I agree although I think this is more around whether the CMA has the legal authority to investigate Apple. If Apple could show it doesn’t, it means it saves itself time, money and effort having to comply with the requirement of the investigation.
I do agree with you, but it’s also fair that if Apple think this is overreach they should be able to stop it. I think they should pay the costs though if the courts think this is gaming the system; the CMA investigating a competition issue is hardly unusual.
Personally I think the CMA is doing what it’s supposed to be doing.
Jurisdiction is such a bullshit manufactured part of the legal system. It just limits the number of people that need to be corrupted for an entity to get away with shit.
The only important thing is to have protections in place to ensure an investigation isn’t an avenue for harassment, intimidation, or corporate espionage.
Kinda? But jurisdiction is why a state can’t sue you for things done in a different state. Without jurisdiction, you’d have to follow all laws everywhere on the off chance someone, somewhere, decided you broke their local laws and reported you.
That is the angle of it that does make sense. You can’t make and enforce laws for outside of your geographic area. I’m talking about jurisdiction of categories of law, hell even an outside agency pursuing someone for breaking a law in their own area.
The relevant questions are is this action illegal? Did they perform that action? Why did they perform that action? Was it deliberate or negligent? Are there other mitigating or compounding factors?
Whose job is it to investigate that kind of crime shouldn’t matter. What is the evidence, not who is presenting it (though that is relevant in questioning if the evidence is valid or fabricated).
Preferably it is the right specialists doing the investigation, but that’s more of an efficiency thing for those running those agencies.
I agree although I think this is more around whether the CMA has the legal authority to investigate Apple. If Apple could show it doesn’t, it means it saves itself time, money and effort having to comply with the requirement of the investigation.
I do agree with you, but it’s also fair that if Apple think this is overreach they should be able to stop it. I think they should pay the costs though if the courts think this is gaming the system; the CMA investigating a competition issue is hardly unusual.
Personally I think the CMA is doing what it’s supposed to be doing.
Jurisdiction is such a bullshit manufactured part of the legal system. It just limits the number of people that need to be corrupted for an entity to get away with shit.
The only important thing is to have protections in place to ensure an investigation isn’t an avenue for harassment, intimidation, or corporate espionage.
Kinda? But jurisdiction is why a state can’t sue you for things done in a different state. Without jurisdiction, you’d have to follow all laws everywhere on the off chance someone, somewhere, decided you broke their local laws and reported you.
That is the angle of it that does make sense. You can’t make and enforce laws for outside of your geographic area. I’m talking about jurisdiction of categories of law, hell even an outside agency pursuing someone for breaking a law in their own area.
The relevant questions are is this action illegal? Did they perform that action? Why did they perform that action? Was it deliberate or negligent? Are there other mitigating or compounding factors?
Whose job is it to investigate that kind of crime shouldn’t matter. What is the evidence, not who is presenting it (though that is relevant in questioning if the evidence is valid or fabricated).
Preferably it is the right specialists doing the investigation, but that’s more of an efficiency thing for those running those agencies.
Well if they’re going business in the UK they should be bound to UK laws