Perhaps instead of sniffing and crying about the “spirit” of the regulations, WRITE CLEAR SPECIFIC REGULATIONS!
The spirit of the law is always a thing in EU legislation. The textualist meaning isn’t the important part
Ummm...Apple spends billions of dollars to build and maintain the iPhone, IOS, IP, etc. This is what Apple "charges itself." Getting all that for free would be giving preferential treatment to 3rd parties.
Well the apple should give us a list of the exact value for this IP. How and in what way is it not already covered in the developer fee so that a free developer pay 99$/year for 10 million downloads while a third party with outside purchase capabilities seemingly pay 1million and 99$ a year.
This take is nothing but hyperbole. No one is required to comply with intent and spirit. Unless a court decides that the words of the law mean something different, you comply with what it actually says.
This is false, everyone are required to follow the spirit of the law.
They did comply with the regulations. Apply has thousands of lawyers on staff and they spent a ton of developer and legal hours creating the code for this compliance and updating their policy to comply with this. This isn't just them flipping the bird to the EU like so many of you seem to think.
That’s the issue they tried to follow the bare minimum of the law as they perceive it, but this isn’t U.S. law standards, but European laws
This is a legitimate effort at compliance with the law. Apple's legal team read this and created this compliance. The EU is reading their law differently. The big difference is that the EU had something in mind when they wrote the law. Apple is not privy to their thinking. They only know what the law says. So, the EU folks are saying they are not in compliance. But, are they not in compliance with the law as it stands, or are they not in compliance with the EU's intent? If it is the latter, then the EU will need to update the law to match their intent before Apple will be on the line for any fines. And if that happens, Apple would have the opportunity to update their policy to match the updated law.
They aren’t compliant in both cases.
The legal interpretation techniques in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and U.S. courts differ in several ways, particularly when considering textual, systematic, and teleological aspects, as well as the use of comparative law methods.
Textual Interpretation:
- CJEU: Tends to use textual interpretation as a starting point but does not strictly confine itself to the literal meaning of the text. The CJEU often looks beyond the text to the objectives of the EU treaties
- U.S. Courts: Generally give primacy to the text of the law, adhering more closely to the literal and plain meaning of the words used in statutes and the Constitution.
Systematic Interpretation:
- CJEU: Systematic interpretation involves considering EU law as a whole, ensuring that new interpretations are consistent with existing legal framework and principles.
- U.S. Courts: Also consider the systematic aspect, ensuring that interpretations fit within the broader legal system, but they may be more focused on precedent and the consistency of judicial decisions.
Teleological Interpretation:
- CJEU: Strongly emphasizes the purpose and objectives behind laws, particularly the overarching goals of the EU, such as integration and fundamental rights.
- U.S. Courts: While purpose can inform interpretation, U.S. courts are less likely to use teleological reasoning as a primary method, especially if the text is clear.
Comparative Law Method:
- CJEU: Regularly employs comparative law methods, looking at the laws and practices of member states to inform its interpretation of EU law
- U.S. Courts: Comparative law is less commonly used and can be controversial, especially when interpreting the Constitution
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the U.S. legal system handle legal technicalities and the vagueness of language in regulations differently, reflecting their distinct legal traditions and approaches to jurisprudence.
CJEU’s Approach:
- The CJEU often deals with legal technicalities by focusing on the purpose and objectives of EU law.
- It seeks to interpret regulations in a way that promotes integration and effectiveness within the EU, even if the language is vague.
- The CJEU’s interpretative methods include considering the context and intent behind a regulation, as well as the consequences of different interpretations.
U.S. Legal System’s Approach:
- The U.S. courts tend to prioritize the plain meaning of the text, using canons of statutory interpretation to resolve ambiguities.
- When dealing with vagueness, U.S. courts may look to legislative history or precedent to discern the legislature’s intent.
Incorrect.
Apple is not getting to put their own apps out there for free. This is the HUGE mistake that so many are making when they look at this. Apple is spending a massive amount of money developing the platform and corresponding APIs. As a business, they are entitled to be compensated for that work. It doesn't cost Apple $0 to put Apple Music on the App Store. It cost them a ton of money to build the platform that made that possible. What you are saying is that Apple should spend all the money to build the platform and APIs and Spotify should pay $0.
That what’s wrong tho, this is what you understand from how it sounds to work in the USA.
The RnD and IP costs you spend on yourself is completely irrelevant as this is true for all companies. What matters is only the fee you put at the end of the contract and if you pay this fee or not.
If apple can keep 100% of their Apple Music sales then Spotify and other competitors xD should have the same treatment. If Apple Pay’s g