5 ms·

I wouldn't say they are intentionally spiteful, just that modern electronics are complex enough, especially highly integrated stuff like smartphones, that the O

I wouldn't say they are intentionally spiteful, just that modern electronics are complex enough, especially highly integrated stuff like smartphones, that the OEM's suppliers would be unhappy if detailed schematics were released. Since they would not be willing to guarantee on the record that they are correct, nor would they want stuff impinging on actual trade secrets to be revealed.

throwaway4220 3y ago
Both can be true. It may be a happy side effect that you can’t easily repair your device and it’s hard to give schematics
b112 3y ago
Trade secrets are not secret once in the wild, and are immediately invalidated as a result. Schematics for things sold, are never trade secrets.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  This is false, there are thousands of examples of products 'in the wild' containing trade secrets that are difficult enough to figure out by reverse engineering that they are effectively considered such, even by industry experts. e.g. Apple's fixed glass trackpads Also by definition they cannot be 'invalidated' since trade secrets are never 'validated' in the first place, unlike patents, copyrights, or trademarks.
  - b112 3y ago
    This is false, there are thousands of examples of products 'in the wild' containing trade secrets that are difficult enough to figure out by reverse engineering that they are effectively considered such, even by industry experts. That's not how trade secrets work. If you give me a device, and I figure out how that part of it goes together, the trade secret dies. There is no protection except an attempt at secrecy, and once someone is retail sold hardware, they may do anything they choose with it, thus the idea of trying to maintain a secret, when it is in someone else's hands, is silly. Also by definition they cannot be 'invalidated' since trade secrets are never 'validated' in the first place, unlike patents, copyrights, or trademarks. Trade secrets are valid, until they no longer are. Copyright (in many jurisdictions) require no validation either, they're merely valid upon creation.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      There is no validator for the 'validity' of trade secrets, it's simply nonsense to say that they can be 'validated' or 'invalidated'. You can't dodge this point, which you appear to be doing as I never claimed copyright law is uniform in all jurisdictions worldwide, nor was that implied. If you don't understand how these things work, it's better to not make bizarre claims.
      - b112 3y ago
        I never claimed copyright law is uniform in all jurisdictions worldwide, nor was that implied. What on earth are you even talking about? Regardless, you can invalidate anything. EG, one can make a claim "Hey, that manufacturing process is my trade secret!", and that claim can most certainly be invalided. It can also be validated.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > What on earth are you even talking about? This: > Trade secrets are valid, until they no longer are. Copyright (in many jurisdictions) require no validation either, they're merely valid upon creation. Some types of copyright requires approval via some organized entity in many jurisdictions, that is easily discoverable via a quick Google search by any passing reader. The prior comment appears like a deflection from the main point, since the fact that some jurisdictions operate differently is simply irrelevant as I never claimed otherwise, nor was that implied anywhere in the preceding comment chain. Like I said you can't avoid the fact that 'invalidating' trade secrets makes no sense. They can be revealed, they can become so widely known that the label no longer applies, and so on. But 'validity' whether legal, logical, etc., can not apply to them. And in any case there are many real world products which so far have not been reverse engineered to a sufficient degree to recreate, such as the fixed glass trackpad previously mentioned. If you can prove otherwise then I would welcome a link.
        b112 3y ago
        Michael, my simple point was that copyright, like trade secrets, requires no validation in some jurisdictions by default. For some reason you view this as a distraction, instead, it was merely illustrative. In terms of validation, I have no idea why you think one cannot invalidate someone claiming to have a trade secret. You can literally invalidate anything, someone is trying to assert as valid. A bottle blonde could claim that is their original hair colour, and one could invalidate that claim too. You seem stuck on an internal definition of 'validate'. Your internal definition seems wrong.
washadjeffmad 3y ago
That wasn't less true for any other appliance that's ever existed, largely because of the availability of the schematics. People have a right to know what they're buying. Companies are testing legal and cultural boundaries, silently changing functionality and usability by altering software or access to required services after sale. It's not "too complex", it'd just be a hassle if people knew.
- tacocataco 3y ago
  Speaking of access, if you own minecraft with a mojang account you need to migrate it to a Microsoft account by September 19th. If you don't Microsoft, one of the wealthiest corporations in existence, will steal your copy of minecraft that you purchased elsewhere. Sorry if this isn't on topic, I'm very salty over the migration.
  - Datagenerator 3y ago
    Microsoft showing it's totalitarian real character again. So happy that Minetest[1] exists and gives that warm Open Source glow, just knowing that your using Microsoft free software and it works fine on Linux too. [1] https://www.minetest.net/ https://www.minetest.net/
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  > "It's not "too complex"" A valve radio had ~50 discrete components[1]. The first semiconductors had triple that number of components in a square millimeter in 1971[2], a modern CPU is in the tens or hundreds of millions of transistors per square millimetre. That's more components than the Encyclopedia Britannica had words in 29 volumes[3]. How are you going to 'know what you're buying' if you don't know anything about the bit which makes up most of the complexity and does most of the work? How are 'people' going to know anything about the CPU by getting lumbered a dozen bookshelves worth of schematics? [1] One 1960s valve radio schematic found from Google: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Is9qxCCu2S8/VmZ44qHP1nI/AAAAAAABQaI/J5U2lMQGT34/s1600/rca.jpg https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Is9qxCCu2S8/VmZ44qHP1nI/AAAAAAABQ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#Transistor_count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#Transistor_co... [3] https://patricktreardon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/EncycBrit1913.jpg https://patricktreardon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Encyc...
Hizonner 3y ago
Fuck their trade secrets.

