>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

>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.