3 ms·

This is an excellent piece by Cory Doctorow but I wouldn't say he argues against regulation: > One exciting possibility is to create an absolute legal defence

This is an excellent piece by Cory Doctorow but I wouldn't say he argues against regulation: > One exciting possibility is to create an absolute legal defence for companies that make "interoperable" products that plug into the dominant companies' offerings, from third-party printer ink to unauthorised Facebook readers that slurp up all the messages waiting for you there and filter them to your specifications, not Mark Zuckerberg's. This interoperability defence would have to shield digital toolsmiths from all manner of claims: tortious interference, bypassing copyright locks, patent infringement and, of course, violating terms of service. Isn't that just calling for a different kind of regulation, one that forces interoperability? Which, btw, sounds like a good start, but OTOH I'm immediately thinking of how slowly changing APIs are being abused by big tech to create moats. In general I find the headline problematic (although that might be editorial meddling). Yes, the current and upcoming regulation of tech is being abused by big tech companies for the worse, by exploiting loopholes that are in the regulations, and I would not be surprised at all if those loopholes are there partially or mainly thanks to lobbying by big tech companies and other vested interests. But saying that therefore regulation does not work feels a bit like saying that some laws are unethical, therefore laws are inherently bad. Plus regulation (in the abstract) can be set up in such a way that it encourages healthy competition. Take the Dutch Health Insurance system (which has tons of other issues but that's not relevant to this point). Regulation forces any health insurance company to offer a "core package" with basic coverage for most health issues, at a price per month that has a fixed maximum. This "core" package cannot be denied to any patient based on pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies can then compete by offering better deals for greater coverage. The point being that the regulation means that health insurance companies are limited in where they can cut corners and as a result are encouraged to compete by providing a better service.

lima 7y ago
In Germany, reverse engineering for compatibility reasons is explicity allowed.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  Sounds great! This also means that there is a country with legal precedent, and data on how it works out in practice, so we're not just speaking hypothetical situations! Can you say anything about that?
- jcranmer 7y ago
  So it is in the US too, under the DMCA (17 USC § 1201 (f)(1-4))... not that I would actually try pushing that claim in court. See too the Oracle v Google case, currently pending certiorari before the Supreme Court, where CAFC has held that API is copyrighted, and you're therefore not allowed to independently implement it, even under fair use claims.
- zestyping 7y ago
  Can you tell more about this? What's the law and what does it allow? Has it been in effect for a long time? I wonder if any small companies have moved to Germany or selected Germany specifically for this reason.
zozbot234 7y ago
> Isn't that just calling for a different kind of regulation, one that forces interoperability? Yes, but dominant platforms that ordinarily benefit from network effects should absolutely be forced to be interoperable, as any restriction to interoperability is tantamount to abuse of monopoly power. This is remarkably light regulation by any standard, and it comes with a very clear rationale.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  Just to clarify, since my phrasing may have been a bit ambiguous: I am definitely on board with mandatory interoperability. It's just that at the same time I worry about the implementation of such policy having new loopholes of their own to be abused in a similar "only benefits big tech in the end" way. But that does not stop me from being in favour of trying it and improving it as we go.
jandrewrogers 7y ago
A subtle but important distinction is that this does not "force interoperability", it only removes legal (rather than technical) impediments to someone selling an interoperable product. It does not require a company to expend any effort enabling interoperability that does not already implicitly exist in the products they are producing. At a technical level, there is no non-vague definition of "interoperable". A large part of practical interoperability is observed behaviors of implementation detail, which can only be explicitly exposed to third parties by unreasonable exposure of implementation. There are many examples where the ability to export data, even in a widely understood format, does not produce practical interoperability because you also need to reproduce observed system behavior to make that data equivalently functional.
JoshTriplett 7y ago
> Isn't that just calling for a different kind of regulation, one that forces interoperability? Quite the opposite; it calls for an exemption from the various restrictions that otherwise prop up the company being interoperated with. Every one of the things Doctorow names is a legal structure artificially protecting one company from its competition.
Nasrudith 7y ago
It is essentially a counter-regulation to try to undo damage of monopolistic protections. The better thing would be to strip away the anti-circumvention clauses entirely but that isn't politically viable unfortunately. Really regarding loopholes I doubt it is because of any lobbying by tech companies so much as massive incompetence from grandstanders and trying to serve vested interests. Just look at the "link tax". Their paycheck and job security doesn't rest on understanding so are willfully ignorant. They gleefully skip to dystopia in the name of doing something because of feelings with no regard for "will it actually solve the goddamned problem?!".

lima 7y ago

In Germany, reverse engineering for compatibility reasons is explicity allowed.

vanderZwan 7y ago
Sounds great! This also means that there is a country with legal precedent, and data on how it works out in practice, so we're not just speaking hypothetical situations! Can you say anything about that?
jcranmer 7y ago
So it is in the US too, under the DMCA (17 USC § 1201 (f)(1-4))... not that I would actually try pushing that claim in court. See too the Oracle v Google case, currently pending certiorari before the Supreme Court, where CAFC has held that API is copyrighted, and you're therefore not allowed to independently implement it, even under fair use claims.
zestyping 7y ago
Can you tell more about this? What's the law and what does it allow? Has it been in effect for a long time? I wonder if any small companies have moved to Germany or selected Germany specifically for this reason.

zozbot234 7y ago

> Isn't that just calling for a different kind of regulation, one that forces interoperability? Yes, but dominant platforms that ordinarily benefit from network effects should absolutely be forced to be interoperable, as any restriction to interoperability is tantamount to abuse of monopoly power. This is remarkably light regulation by any standard, and it comes with a very clear rationale.

vanderZwan 7y ago
Just to clarify, since my phrasing may have been a bit ambiguous: I am definitely on board with mandatory interoperability. It's just that at the same time I worry about the implementation of such policy having new loopholes of their own to be abused in a similar "only benefits big tech in the end" way. But that does not stop me from being in favour of trying it and improving it as we go.

jandrewrogers 7y ago

A subtle but important distinction is that this does not "force interoperability", it only removes legal (rather than technical) impediments to someone selling an interoperable product. It does not require a company to expend any effort enabling interoperability that does not already implicitly exist in the products they are producing. At a technical level, there is no non-vague definition of "interoperable". A large part of practical interoperability is observed behaviors of implementation detail, which can only be explicitly exposed to third parties by unreasonable exposure of implementation. There are many examples where the ability to export data, even in a widely understood format, does not produce practical interoperability because you also need to reproduce observed system behavior to make that data equivalently functional.

JoshTriplett 7y ago

> Isn't that just calling for a different kind of regulation, one that forces interoperability? Quite the opposite; it calls for an exemption from the various restrictions that otherwise prop up the company being interoperated with. Every one of the things Doctorow names is a legal structure artificially protecting one company from its competition.

Nasrudith 7y ago

It is essentially a counter-regulation to try to undo damage of monopolistic protections. The better thing would be to strip away the anti-circumvention clauses entirely but that isn't politically viable unfortunately. Really regarding loopholes I doubt it is because of any lobbying by tech companies so much as massive incompetence from grandstanders and trying to serve vested interests. Just look at the "link tax". Their paycheck and job security doesn't rest on understanding so are willfully ignorant. They gleefully skip to dystopia in the name of doing something because of feelings with no regard for "will it actually solve the goddamned problem?!".