4 ms·

Sorry, my comment may have appeared relatively thoughtless but you've hit upon the crux of the point, right? If this is the Nth top comment saying the same thin

Sorry, my comment may have appeared relatively thoughtless but you've hit upon the crux of the point, right? If this is the Nth top comment saying the same thing, and if it is so commonly asked in similar situations, then what actually is the consequence? What actually is happening next? As far as I've seen, not a whole lot? I'll also make explicit what I thought was implicitly implied in my first comment, what do people think should happen next in these situations?

dolni 5y ago
I'm "people", so I guess I'll chime in with my opinion. Laws exist because we, as a society, decided that we want to live by a certain set of rules. If the rules are not upheld, law becomes less useful. Some actors in our society follow the law because they see it is the right thing to do. A lot of actors are willing to make exceptions for this thing or that thing (e.g. speeding). Some actors don't give a damn what the law says, they're only motivated by the possibility of being caught and the subsequent punishment. And lastly, there are actors who just do what they want, punishment be damned. I would argue that corporations generally fall into the third category. They weigh the likelihood of being caught against the punishment (fine) they will receive. Regarding punishments, I think they generally ought to be the lightest possible punishment that forces compliance. Two things follow from that. One, that a punishment must be tailored to the infringer. If the infringer has a lot of money, the fines need to match. Two, that means subsequent punishments for the same infraction _necessarily_ must be harsher. The lesser punishment didn't work last time, so it must be increased. All of this to say that Apple's fine for this should be absolutely staggering. Apple could ignore staggering fines and simply not do business in countries that issue such fines. But you can only do that a few times before it starts to catch up with you.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  >Laws exist because we, as a society, decided that we want to live by a certain set of rules. If the rules are not upheld, law becomes less useful. Laws exist because someone can enforce it on someone else. That's it. Case in point, Prohibition. You can sprinkle the platitudes of society and culture, but neither should be the basis for whether a law is valid. >Regarding punishments, I think they generally ought to be the lightest possible punishment that forces compliance. Two things follow from that. One, that a punishment must be tailored to the infringer. If the infringer has a lot of money, the fines need to match. Two, that means subsequent punishments for the same infraction _necessarily_ must be harsher. The lesser punishment didn't work last time, so it must be increased. One should also question as to whether the law in place is justifiable. The Dutch court is compelling a business relationship that didn't previously exist. In doing so, it is forcing Apple to take on a cost/responsibility that it never agreed to in the first place. Enforcing an invented obligation is not a just cause to fine a company or anybody for that matter.
makeitdouble 5y ago
It’s so commonly asked because people don’t seem to get it’s not happening in the US. > What actually is happening next? As far as I've seen, not a whole lot? You’re effectively asking for the future of an ongoing case. Have you ever had a real answer on what _actually_ happened next in a court case ? If so could you also give me what’s the actual final outcome of the Epic vs Apple trial ? I’d love to know.

dolni 5y ago

I'm "people", so I guess I'll chime in with my opinion. Laws exist because we, as a society, decided that we want to live by a certain set of rules. If the rules are not upheld, law becomes less useful. Some actors in our society follow the law because they see it is the right thing to do. A lot of actors are willing to make exceptions for this thing or that thing (e.g. speeding). Some actors don't give a damn what the law says, they're only motivated by the possibility of being caught and the subsequent punishment. And lastly, there are actors who just do what they want, punishment be damned. I would argue that corporations generally fall into the third category. They weigh the likelihood of being caught against the punishment (fine) they will receive. Regarding punishments, I think they generally ought to be the lightest possible punishment that forces compliance. Two things follow from that. One, that a punishment must be tailored to the infringer. If the infringer has a lot of money, the fines need to match. Two, that means subsequent punishments for the same infraction _necessarily_ must be harsher. The lesser punishment didn't work last time, so it must be increased. All of this to say that Apple's fine for this should be absolutely staggering. Apple could ignore staggering fines and simply not do business in countries that issue such fines. But you can only do that a few times before it starts to catch up with you.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
>Laws exist because we, as a society, decided that we want to live by a certain set of rules. If the rules are not upheld, law becomes less useful. Laws exist because someone can enforce it on someone else. That's it. Case in point, Prohibition. You can sprinkle the platitudes of society and culture, but neither should be the basis for whether a law is valid. >Regarding punishments, I think they generally ought to be the lightest possible punishment that forces compliance. Two things follow from that. One, that a punishment must be tailored to the infringer. If the infringer has a lot of money, the fines need to match. Two, that means subsequent punishments for the same infraction _necessarily_ must be harsher. The lesser punishment didn't work last time, so it must be increased. One should also question as to whether the law in place is justifiable. The Dutch court is compelling a business relationship that didn't previously exist. In doing so, it is forcing Apple to take on a cost/responsibility that it never agreed to in the first place. Enforcing an invented obligation is not a just cause to fine a company or anybody for that matter.

makeitdouble 5y ago

It’s so commonly asked because people don’t seem to get it’s not happening in the US. > What actually is happening next? As far as I've seen, not a whole lot? You’re effectively asking for the future of an ongoing case. Have you ever had a real answer on what _actually_ happened next in a court case ? If so could you also give me what’s the actual final outcome of the Epic vs Apple trial ? I’d love to know.