Just so you know, in an effort to inform, it's really not unprecendented per your claim. It merely returns the law to how it existed to prior to 1935 -- pre-Roosevelt -- where is was well understood that the chief executive could control executive agencies. The "unitary executive" makes a lot of sense from an operational standpoint but I can see the arguments on both sides.
The point is the claim that the EU is a dictatorship. In reality, there is not one single person in the EU who can fire an EUC regulator. In reality, there is now one single person in the US who can fire a federal agency regulator. If it comes to that — and it will as soon as a regulator gets into the POTUS firing line (excuse the punt) — in reality, both chambers will not reach the two thirds majority to override the POTUS. It is only theoretically possible, but practically the POTUS single-handedly controls all federal agencies as of last week.
Yes that can happen in a democracy, happens most of the time in an autocracy, all the time in a dictatorship.
Indeed, that would be great when they no longer pollute the social climate in Europe!
thanks, yes, correct, see this now further down in the article i linked: “Trump asked the court to overturn Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision upholding removal restrictions for leaders of multimember administrative agencies”. Recent decision is a step backwards for separation of powers, sadly.
I sincerely hope you are kidding but this attitude might help explain the productivity crisis in the European Union. Getting rid of cellphones and computers in favor of snail mail (or perhaps carrier pigeons) and typewriters is not a good solution.
If there is indeed harm, I don’t want to even imagine the chaos, exploitation, and manipulation inflicted by the tech giants if there was no DMA and DSA, i.e. a necessary attempt to regulate digital tech imperialism.
Sure. 100% agree. Let the eu develop their own social media platforms, google services replaces and smartphone replacements. I’ll wait about 50 years to see if it happens.
Sure. And a side benefit would be the excessive regulations would be a thing of the past.
Although I couldn't find any surveys on DMA, I did find this survey on digital sovereignty.
That’s the point. Checks and balances. Whether at any point in time they would be stronger or weaker is not the issue.
You know what? Cellphones and computers existed - and still can exist - without Facebook, Alphabet or even Apple!
ummmm ....
Incorrect. Regulation in monopoly situations such as this (and it OBVIOUSLY is) make space for competition that was otherwise stamped out. It’s no more a crippling regulation than the one that ultimately stopped Internet Explorer being default. Did you complain when the EU broke Internet Explorer’s monopoly? Or Windows Media Player? Of course not, they were stifling competition as Apple is now.
The obvious difference being that Microsoft had 95% of the market and Apple has around 30%. Far from an obvious monopoly.
The EU and some of its member states have found Apple guilty of abuse of dominant position on several occasions.
And having a dominant position in the EU used to require 40% of the market in question. Which is why the DMA exists in the first place, traditional antitrust doesn’t apply and the EU wanted to force Apple open so they needed to come up with new rules.
That’s what Google did *. Took a little longer than a few years. Apple might want to spare themselves the trouble and use the legal fees savings to compensate for the high memory chip costs.
Really? 27 countries nominate the judges for a 6 year term. Compared to 1 president who nominates SCOTUS judges for lifetime …
No it’s not. It’s not a monopoly anywhere.
No. It’s taking apples assets and giving them away. That’s not making space for competition.
It is actually.
Yes. But MS was stupid.
Apple is not stifling competition. There is an App Store that sells billions every year that says so.
Switcher did not come across as condescending to me. You mentioned the subject of appeal in your original post. He simply addresses it. The problem is MR’s wording “top court” as you rightly point to. The General Court is a constituent court of the Court of Justice of the EU, so “top” is ambiguous. With MR on controversial topics, I usually follow their reference link. In this case, when you go to Reuters, you’ll see “Apple can appeal on matters of law to the Court of Justice of the European Union, Europe's highest.”
Apple would be first to flinch and not follow through because drawing on a region of 450 million makes business still too profitable. Profit first, Privacy second. Plus, if they indeed pulled out, there would be another significant price hike on Macs, iPads, and iPhones worldwide … except in the EU, of course.
How does that dispute what I said? Are you arguing that there's not a significant difference between 95% of a market and 30% of a market from antitrust perspective? Do you think 30% of the market is an obvious monopoly as the poster that I responded to claimed?
