Apple Attacks EU Crackdown in Digital Law's Biggest Court Test (irishexaminer.com)
- Reference: 0179844548
- News link: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/10/21/1634248/apple-attacks-eu-crackdown-in-digital-laws-biggest-court-test
- Source link: https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/technology/arid-41728107.html
> The iPhone maker's lawyer Daniel Beard told the General Court in Luxembourg on Tuesday that the Digital Markets Act "imposes hugely onerous and intrusive burdens" at odds with Apple's rights in the EU marketplace.
>
> The DMA came onto the EU's books in 2023 and is designed to clip the wings of the world's largest technology platforms with a slew of dos and don'ts. But over recent months, the law has also drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump and plagued EU-US trade talks. Apple -- seen as the biggest renegade against the EU's crackdown -- challenged the law on three fronts: EU obligations to make rival hardware work with its iPhone, the regulator's decision to drag the hugely profitable App Store under the rules, and a decision to probe whether iMessage should have faced the rules, which it later escaped.
[1] https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/technology/arid-41728107.html
Well that's unfortunate (Score:2)
However will the world's biggest and most valuable company cope with the burden? But honestly this isn't the story. They are massively burying the lead here, their core argument is:
1. Interoperability somehow is an invasion of user's privacy.
2. Pre-empting another court by saying the app store isn't covered, despite the fact that it has legally been decided it did cover and there's a current massive fine outstanding.
3. Claiming something something iMessage isn't covered because no money is being made (I can
Translation: We were right about Lightning (Score:1)
Translation: We were right about Apple sticking doggedly with Lightning on the iPhone for so long being entirely about the loss of MFi profits. Europe forced them to use USB-C, which eliminated their ability to force everyone to buy custom authenticator chips from them and their ability to control who could make hardware for iPhone.
It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain that forcing companies like Apple to open up more is in the public interest, and that their claims of "security conce
Re: Translation: We were right about Lightning (Score:2)
âoe It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain that forcing companies like Apple to open up more is in the public interest, and that their claims of "security concerns" are nothing more than a desperate attempt at a power grab.â
The power grab is using âoepublic interestâ as the excuse to force companies to open up. Apple doesnâ(TM)t have a monopoly on hand held computing software, hardware, or any other component used in their products, much less the whole of any spe
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could, ya kinow, challenge legal decisions in the courts, which is what they're doing. They don't have to take their ball and go off in a huff just yet.
Lashing out (Score:5, Insightful)
Media decoder ring time:
"Lashed out" = Filed a lawsuit with the European court
"Attacked" = Issued a press release detailing their court case.
Coming soon:
"Murdered" = Made a compelling argument in open court
"Nuked from orbit" = Motion for continuance "Slaughtered" = Won a court motion
"Destroyed" = Favorable court ruling
"Strangled" = Disagreed with loosing a motion
Re: (Score:2)
This is an argument in favor of an AI agent to read the news for me and summarize the results in neutral language.
Re: (Score:2)
Or read the news for you and make up what it expect you want to hear.
I know which I find more likely.
Re: (Score:1)
Or, and hear me out, they could stop being such huge dicks. They could just respect the markets they want to be in.
Re: Well, Tim... (Score:4, Informative)
I am happy the EU stands up against the giants. It is one of the reasons it exists. I am, however, also glad that Apple challenges the rules. It keeps everyone on its toes. Neither should get too comfortable.
Re: (Score:3)
It’s completely reasonable that companies can challenge regulations in the courts, especially when those regulations are novel and onerous, as here.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people believe that those they don't like shouldn't have rights.