5 ms·

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that a commonly agreed upon legal fiction has “rights”. “We the people” are the ultimate arbiters of what companies c

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that a commonly agreed upon legal fiction has “rights”. “We the people” are the ultimate arbiters of what companies can and cannot do, in this case the government of the Netherlands acting on behalf of the people of the Netherlands is going to say what Apple can and cannot do in the Netherlands. Apple has no “right to profit”… no company does. They are *allowed* to profit.

simonh 5y ago
Irrespective of App Store rules and such, the idea that people acting through a company lose their rights has to die. A company is simply an organisational structure the owners, managers and employees use to exercise their rights and freedoms. We exercise our legal rights, in the context of our employment, all the time. Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too. The same arguments used to attack the activities of companies could be used to restrict political parties, or undermine the activities of charities. It’s a dangerous road to take. Commercial groups have been recognised as legitimate vehicles for the exercising of rights for hundreds, even thousands of years. There’s nothing new about it, and it’s been recognised in legal systems throughout history across the globe.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too." This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. You have many rights related to privacy and sexual reproduction that can not and should not be exercised through companies. There is also laxk of responsebility, if you commit crimes individually you will be in jail for the rest of your life, but companies get away with it regularly. Both due to power of money and diffusion of reaponsebility
  - simonh 5y ago
    It makes sense to exercise some rights though a company or similar organisation, such as a charity, NGO or political party, and not others. >This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. As I said, it has a long history and sound basis in common law jurisprudence in the west going back at least to medieval law, and in other cultures going back even further. The very word corporation, or incorporation (corpus being Latin for body), expresses the principle of representing and acting on behalf of a body of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
gruez 5y ago
>I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that a commonly agreed upon legal fiction has “rights”. He's not describing how things ought to be, just how it is right now, given the current laws. If you really want to boil things down, the "rights" you have (guaranteed by the constitution or whatever) are a "legal fiction" as well. The ultimate arbiters of what you can and can't do are the Men With Guns working for the government. They can go away the next day if there's a coup.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  This is a pretty bad argument, because it conveniently omits that antitrust regulation is also extremely open-ended. Sure, Apple has the right to profit however they see fit. The government also has the option to smack them down however they please; just a few months ago the DOJ and SEC demanded that Apple started unloading their liquid cash or risk a lawsuit. Why? They simply made too much money. That's all it was. I think the simple explanation is this: if Apple continues to make money with the insane software margins they have today, they're going to face regulatory action. The cat is out of the bag, developers are pissed off, and more than half of the states in the US have come forward in opposition to Apple's monopoly over iOS app distribution. Just short of incorporating in another country, there's very little Apple can do to maintain their status quo without some kind of regulatory action coming down the pipes.
  - dumpsterdiver 5y ago
    > This is a pretty bad argument, because it conveniently omits that antitrust regulation is also extremely open-ended. What exactly are you disagreeing with in the parent post? Why would "omitting" your unrelated point from their argument be convenient?
  - granzymes 5y ago
    > just a few months ago the DOJ and SEC demanded that Apple started unloading their liquid cash or risk a lawsuit What is this referring to?
  - Mindwipe 5y ago
    Incorporating in another country wouldn't do them much good either to be honest, unless they also intend to stop selling in the US and Europe.
thegrimmest 5y ago
If we're talking about how things ought to be, I think the power that "we the people" can have over peaceful transactions between private entities ought to be much more limited than it is now. The sledgehammer of government intervention should simply not be used to mediate private, voluntary interactions. Apple basically created the entire idea of a mobile app marketplace, transforming the entire industry with sheer innovation. They did this in an environment where they were not protected by regulation from market incumbents (anyone heard of RIM lately?) the way it is proposed to do now. Where is the justice in taking this thing that Apple has built, to all our benefit, and forcing our terms on it. The App Store is Apple's. It should be allowed to charge whatever it wants, set whatever terms it pleases, and burn it to the ground if it sees fit. Seeing Apple's creation as somehow collective when we have done nothing but queue to pay for the privilege of using it is monstrously entitled and unjust.
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  Luckily virtually no country in the world agrees with you.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Yes I agree - but the whole idea of "liberty" and the US declaration as originally intended does. Indeed most of the world is content with a high degree of authority/tyranny. That doesn't invalidate the concerns of those who wish to be free.
    - mjamesaustin 5y ago
      Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution provide any provision for the existence of corporations, which are entities that reduce individuals' liabilities for their actions while running a business. In exchange for the privilege of limiting your liability for your actions, you agree to follow a set of rules when forming and running a corporation. When acting on the behalf of a corporation, you are never engaging in "liberty" because any and everything a corporation can do is a privilege granted by the government.

