3 ms·

So are you saying that Apple is breaking the law or that the article is wrong?

josephlord 14y ago
I have no proof of either. The article may be completely correct about the US approach and their European approach may be different and legal and/or they may be treading very carefully in the EU with high quality legal advice. Also I believe there are (but can't quickly find reference to) special categories of products in the EU with stricter rules than the general ones and that this includes TVs (the product I have experience of at Sony) so some of the practices I mentioned as illegal for TVs may in fact be legal for laptops and tablets. I am insufficiently expert in EU competition law to know the exact limits but did have enough information to know a few key things not to do and when things were getting near enough the limit that it was time to check with a lawyer. I did support discussions with expensive outside lawyers with product information about what products could be put into categories that were not offered to every retailer (only those that fulfilled conditions around presentation and demonstration). My main warning is that you have to tread carefully in these areas particularly in the EU and get good legal advice (which I'm sure Apple has).
- dazzawazza 14y ago
  OK, thanks.
accountoftheday 14y ago
It is quite possible that Apple is, technically, breaking EU law but the Commission are letting them get away with it because they have more important things to deal with. With no consumer outrage and no real local competitor to protect from a foreign predator there is no political gain from action. However competition law applies uniformly across the EU so it is easy to comply with, if you choose so. A more complex situation exists with Facebook. To follow a variety of applicable national and state law they would have to an extraordinarily large amount of legal resources familiar with the respective intricacies and probably create national variations of their product. This is the kind of thing that holds back European companies but in this case it protects FB, because the Commission (the only institution with enough political clout and resources to take action) is only going to address EU-wide issues, not a bag of a dozen different issues. So it is rational for FB to mostly ignore the law, which in reality they chose to do.

I have no proof of either. The article may be completely correct about the US approach and their European approach may be different and legal and/or they may be treading very carefully in the EU with high quality legal advice. Also I believe there are (but can't quickly find reference to) special categories of products in the EU with stricter rules than the general ones and that this includes TVs (the product I have experience of at Sony) so some of the practices I mentioned as illegal for TVs may in fact be legal for laptops and tablets. I am insufficiently expert in EU competition law to know the exact limits but did have enough information to know a few key things not to do and when things were getting near enough the limit that it was time to check with a lawyer. I did support discussions with expensive outside lawyers with product information about what products could be put into categories that were not offered to every retailer (only those that fulfilled conditions around presentation and demonstration). My main warning is that you have to tread carefully in these areas particularly in the EU and get good legal advice (which I'm sure Apple has).

dazzawazza 14y ago
OK, thanks.

accountoftheday 14y ago

It is quite possible that Apple is, technically, breaking EU law but the Commission are letting them get away with it because they have more important things to deal with. With no consumer outrage and no real local competitor to protect from a foreign predator there is no political gain from action. However competition law applies uniformly across the EU so it is easy to comply with, if you choose so. A more complex situation exists with Facebook. To follow a variety of applicable national and state law they would have to an extraordinarily large amount of legal resources familiar with the respective intricacies and probably create national variations of their product. This is the kind of thing that holds back European companies but in this case it protects FB, because the Commission (the only institution with enough political clout and resources to take action) is only going to address EU-wide issues, not a bag of a dozen different issues. So it is rational for FB to mostly ignore the law, which in reality they chose to do.