Hacker News Reader

> I wonder if this will come down to an arguement of 'letter' and 'spirit' of the law; clearly Apple's lawyers will say 'notarization' is for security which is explicitly allowed under the DMA. However Europe will argue Apple takes it 'too far' and has imposed terms to make it less likely for developers to use new app stores and thus undermines what the law is intended to do.

If the commission wanted to move faster then they should just move the notarization to a neutral third party, as we do for DNS.

Hear, hear. Apps signed using code signing certificates that are in turn signed by roots in the OS trust store should run no questions asked (unless they are revoked of course), there needs to be a way to bypass this too, but that can be a "developer mode" of sorts and doesn't need to be easily accessible to the masses. (Thinking of something like Androids "tap the build ID 7 times to become a developer" approach.)

Have notarization - sure, but they recently prevented a DOS emulator to being distributed in third party stores, which goes directly against what this law is for.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding which keeps causing trouble for US companies:

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.

Underestimated perspective. Very well said.

Having spoken with many Apple execs about these issue in the past (as a journalist) the impression you’re left is a mix between an attempt at steering the narrative (which is normal PR) and a honest, heartfelt, sense of disbelief that the EU wouldn’t understand their points about security and privacy. They have trouble grasping that the EU moves from a clear principle: States make the law and regulations, while your size or intents as a company Can Not and Should Not play a part in steering what is possible or allowed in the market. That’s EU “free market” capitalism 101.

I have a feeling that US companies experience something akin to a culture shock when they’re faced with this reality.

Personally I see the consequences for consumer, but in the long run I believe this is a best way to ensure a fairer and better consumer quality of life. This has proven true many times before with similar regulation pushes (forced EU roaming and USB-C, naming two off the top of my head)

I don't think this is a special feature of EU law. Legal judgments in other places also rely on the intent of a law to clarify potentially ambiguous text.

The special feature is that EU laws are written in so many different languages that a textual interpretation is not only not preferred, but completely impossible.

US law places a moderate degree of emphasis on textualism in statutory interpretation, at least for a Common Law jurisdiction. Even the word “textualism” comes from the US. It’s somewhat common for courts in the US courts to pull out a copy of Webster’s dictionary in order to interpret a statue, that kind of thing rarely happens in English law.

There are definitely some jurisdictions within the EU that place a much higher degree of emphasis on the text of a law than the US does, in their domestic legal systems, e.g. Germany. So I don’t think it’s the case that US companies are unprepared to deal with a legal system that is based on intention compared to EU companies.

Apple seems to be falling pretty short of the letter of the law also.

Malicious compliance may work as a strategy in Common Law jurisdictions like the US, but not in the EU where Civil (Roman) Law means exactly what it says and judges apply it, as opposed to inventing excuses for not doing so like Robert Bork's gutting of both letter and spirit of antitrust law.