throwaway4220 3y ago

Both can be true. It may be a happy side effect that you can’t easily repair your device and it’s hard to give schematics

b112 3y ago

Trade secrets are not secret once in the wild, and are immediately invalidated as a result. Schematics for things sold, are never trade secrets.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
This is false, there are thousands of examples of products 'in the wild' containing trade secrets that are difficult enough to figure out by reverse engineering that they are effectively considered such, even by industry experts. e.g. Apple's fixed glass trackpads Also by definition they cannot be 'invalidated' since trade secrets are never 'validated' in the first place, unlike patents, copyrights, or trademarks.
- b112 3y ago
  This is false, there are thousands of examples of products 'in the wild' containing trade secrets that are difficult enough to figure out by reverse engineering that they are effectively considered such, even by industry experts. That's not how trade secrets work. If you give me a device, and I figure out how that part of it goes together, the trade secret dies. There is no protection except an attempt at secrecy, and once someone is retail sold hardware, they may do anything they choose with it, thus the idea of trying to maintain a secret, when it is in someone else's hands, is silly. Also by definition they cannot be 'invalidated' since trade secrets are never 'validated' in the first place, unlike patents, copyrights, or trademarks. Trade secrets are valid, until they no longer are. Copyright (in many jurisdictions) require no validation either, they're merely valid upon creation.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    There is no validator for the 'validity' of trade secrets, it's simply nonsense to say that they can be 'validated' or 'invalidated'. You can't dodge this point, which you appear to be doing as I never claimed copyright law is uniform in all jurisdictions worldwide, nor was that implied. If you don't understand how these things work, it's better to not make bizarre claims.
    - b112 3y ago
      I never claimed copyright law is uniform in all jurisdictions worldwide, nor was that implied. What on earth are you even talking about? Regardless, you can invalidate anything. EG, one can make a claim "Hey, that manufacturing process is my trade secret!", and that claim can most certainly be invalided. It can also be validated.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > What on earth are you even talking about? This: > Trade secrets are valid, until they no longer are. Copyright (in many jurisdictions) require no validation either, they're merely valid upon creation. Some types of copyright requires approval via some organized entity in many jurisdictions, that is easily discoverable via a quick Google search by any passing reader. The prior comment appears like a deflection from the main point, since the fact that some jurisdictions operate differently is simply irrelevant as I never claimed otherwise, nor was that implied anywhere in the preceding comment chain. Like I said you can't avoid the fact that 'invalidating' trade secrets makes no sense. They can be revealed, they can become so widely known that the label no longer applies, and so on. But 'validity' whether legal, logical, etc., can not apply to them. And in any case there are many real world products which so far have not been reverse engineered to a sufficient degree to recreate, such as the fixed glass trackpad previously mentioned. If you can prove otherwise then I would welcome a link.
        b112 3y ago
        Michael, my simple point was that copyright, like trade secrets, requires no validation in some jurisdictions by default. For some reason you view this as a distraction, instead, it was merely illustrative. In terms of validation, I have no idea why you think one cannot invalidate someone claiming to have a trade secret. You can literally invalidate anything, someone is trying to assert as valid. A bottle blonde could claim that is their original hair colour, and one could invalidate that claim too. You seem stuck on an internal definition of 'validate'. Your internal definition seems wrong.

washadjeffmad 3y ago

That wasn't less true for any other appliance that's ever existed, largely because of the availability of the schematics. People have a right to know what they're buying. Companies are testing legal and cultural boundaries, silently changing functionality and usability by altering software or access to required services after sale. It's not "too complex", it'd just be a hassle if people knew.

tacocataco 3y ago
Speaking of access, if you own minecraft with a mojang account you need to migrate it to a Microsoft account by September 19th. If you don't Microsoft, one of the wealthiest corporations in existence, will steal your copy of minecraft that you purchased elsewhere. Sorry if this isn't on topic, I'm very salty over the migration.
- Datagenerator 3y ago
  Microsoft showing it's totalitarian real character again. So happy that Minetest[1] exists and gives that warm Open Source glow, just knowing that your using Microsoft free software and it works fine on Linux too. [1] https://www.minetest.net/ https://www.minetest.net/
jodrellblank 3y ago
> "It's not "too complex"" A valve radio had ~50 discrete components[1]. The first semiconductors had triple that number of components in a square millimeter in 1971[2], a modern CPU is in the tens or hundreds of millions of transistors per square millimetre. That's more components than the Encyclopedia Britannica had words in 29 volumes[3]. How are you going to 'know what you're buying' if you don't know anything about the bit which makes up most of the complexity and does most of the work? How are 'people' going to know anything about the CPU by getting lumbered a dozen bookshelves worth of schematics? [1] One 1960s valve radio schematic found from Google: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Is9qxCCu2S8/VmZ44qHP1nI/AAAAAAABQaI/J5U2lMQGT34/s1600/rca.jpg https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Is9qxCCu2S8/VmZ44qHP1nI/AAAAAAABQ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#Transistor_count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#Transistor_co... [3] https://patricktreardon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/EncycBrit1913.jpg https://patricktreardon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Encyc...

Hizonner 3y ago

Fuck their trade secrets.