4 ms·
>I mean, it's essentially antitrust. There have been very significant changes to legislation, which forced Apple to change their practices. This isn't an issue
by constantcrying 2y ago
>I mean, it's essentially antitrust.
There have been very significant changes to legislation, which forced Apple to change their practices. This isn't an issue where one company over reached and was forced to change their behavior. This is a long running process by the EU.
>Most of what government do is reasonably niche. Like, this obviously gets a lot of attention on HN, but it's only a very small part of the stuff that the EC does.
- rsynnott 2y agoYeah. The US approach is, generally, to try to address novel issues in court, essentially creating new rules via the courts in areas which currently have poor coverage (US agencies do also create new rules via devolved powers, or via legislation, but the US system leans more on the courts). The EU tends to legislate, by preference, and then enforce the new rules (at which point they're challenged in court, typically). Currently, the US is addressing this via the US v Apple, US v Google etc cases (applying existing law and precedent to a novel situation), while the EU is addressing it via the DMA and DSA (new laws intended for this sort of situation). To some extent this is just a difference between common law and civil law practices (strictly speaking the ECJ isn't civil law, it's its own thing), though the US does lean more heavily on litigation vs legislation than even other common law countries.