4 ms·

We could make some (but we won’t), and this justification would hold up just fine in that case; whether or not the laws actually exist is immaterial.

• JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > We could make some (but we won’t), and this justification would hold up just fine in that case Not really. Court cases are all about justifying why an action or inaction meets or fails a law. Legislation is all about justifying why a cause requires legislative action. Exercising freedoms, for a person or group of people pursuing common enterprise, does not need to be justified. The moment it does, it’s not a right. And choosing how to price an unregulated inessential good outside emergency conditions is not activity Americans have to justify to their government.
  • 6510 6y ago
    I dunno. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act Reads like a joke now?
  • username90 6y ago
    > And choosing how to price an unregulated inessential good outside emergency conditions is not activity Americans have to justify to their government. No, choosing how to price things is needed for modern capitalism to work which is why we have antitrust laws. The question you should ask yourself is "if the 30% tax is many times higher than what it costs Apple to deliver the service, what forces would cause Apple to reduce said tax?", if you can't come up with an answer then we need antitrust action here.
    • gordeh 6y ago
      Why does apple have to deliver its service to a 3rd party at cost price? It can charge what it likes. If they charged 60% and all app developers moved over to google the market would soon follow or Apple would change. The cost of the service for Apple is irrelevant in this court case.