Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

M384 - Motion to Encourage European Commission Investigation Into Apple Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye we need to break up the status quo of these powerful corporations who abuse the power they have through tax evasion
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Gladiator12345)
    Aye we need to break up the status quo of these powerful corporations who abuse the power they have through tax evasion
    Ummm, nothing to do with tax evasion (I also think you mean avoidance)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperion)
    And... how are they abusing their position...? I'm sure if people felt that way about Apple they wouldn't have the following they do.
    They might be (I'm not saying they are) abusing their position by not licensing the lightning cable on FRAND terms, or by requiring the iTunes software tie. And I strongly disagree with your 'following' point - there is little evidence that companies acting unethically has much of an impact on the demand for their products, and furthermore, few people understand either competition law or economics.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Having read the second bit of the post, we once again come back round to the point "is there any entity put there that you wish not to be investigated?" If all we need is an inkling in the back of our minds that maybe they could be doing something dodgy nobody and nothing is free of an investigation.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    For a start, there is a minimum firm size for EC investigations (which, FWIW, Apple obviously meets but most firms don't), but furthermore, for most firms which do meet the threshold it's a) obvious that they are not dominant or b) there is no feasible way they are abusing that dominant position (especially where there is no IP rights). You're just stating this over and over because you clearly don't really understand the issues.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    They might be (I'm not saying they are) abusing their position by not licensing the lightning cable on FRAND terms, or by requiring the iTunes software tie. And I strongly disagree with your 'following' point - there is little evidence that companies acting unethically has much of an impact on the demand for their products, and furthermore, few people understand either competition law or economics.



    For a start, there is a minimum firm size for EC investigations (which, FWIW, Apple obviously meets but most firms don't), but furthermore, for most firms which do meet the threshold it's a) obvious that they are not dominant or b) there is no feasible way they are abusing that dominant position (especially where there is no IP rights). You're just stating this over and over because you clearly don't really understand the issues.
    The odd thing is when doing a bit of reading the definition for dominant as far as they are concerned is wooly. Your argument for why we should do this is the smallest possibility of guilt, why is this restricted only to large corporations in dominant positions over that dominance and not extended to all aspects of law for all bodies no matter how large or small, private or public, corporate or individual?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The odd thing is when doing a bit of reading the definition for dominant as far as they are concerned is wooly. Your argument for why we should do this is the smallest possibility of guilt, why is this restricted only to large corporations in dominant positions over that dominance and not extended to all aspects of law for all bodies no matter how large or small, private or public, corporate or individual?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1) The definition is wooly which is a good argument for referral, but at the very least they are dominant in the PMP market.
    2) I am not arguing based on the smallest possibility of guilt, I'm arguing based on a considerable likelihood of guilt, but arguing that the threshold for voting aye is a small likelihood.
    3) Because this is how EU competition law works. Most other law works based on individuals and companies suing each other, or based on police investigations. That's why it's the appropriate form.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    They might be (I'm not saying they are) abusing their position by not licensing the lightning cable on FRAND terms, or by requiring the iTunes software tie. And I strongly disagree with your 'following' point - there is little evidence that companies acting unethically has much of an impact on the demand for their products, and furthermore, few people understand either competition law or economics.
    I'm pretty sure someone else has put it much better than I could about your first point. Sorry, I'm not getting your second point...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperion)
    I'm pretty sure someone else has put it much better than I could about your first point. Sorry, I'm not getting your second point...
    Well, let me make a different point - why is it a good idea for law enforcement to be based on a democracy?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Well, let me make a different point - why is it a good idea for law enforcement to be based on a democracy?
    The people's voices heard in the justice system?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperion)
    The people's voices heard in the justice system?
    The justice system works precisely because it is apolitical. Not only is much of the law too complex for the layman to understand, to introduce a democratic element to its enforcement would grant effective immunity to certain people/firms and make different elements of the law be enforced radically differently.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    Division! Clear the Lobbies!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 2, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.