4 ms·

> this process is not finished until browser competition on iOS is deemed fair. But, by the same token, the laws as put into place outline none of the specific

> this process is not finished until browser competition on iOS is deemed fair. But, by the same token, the laws as put into place outline none of the specifics of how that should actually function. All the EU did was wave its hand, say “browsers, please” and assumed that magically a perfect outcome would occur. Well, now that lack of clarity is biting the EU in the ass, because it left Apple a ton of wiggle room. What Apple has announced of 17.4 changes is essentially a lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying.

floydnoel 3y ago
> lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying. do you think that the regulators did that on purpose, or are they simply not competent enough to understand the implications?
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  It’s mainly on purpose. The more specific they get and the more prescriptive they are in how a business should do business, the easier it is to get it overturned in court. That’s also the reason why the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, because the first question a judge will ask is why is necessary and how they landed in the price. The inverse is also true though. By using vague terminology like “reasonable”, they have more wiggle room to argue one way or another once it gets before a court. At that point you then have to cross your fingers that the court not only finds that your reading of the vague language is the one true reading, but also that the reading itself is in line with the rest of the laws. Contrary to what people seem to think about the EU, it isn’t some benevolent dictatorship that can put a wishlist to paper and then it’s some law of nature that can’t be contested. The makers of the DMA are legislative bodies and the EC that enforces it is an executive body. Both need to work within the limitations of the law and the European courts will be the arbiters of that.

floydnoel 3y ago

> lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying. do you think that the regulators did that on purpose, or are they simply not competent enough to understand the implications?

turquoisevar 3y ago
It’s mainly on purpose. The more specific they get and the more prescriptive they are in how a business should do business, the easier it is to get it overturned in court. That’s also the reason why the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, because the first question a judge will ask is why is necessary and how they landed in the price. The inverse is also true though. By using vague terminology like “reasonable”, they have more wiggle room to argue one way or another once it gets before a court. At that point you then have to cross your fingers that the court not only finds that your reading of the vague language is the one true reading, but also that the reading itself is in line with the rest of the laws. Contrary to what people seem to think about the EU, it isn’t some benevolent dictatorship that can put a wishlist to paper and then it’s some law of nature that can’t be contested. The makers of the DMA are legislative bodies and the EC that enforces it is an executive body. Both need to work within the limitations of the law and the European courts will be the arbiters of that.