5 ms·
> Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make. OK so we make it illegal. Governments are good a
by hnick 6y ago
> Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make.
OK so we make it illegal. Governments are good at that.
- zepto 6y agoMake what illegal?
- hnick 6y agoIn this case, possibly nothing, since antitrust already exists. But I'm not qualified to decide. It is probably best to wait and see how this and the Apple/Epic case play out to see if changes are required. I'm just a bit sick of the argument "It's OK if it is legal" when laws exist to serve us and can be changed. Discussion is the first step. My comment was a response to that. Mandating right to repair and open platforms and formats (such as the circuit diagrams we used to get within our instruction manuals) would be one possibility.
- zepto 6y agoYou’d have to make that mandate global, otherwise you’d see countries that do permit trade secrets simply dominate the computing landscape. This is not a realistic option.
- hnick 6y agoI don't think it needs to be fully global, just a significant market. EU's mandate on USB-C chargers is one example where you lose a lot by opting out.
- zepto 6y agoHow is a standardized charging socket in any way comparable to banning trade secrets? This doesn’t make sense to me.
- hnick 6y agoIt's an example of a law in one country changing what a company does in another country to access the market, without a global mandate. I read that as the main point, not trade secrets. In your example, a company with trade secrets may want to (and be allowed to) keep circuit diagrams or charger designs secret in country A, but have to open them up to be allowed to sell in country B. It becomes a choice that carries a cost without a global mandate.
- travisoneill1 6y agoThe war on drugs has entered the chat