> That is not how things should work in a system based on the rule of law and fairness. Something doesn't jive here. If it is that clear cut, didn't EC read it

> That is not how things should work in a system based on the rule of law and fairness. Something doesn't jive here. If it is that clear cut, didn't EC read its own laws before asking Apple to pay? If there is a paragraph they skipped someone should point to that, Apple should perhaps. It would seem to me EC is implying what has happened in the past was not entirely legal somehow. Then it is not obvious what should happen next. Notice Apple mentions how they "asked govt. of Ireland" for guidance. That means they might have documentation of a govt. official advising it to act that way. That is very important because it is building the case of Ireland here doing something illegal against the EC laws. So Apple is washing their hands here of this case.