Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbmonster | Hacker News Reader

> They are deeply involved. If it’s that bad for developers, drop the iPhone and develop solely for Android.

EU: "No."

Yes, that's called having differing opinions and it's not bad. If enough people in the EU agree with this, go for it. If Apple ends up saying that they're willing to abide by the letter of the law and no more, great.

Apple's not abiding by the letter of the law, though. They're the drug dealer flushing drugs before the cops come in, or in this case Apple is trying to buy time because each month they can delay this they're probably making $1bn more.

Actually that's exactly the misunderstanding that's getting Apple in trouble. In European law, the letter of the law doesn't matter. The intent does.

It's called teleological interpretation, here's an EU document with a bit more background: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/5993...

Key quote:

> When interpreting EU law, the CJEU pays particular attention to the aim and purpose of EU law (teleological interpretation), rather than focusing exclusively on the wording of the provisions (linguistic interpretation). This is explained by numerous factors, in particular the open-ended and policy-oriented rules of the EU Treaties, as well as by EU legal multilingualism. Under the latter principle, all EU law is equally authentic in all language versions. Hence, the Court cannot rely on the wording of a single version, as a national court can, in order to give an interpretation of the legal provision under consideration. Therefore, in order to decode the meaning of a legal rule, the Court analyses it especially in the light of its purpose (teleological interpretation) as well as its context (systemic interpretation).

Facebook, too, tried rules-lawyering EU regulations only to be slapped with a huge fine. This shit doesn't fly here.

It feels bizarre that companies keep making this mistake.

People on HN, sure; we aren't all lawyers. But companies? The EU is the second biggest market on the planet, might pass the USA any year now. They really should be familiar with the basics of EU lawmaking.

It feels bizarre to an American perspective. How is a company supposed to follow rules that are open to interpretation? Or does the EU think it can legislate outcomes (even if they're uneconomic) ?

You have to demonstrate that you're willing to follow the law. It's not like you'll get a gigantic fine as soon as the new law is implemented, assuming you actually make an effort to be compliant.

In this case, Apple is dragging their feet screaming trying to do their best not to comply with the intent.

What's going to happen next, they'll get a notice of nonconformity where they're asked to fix their behaviour. If they don't show good intent, they'll get hit with a fine. If they fix it and adhere to the laws here, then we'll all end up better - well, maybe the poor shareholders won't survive this hit...

If you're a company operating in the EU, just a little bit of willingness to adhere to the laws goes a very long way.

The "reasonable person" tool is really useful here, and not at all unheard of in the US of A.

> How is a company supposed to follow rules that are open to interpretation

That's easy. Make a good faith interpretation of the intent of the law and follow that.

And don't try to find loop holes that only work in your favor.

The EU literally had meetings with the affected companies to explain things.

Apple just appears to be hard of hearing, perhaps purposely.

I know what the EU wants from Apple. You probably know what the EU wants from Apple. Apple should know what the EU wants from Apple.

That's the law. Not some linguistic technicalities in some document somewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com