4 ms·
Ben argues that even the Apple question is murky enough to make it impractical for regulation to step in. Expanding the question only muddies the waters even mo
by enos_feedler 5y ago
Ben argues that even the Apple question is murky enough to make it impractical for regulation to step in. Expanding the question only muddies the waters even more. For any actual change to occur the underlying issue needs more focus and clarity. I would say follow the email trails and focus more specifically on Spotify, iBooks and conflict of interest
- halostatue 5y agoIt’s impractical for the courts to regulate. Congress can pass laws about this sort of behaviour if they wish.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoI doubt it's within Congress's ability or capability. In addition to property rights, this case also involves freedom of speech and association. Congress can't make any laws abridging Apple's freedoms at the expense of the consumer's/developer's or vice versa. The courts don't exist to regulate, they exist to interpret their impartial findings on the basis of current law. What's needed is an answer to these questions and there's no better place to do it than in the courts.
- halostatue 5y agoMarketplaces, even so-called private ones, can ultimately be under the purview of government. If Apple didn’t police scams, you can bet that the FTC would be involved. There are _definitely_ areas where government could interfere. It’s not necessarily inappropriate that the courts are unlikely to interfere in what is fundamentally a legislative responsibility.