anonymouse

avon b7 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. 

Got it, you wish to disagree with me "on principle" even though you, at least tacitly, admit everything I say is true while at the same time denying it all in a backhand sort of way. 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. 

Just one nit to pick, I don't see any evidence that Apple was "abusing its position". What I do see is the EU running an extortion racket and, like a bunch of mafiosa, propping up their own monopolies like Spotify. 

Preposterous is what you are expecting. 

You are free to not see abuse. Publicly Apple doesn't see it either. No surprises there. 

That doesn't change anything. The EU did see abuse. On App Stores, NFC, Wallets, Browsers, anti-steering, messaging... 

Internally we have known for years that Apple itself has used the term 'lock in'. 

That's why the the DMA/DSA was needed and passed into law. That's why other countries have required Apple to make similar changes. That is why the US is very likely to go down the same path. 

Apple has choice. Comply or leave are two simple options. If it wants to drag its feet on compliance (in spite of extensive direct communication with the EU) it will simply run into higher fines along the way for 'malicious' compliance. 

There you go again with your talk about compliance, but, as we have established, there are no actual regulations nor even guidelines establishing what compliance looks like. So we have a law that is impossible to "comply" with because it's intent is to hobble American tech companies and line the pockets of the EU with cash from those companies. So whatever they do is always, and can always be, said to be not enough. In other words, Apple and other tech companies cannot ever "comply" with the DMA because "regulators" simply redefine what "compliance" is to insure that companies have "not complied". This is a slippery slope for EU citizens because next they may create such "laws" that do affect you, and you will not be able to comply either, particularly if you are a member of a targeted group, which can be anyone they want it to be.

As I said before, this represents an insidious descent into what is essentially lawlessness because the "laws" will become so plastic as to include anything the enforcers want them to include, and will be applied in a capricious and arbitrary manner at the whim of the "regulators", just as we see with the DMA.

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.

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. 

Got it, you wish to disagree with me "on principle" even though you, at least tacitly, admit everything I say is true while at the same time denying it all in a backhand sort of way. 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. 

Just one nit to pick, I don't see any evidence that Apple was "abusing its position". What I do see is the EU running an extortion racket and, like a bunch of mafiosa, propping up their own monopolies like Spotify. 

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.

mikethemartian said:

Is this from the same WH that claimed they were going to win the tariff war?

I hear they are getting advice from Charlie Sheen. Winning!