3 ms·

Can't those cases simply be exempted from the requirement?

• JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Can't those cases simply be exempted from the requirement? Congratulations, you've turned a discussion about Apple's anticompetitive actions into a multi-industry free-for-all demanding and drafting exemptions. Hence why I said this is lobbyist-of-the-year material.
  • refulgentis 3y ago
    HN tends to go down extreme rabbit holes that anyone with professional legal expertise would smile at near-immediately due to it coming across as earnest and naive. Here, we see a flippant comment consume tons and tons of replies, because we tend to think of laws like code. Absolutist, and if the absolutes are wrong, we'll patch. Which then leaves you open to recursive arguments about patches and unpersuasive railing about regulation being ineffective, lobbyists, etc etc.[^1] I think this situation might be a bit of a wake up call. Apple decided to implement a maliciously compliant solution, and it's immediately obvious to all concerned they didn't fulfill the spirit of their obligations, and there will be consequences. Not necessarily negative ones. But this isnt going to get delivered with no changes while the EU stays quiet. [^1] "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."
    • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > we see a flippant comment consume tons and tons of replies, because we tend to think of laws like code. Absolutist, and if the absolutes are wrong, we'll patch. To be fair, this resembles a lot of lawmaking, too. > Apple decided to implement a maliciously compliant solution, and it's immediately obvious to all concerned they didn't fulfill the spirit of their obligations, and there will be consequences Agree.