Technology

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] slevinkelevra@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Disclaimer: I know you're probably only trolling, but I'll answer anyway:

...not assessed in a way to be of sufficient size to not just be considered a cost of doing business. In other words, pricey enough to take away the incentive to not only take away the profit but to also deal a significant blow to the wealth of the richest person on earth.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 point 6 months ago*

Believe it or not, everyone who you disagree with or misunderstand is not "trolling".

There is no reason they couldn't assess fines a different way...

Certainly the fines were sufficiently sized in the 90s era when they dropped the hammer on Microsoft.

parent

[+] Ulrich@feddit.org 0 points 6 months ago

[removed by mod]

parent

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

Percentage of profit accrued from the offense. They are static values.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Just because they're currently assessed that way doesn't mean they can't be assessed a different way...

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

The class the class that writes laws have decided they don’t want that.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 point 6 months ago

I don't understand what your point is. No one is saying it's going to happen tomorrow. The point is that fines themselves aren't the problem. The problem is corruption and cronyism. Fines are totally effective when implemented properly.