4 ms·

IMNAL, but I think you are trying to apply criminal legal theory to a civil situation. In this case the law dictates redress of the infraction through restituti

by gwright 11y ago

IMNAL, but I think you are trying to apply criminal legal theory to a civil situation. In this case the law dictates redress of the infraction through restitution and not punishment. I'm not sure I would want to live in a world where administrative regulations were punishable through imprisonment. I think there would be some pretty severe unintended consequences to economic activities. Helpful definition of criminal vs. civil law: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law

maxxxxx 11y ago
My point is that the little guy gets destroyed in the same situation whereas the big guy gets way with it.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  I don't think I'd call a $450 million dollar fine "getting away with it". That's HUGE. Also remember a vast majority of Apple's money is off shore so this is actually "noticeable".
- lmm 11y ago
  The little guy usually gets destroyed for doing something unambiguously illegal that was unambiguously illegal at the time. Whereas the big guy gets a (proportionately) small fine for... well, ultimately the court decided they were breaking the law, but it was more a matter of making a judgement call the wrong way. This case may be more clear-cut, but that's generally why you see these differences.
  - maxxxxx 11y ago
    A while ago I did some reading about lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that promoted unapproved uses of their drugs. There is a very good book about epo. According to that reading the main reason is they get small fines is that the government doesn't have the budget to go after big companies. They simply can't afford it and take what they can get.
    - lmm 11y ago
      You won't find any clear bright line violations there though. Doctors can prescribe drugs off-label. Pharmaceutical reps can talk about what other doctors have done, they just can't promote off-label uses. It's very much the kind of judgement call I was talking about.
swehner 11y ago
Imprisonment was not mentioned. And what "redress of the infraction" (for the "consumers") constitutes is not clear. Plus, the amount came from an "out-of-court settlement." In this case, why let Apple continue their service? Or, multiply the fine by 50.
rahimnathwani 11y ago
I understood that price fixing could be prosecuted as a criminal matter, but I'm not sure what happened in this case, and whether a single case could result in both civil and criminal penalties. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... "The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison."
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>pretty severe unintended consequences to economic activities // Like an end to collusion to fix higher prices for customers? What is not criminal about it? It's not a wrong against a specific person it's a wrong against everyone else who operates in that market, customers and suppliers alike. It's also a general wrong in perverting the financial systems around that market. Those who instigated such efforts certainly committed a crime in my view.
- gwright 11y ago
  The problem I was alluding to is that this would radically change the risk management aspects of a business. There is a certain amount of subjectivity in regulatory frameworks. An honest business decision may trigger a fine due to interpretation of the regulation or even unforeseen complications. There are a variety of tools to manage financial risk (e.g. insurance) that businesses are very familiar with. If you convert these civil violations into criminal violations those risk management techniques don't apply. You can't purchase insurance that sends someone else to jail if you are found in criminal violation of a regulation. So what I was suggesting was that criminalizing regulatory violations would make companies highly risk adverse as well as giving regulators really big sticks to force concessions. Changing the business environment in such an extreme way is going to have lots of unintended consequences.

by gwright 11y ago

maxxxxx 11y ago

My point is that the little guy gets destroyed in the same situation whereas the big guy gets way with it.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
I don't think I'd call a $450 million dollar fine "getting away with it". That's HUGE. Also remember a vast majority of Apple's money is off shore so this is actually "noticeable".
lmm 11y ago
The little guy usually gets destroyed for doing something unambiguously illegal that was unambiguously illegal at the time. Whereas the big guy gets a (proportionately) small fine for... well, ultimately the court decided they were breaking the law, but it was more a matter of making a judgement call the wrong way. This case may be more clear-cut, but that's generally why you see these differences.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  A while ago I did some reading about lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that promoted unapproved uses of their drugs. There is a very good book about epo. According to that reading the main reason is they get small fines is that the government doesn't have the budget to go after big companies. They simply can't afford it and take what they can get.
  - lmm 11y ago
    You won't find any clear bright line violations there though. Doctors can prescribe drugs off-label. Pharmaceutical reps can talk about what other doctors have done, they just can't promote off-label uses. It's very much the kind of judgement call I was talking about.

swehner 11y ago

Imprisonment was not mentioned. And what "redress of the infraction" (for the "consumers") constitutes is not clear. Plus, the amount came from an "out-of-court settlement." In this case, why let Apple continue their service? Or, multiply the fine by 50.

rahimnathwani 11y ago

I understood that price fixing could be prosecuted as a criminal matter, but I'm not sure what happened in this case, and whether a single case could result in both civil and criminal penalties. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... "The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison."

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

>pretty severe unintended consequences to economic activities // Like an end to collusion to fix higher prices for customers? What is not criminal about it? It's not a wrong against a specific person it's a wrong against everyone else who operates in that market, customers and suppliers alike. It's also a general wrong in perverting the financial systems around that market. Those who instigated such efforts certainly committed a crime in my view.

gwright 11y ago
The problem I was alluding to is that this would radically change the risk management aspects of a business. There is a certain amount of subjectivity in regulatory frameworks. An honest business decision may trigger a fine due to interpretation of the regulation or even unforeseen complications. There are a variety of tools to manage financial risk (e.g. insurance) that businesses are very familiar with. If you convert these civil violations into criminal violations those risk management techniques don't apply. You can't purchase insurance that sends someone else to jail if you are found in criminal violation of a regulation. So what I was suggesting was that criminalizing regulatory violations would make companies highly risk adverse as well as giving regulators really big sticks to force concessions. Changing the business environment in such an extreme way is going to have lots of unintended consequences.