZulu said:

shrave10 said:

Whitehouse is right here IMO.  Unless Epic, Nintendo, and third party app stores for iOS all reduce their own commissions to developers to zero as well, Pres. Trump has full right to raise EU tariffs to the amount to recover any illegal fines to US companies.  

It is not fair that all other platform vendors can charge a platform fee commission while Apple is not allowed to do same to recover costs of development, support, and marketing.  Core platform licensing fees can be negotiated to be on similar or even slightly lower than that of other platform vendors but it can not be zero.  

I feel like a lot of people don’t understand how tariffs work. They are a government tax on goods being imported into this country. The US importers pay the tax. Then, either they eat that cost, or add it to the price of the goods as they are sold to US consumers. 

So what you’re proposing here seems to be that the federal government should collect $570 million in taxes from US consumers who buy EU-made goods and then give those tax dollars to Apple so they can pay the $570 million fine to the EU. 

That ought to show ‘em. 

That's a short term view.  The reason EU manufacturing wants tariffs down is because of the longer term implications.  For ex. cars manufactured in EU will drop in marketshare > raises costs on their cars due to loss of economies of scale > negative feedback loop.  

 Meanwhile US manufactured cars gain market share, gain advantages of scaling up volumes, drop in costs > positive feedback loop.  

So yes, tariffs may be paid by US importers.  But in the long run, it leads to reorienting of supply chains and jobs that go with it.

It's not a "short view." I'm calling out the nonsensical idea of the US collecting a tariff to "recover" the EU fines. Collecting a tax from US consumers in order to pay a fine to the EU does nothing to effect the EU's position on the fine, other than perhaps to provoke them to increase the fine, which will then also either be paid by Apple or as you propose, by the US consumer.

As for your pivot to extolling the protectionist virtues of tariffs, that's irrelevant to this case as well. $570 million is six one-hundredths of a percent of the value of EU goods imported into the US last year. Increasing tariffs to "recover" Apple's $570 million fine would have no perceptible protectionist impact on US goods competing with EU goods. Increasing tariffs to the point that it could have the effect you describe still means that the US consumer pays for it. They will either pay more for the imported item, or pay more for a "protected" US-made item. Alternatively, as will be the case for many things, US consumer will be unable to purchase many items at any price, because prohibitively high tariffs are already causing many US importers and retailers to simply cancel import orders entirely, even as there are no US-made alternatives to replace them, and no viable way to start making them here at any point in the near to mid-term future.

I think Trump's originally stated goal was to use tariffs as a revenue source to allow US income taxes to be rolled back, a consumption tax in effect. Those are generally considered regressive taxes, a type of taxation that has a disproportionate effect on low and middle-income families. That's why it's favored by the wealthier who don't need to spend the bulk of their income on food and shelter, medical, and various daily needs. 

From my view, the tariffs will be left in place for every country wanting to deal with us, just at a lower rate than the punishment level currently being threatened. In no scenario will the middle class benefit as much as the top 10% among us. It's not designed to, and overall it won't lead to better paying jobs for the 90% either. It's really not about jobs, it's about wealth, which always seems to bubble up faster than trickle down. Fortunately, it isn't as easy to foist on everyone as the Project writers had presumed. If only the world would cooperate and let the US run everything, right?

avon b7 said:

That's why other countries have required Apple to make similar changes.