4 ms·

Doesn't need to: You want into the EU market? EU demands this for the whole world. The EU can set any requirement it wants for market access. Such is the power

by sgift 3y ago

Doesn't need to: You want into the EU market? EU demands this for the whole world. The EU can set any requirement it wants for market access. Such is the power of governments. And since someone will state that then other countries can do the same: Correct. And then companies will have to decide if the market in question is big enough to play by those rules.

shafyy 3y ago
No, the EU cannot dictate what companies do in other countries. They can only require them to meet standards for services and products that are sold in the EU (or maybe if the companies are headquartered in EU).
- zilti 3y ago
  You're being really obtuse, aren't you. The EU can say "If you do not implement that functionality on all iPhones world-wide, then you are not allowed to sell any iPhone at all in the EU".
  - shafyy 3y ago
    I mean, of course they can say it, but it would lead to a legal and trade agreement shit show.
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  Didn't eu/uk do exactly this by blocking an acquisition of an us company by another us company and the company listened?
  - shafyy 3y ago
    Which one?
    - jxdxbx 3y ago
      Adobe / Figma, and Amazon / iRobot. And to the point of the discussion, there are no "limits" to what jurisdiction governments have. Governments--the United States especially but many others--does it all the time, especially as concerns financial matters. Many countries have declared that they have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed any time, anywhere, by anyone. China has penalized American companies for activities involving Americans in America. However the EU probably has self-imposed limits (or imposed by the member states) and as a practical matter only large or powerful states can get away with it.
      - shafyy 3y ago
        Mergers are a different thing, though. In this case, it also impacts the EU - and you can't just say we won't merge in the EU but will merge in the US, doesn't make sense. A more analogues example would be e.g. if the EU would have said "Hey Adobe, if you launch this feature in the US, you can't do business in the EU". > China has penalized American companies for activities involving Americans in America. What are you referring to? > Many countries have declared that they have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed any time, anywhere, by anyone. This is a whole different topic, stop moving the goal posts.
        jxdxbx 3y ago
        China has fined companies for referring to Taiwan as a "country" on websites in English, directed towards Americans, for instance. Apart from financial crimes the US imposes US law on foreign companies all the time--e.g. companies that do business with embargoed countries. Also the US considers things like "a transaction was conducted in dollars" as a hook for US jurisdiction.
        Moldoteck 3y ago
        mergers are different thing as the outcome, but the mechanism is the same> two companies based in US could not merge because EU said so. The fact that the outcome of the merge vs outcome of some implemented features are different are just details that are not relevant for this discussion. EU absolutely can impose it's will on foreign companies and if those want to be present in EU market, they'll follow the rules
- vikarti 3y ago
  They can. Every country can. And they do in other cases - USA is perfectly Ok to sanction Chinese/UAE bank for doing business with Russian military. If it's ok to it with sanctions - why it's not ok to do it for market access? Yes, this could create situation where things EU requires worldwide are in direct conflict with other countries but it's rather unlikely to happen.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> EU can set any requirement it wants for market access One, as long as it’s a land with the rule of law, it can’t. Two, this would constitute starting a trade war over…browser engines. Good luck getting people who depend on popular votes to back you up on that.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > Two, this would constitute starting a trade war over…browser engines. Good luck getting people who depend on popular votes to back you up on that. It's so insane you'd be forgiven for forgetting that it already happened (with bipartisan political support): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

by sgift 3y ago

shafyy 3y ago

No, the EU cannot dictate what companies do in other countries. They can only require them to meet standards for services and products that are sold in the EU (or maybe if the companies are headquartered in EU).

zilti 3y ago
You're being really obtuse, aren't you. The EU can say "If you do not implement that functionality on all iPhones world-wide, then you are not allowed to sell any iPhone at all in the EU".
- shafyy 3y ago
  I mean, of course they can say it, but it would lead to a legal and trade agreement shit show.
Moldoteck 3y ago
Didn't eu/uk do exactly this by blocking an acquisition of an us company by another us company and the company listened?
- shafyy 3y ago
  Which one?
  - jxdxbx 3y ago
    Adobe / Figma, and Amazon / iRobot. And to the point of the discussion, there are no "limits" to what jurisdiction governments have. Governments--the United States especially but many others--does it all the time, especially as concerns financial matters. Many countries have declared that they have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed any time, anywhere, by anyone. China has penalized American companies for activities involving Americans in America. However the EU probably has self-imposed limits (or imposed by the member states) and as a practical matter only large or powerful states can get away with it.
    - shafyy 3y ago
      Mergers are a different thing, though. In this case, it also impacts the EU - and you can't just say we won't merge in the EU but will merge in the US, doesn't make sense. A more analogues example would be e.g. if the EU would have said "Hey Adobe, if you launch this feature in the US, you can't do business in the EU". > China has penalized American companies for activities involving Americans in America. What are you referring to? > Many countries have declared that they have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed any time, anywhere, by anyone. This is a whole different topic, stop moving the goal posts.
      - jxdxbx 3y ago
        China has fined companies for referring to Taiwan as a "country" on websites in English, directed towards Americans, for instance. Apart from financial crimes the US imposes US law on foreign companies all the time--e.g. companies that do business with embargoed countries. Also the US considers things like "a transaction was conducted in dollars" as a hook for US jurisdiction.
      - Moldoteck 3y ago
        mergers are different thing as the outcome, but the mechanism is the same> two companies based in US could not merge because EU said so. The fact that the outcome of the merge vs outcome of some implemented features are different are just details that are not relevant for this discussion. EU absolutely can impose it's will on foreign companies and if those want to be present in EU market, they'll follow the rules
vikarti 3y ago
They can. Every country can. And they do in other cases - USA is perfectly Ok to sanction Chinese/UAE bank for doing business with Russian military. If it's ok to it with sanctions - why it's not ok to do it for market access? Yes, this could create situation where things EU requires worldwide are in direct conflict with other countries but it's rather unlikely to happen.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> EU can set any requirement it wants for market access One, as long as it’s a land with the rule of law, it can’t. Two, this would constitute starting a trade war over…browser engines. Good luck getting people who depend on popular votes to back you up on that.

smoldesu 3y ago
> Two, this would constitute starting a trade war over…browser engines. Good luck getting people who depend on popular votes to back you up on that. It's so insane you'd be forgiven for forgetting that it already happened (with bipartisan political support): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....