4 ms·

Is it "a simple comma"? Or is it a very intentional comma? The courts debating commas, at least in circumstances of this sort, strikes me as a particularly farc

by asib 1y ago

Is it "a simple comma"? Or is it a very intentional comma? The courts debating commas, at least in circumstances of this sort, strikes me as a particularly farcical consequence of modern justice systems. Can't we ask legislators to clarify their own legislation?

valiant55 1y ago
The courts interpretation is pretty clearly the correct one. The title is laying it on a little thick as Apple very clearly tried to interpret the law in a way that favored them and then threw up a pretty shoddy defense to try to feign ignorance.
StopDisinfo910 1y ago
All debates leading to the laws are public with transcript available and it’s the EU so you have access to dozens of translation. It’s not about a comma. It’s Apple trying to argue they can breach a law because look we might twist it if we mistreat despite the law being clear and on the way to be slapped in the face because there is nothing the EU hates more than companies trying to play clever tricks with legislation. The only surprising thing is that Apple has still to understand that despite all the fines. Apple keeps acting like the EU is the US and lose most of the time. You have to wonder if they plainly refuse to hire good counsels or the American executives are just to proud to listen to them.
- hu3 1y ago
  Yeah Apple keeps trying to act like smart pants lawyers, trying to find breaches of interpretation. This wont end well for them because EU stance is clear: give users more freedom and stop with the BS.
susiecambria 1y ago
As someone who has spent 25+ years working with legislation and legislators in the US, to me the point is not whether the comma is the problem (to Apple) but rather that the law is the law. If the legislators wanted to do something other than what they did, they should have been more clear. If there was a mistake in the drafting, legislators can now fix it. But any fix will not be retroactive. And in my experience, very few legislators would be able to tell you what they thought they were doing when that provision was drafted. As to it being farcical, I wonder if this behavior of parsing grammar and punctuation is getting more common.
- eviks 1y ago
  > If the legislators wanted to do something other than what they did, they should have been more clear Except for the fact that this mythical clarity simply doesn't exist, so no amount of want can create it. And to add more to the farce: the criteria the courts use aren't clear either
- saurik 1y ago
  > As someone who has spent 25+ years working with legislation and legislators in the US, to me the point is not whether the comma is the problem (to Apple) but rather that the law is the law. It is my understanding that this is a big difference between the US and the EU: the US leans heavily into textualism / literal interpretation, while the EU leans much more into purposivism / teleological interpretation.
  - Doxin 1y ago
    While the purposivism approach has its own problems, it does seem to avoid a lot of shenanigans of the form "Well you didn't say we couldn't sell ground up orphans as soup." There should be space for companies and people to make honest mistakes or misunderstandings and not get punished too harshly for it, but when a company like apple has their lawyers go over legal texts with a fine tooth comb to look for a single sentence that could be possibly interpreted in their advantage, knowing full well they are circumventing the intent of the law by doing so, I don't see an issue with telling them in no uncertain terms to knock it off.

by asib 1y ago

valiant55 1y ago

The courts interpretation is pretty clearly the correct one. The title is laying it on a little thick as Apple very clearly tried to interpret the law in a way that favored them and then threw up a pretty shoddy defense to try to feign ignorance.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago

All debates leading to the laws are public with transcript available and it’s the EU so you have access to dozens of translation. It’s not about a comma. It’s Apple trying to argue they can breach a law because look we might twist it if we mistreat despite the law being clear and on the way to be slapped in the face because there is nothing the EU hates more than companies trying to play clever tricks with legislation. The only surprising thing is that Apple has still to understand that despite all the fines. Apple keeps acting like the EU is the US and lose most of the time. You have to wonder if they plainly refuse to hire good counsels or the American executives are just to proud to listen to them.

hu3 1y ago
Yeah Apple keeps trying to act like smart pants lawyers, trying to find breaches of interpretation. This wont end well for them because EU stance is clear: give users more freedom and stop with the BS.

susiecambria 1y ago

As someone who has spent 25+ years working with legislation and legislators in the US, to me the point is not whether the comma is the problem (to Apple) but rather that the law is the law. If the legislators wanted to do something other than what they did, they should have been more clear. If there was a mistake in the drafting, legislators can now fix it. But any fix will not be retroactive. And in my experience, very few legislators would be able to tell you what they thought they were doing when that provision was drafted. As to it being farcical, I wonder if this behavior of parsing grammar and punctuation is getting more common.

eviks 1y ago
> If the legislators wanted to do something other than what they did, they should have been more clear Except for the fact that this mythical clarity simply doesn't exist, so no amount of want can create it. And to add more to the farce: the criteria the courts use aren't clear either
saurik 1y ago
> As someone who has spent 25+ years working with legislation and legislators in the US, to me the point is not whether the comma is the problem (to Apple) but rather that the law is the law. It is my understanding that this is a big difference between the US and the EU: the US leans heavily into textualism / literal interpretation, while the EU leans much more into purposivism / teleological interpretation.
- Doxin 1y ago
  While the purposivism approach has its own problems, it does seem to avoid a lot of shenanigans of the form "Well you didn't say we couldn't sell ground up orphans as soup." There should be space for companies and people to make honest mistakes or misunderstandings and not get punished too harshly for it, but when a company like apple has their lawyers go over legal texts with a fine tooth comb to look for a single sentence that could be possibly interpreted in their advantage, knowing full well they are circumventing the intent of the law by doing so, I don't see an issue with telling them in no uncertain terms to knock it off.