simonh 5y ago

Irrespective of App Store rules and such, the idea that people acting through a company lose their rights has to die. A company is simply an organisational structure the owners, managers and employees use to exercise their rights and freedoms. We exercise our legal rights, in the context of our employment, all the time. Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too. The same arguments used to attack the activities of companies could be used to restrict political parties, or undermine the activities of charities. It’s a dangerous road to take. Commercial groups have been recognised as legitimate vehicles for the exercising of rights for hundreds, even thousands of years. There’s nothing new about it, and it’s been recognised in legal systems throughout history across the globe.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too." This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. You have many rights related to privacy and sexual reproduction that can not and should not be exercised through companies. There is also laxk of responsebility, if you commit crimes individually you will be in jail for the rest of your life, but companies get away with it regularly. Both due to power of money and diffusion of reaponsebility
- simonh 5y ago
  It makes sense to exercise some rights though a company or similar organisation, such as a charity, NGO or political party, and not others. >This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. As I said, it has a long history and sound basis in common law jurisprudence in the west going back at least to medieval law, and in other cultures going back even further. The very word corporation, or incorporation (corpus being Latin for body), expresses the principle of representing and acting on behalf of a body of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

gruez 5y ago

>I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that a commonly agreed upon legal fiction has “rights”. He's not describing how things ought to be, just how it is right now, given the current laws. If you really want to boil things down, the "rights" you have (guaranteed by the constitution or whatever) are a "legal fiction" as well. The ultimate arbiters of what you can and can't do are the Men With Guns working for the government. They can go away the next day if there's a coup.

smoldesu 5y ago
This is a pretty bad argument, because it conveniently omits that antitrust regulation is also extremely open-ended. Sure, Apple has the right to profit however they see fit. The government also has the option to smack them down however they please; just a few months ago the DOJ and SEC demanded that Apple started unloading their liquid cash or risk a lawsuit. Why? They simply made too much money. That's all it was. I think the simple explanation is this: if Apple continues to make money with the insane software margins they have today, they're going to face regulatory action. The cat is out of the bag, developers are pissed off, and more than half of the states in the US have come forward in opposition to Apple's monopoly over iOS app distribution. Just short of incorporating in another country, there's very little Apple can do to maintain their status quo without some kind of regulatory action coming down the pipes.
- dumpsterdiver 5y ago
  > This is a pretty bad argument, because it conveniently omits that antitrust regulation is also extremely open-ended. What exactly are you disagreeing with in the parent post? Why would "omitting" your unrelated point from their argument be convenient?
- granzymes 5y ago
  > just a few months ago the DOJ and SEC demanded that Apple started unloading their liquid cash or risk a lawsuit What is this referring to?
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  Incorporating in another country wouldn't do them much good either to be honest, unless they also intend to stop selling in the US and Europe.

thegrimmest 5y ago

If we're talking about how things ought to be, I think the power that "we the people" can have over peaceful transactions between private entities ought to be much more limited than it is now. The sledgehammer of government intervention should simply not be used to mediate private, voluntary interactions. Apple basically created the entire idea of a mobile app marketplace, transforming the entire industry with sheer innovation. They did this in an environment where they were not protected by regulation from market incumbents (anyone heard of RIM lately?) the way it is proposed to do now. Where is the justice in taking this thing that Apple has built, to all our benefit, and forcing our terms on it. The App Store is Apple's. It should be allowed to charge whatever it wants, set whatever terms it pleases, and burn it to the ground if it sees fit. Seeing Apple's creation as somehow collective when we have done nothing but queue to pay for the privilege of using it is monstrously entitled and unjust.

Mindwipe 5y ago
Luckily virtually no country in the world agrees with you.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Yes I agree - but the whole idea of "liberty" and the US declaration as originally intended does. Indeed most of the world is content with a high degree of authority/tyranny. That doesn't invalidate the concerns of those who wish to be free.
  - mjamesaustin 5y ago
    Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution provide any provision for the existence of corporations, which are entities that reduce individuals' liabilities for their actions while running a business. In exchange for the privilege of limiting your liability for your actions, you agree to follow a set of rules when forming and running a corporation. When acting on the behalf of a corporation, you are never engaging in "liberty" because any and everything a corporation can do is a privilege granted by the government.