4 ms·

Schematics cannot be copyrighted and are extremely useful from R&D point of view. Competition can absolutely copy it verbatim with no consequences. Only thing t

Schematics cannot be copyrighted and are extremely useful from R&D point of view. Competition can absolutely copy it verbatim with no consequences. Only thing that can somewhat be copyrighted is exact layout (the same way a photograph would be copyrighted), but that is tenuous. For complex products that is maybe no big deal, but for smaller businesses, having all details laid out is a gift for cloners to get a cheaper device to the market based on original designs - when it would be not feasible otherwise to reverse engineer it.

mschuster91 1y ago
Yeah, that's why I specified mass-market products as a target for such a regulation. The big guns certainly don't have anything that cloners could want to use, their "secret sauce" is in the display technology (for TVs) and their userspace applications (for phones) and neither would be exposed by an extensive right-to-repair legislation. Cloners need to be tackled differently anyway, I'd propose attacking these on the marketplaces - ban all sort of marketplace where the platform operator does not physically buy the product to resell it. The third-party ecosystem was an experiment, and it had a good run - but it also has significant downsides, and it's not just taxes or barely any enforcement of environmental safety laws, but particularly from companies not caring at all about waste. So much utterly cheap crap that would normally not pass any incoming QC from a classic big box store gets imported into our markets, our consumers discover it's crap... and while the consumers usually get a refund, the crap has to be disposed of at the consumer's and eventually taxpayer's cost.
Aurornis 1y ago
> Schematics cannot be copyrighted Schematics are absolutely copyrighted. Maybe you meant that the knowledge about connections between parts can't be copyrighted? Someone could have reverse engineered the connections and posted their own interpreted schematic. However, the schematic that is shared is very much copyrighted. Any competition trying to use it internally in any way would put themselves at legal risk. In this case, the value to competitors is virtually nil as the schematic is for Apple specific chips which competitors wouldn't have access to.
- varispeed 1y ago
  This is incorrect. Copyright protects the artistic layout of the schematic, not the functional circuit itself. The circuit design is an uncopyrightable 'system'. A competitor can legally use the information to build their own product; they just can't reproduce the drawing. The schematic is also incredibly valuable. It's a blueprint to Apple's design philosophy and the only public map of how their custom silicon actually functions in the real world. That's priceless information for any competitor.
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    Sorry, this is incorrect. The schematic copyrighted. The logical connection of components is not, but the literal schematic PDF is indeed copyrighted. The schematic is also not “priceless” information. It does not give any secret information about how the Apple part functions. Most of it is generic connections between parts which are not the least bit surprising to any experienced EE. I have actual real world experience working on these types of systems. I don’t understand how so many HN commenters are so confident about their EE knowledge when they clearly don’t have the experience.
    - varispeed 1y ago
      You are now agreeing with the core point: the functional design isn't copyrightable, only the literal drawing is. The entire discussion is about the value of that uncopyrightable information, not the right to distribute the PDF file. Focusing on the PDF's copyright is like arguing a treasure map is worthless because the paper it's printed on is copyrighted. The value is the map, not the paper. No one suggests every connection is a revelation. The value is in the complete, validated system architecture for a black-box SoC. It’s the specific power sequencing, the exact filtering on high-speed lines, and the full support circuitry taken as a whole. That integrated blueprint is the "secret sauce," and its value is self-evident, regardless of any single engineer's experience with generic circuits.

mschuster91 1y ago

Yeah, that's why I specified mass-market products as a target for such a regulation. The big guns certainly don't have anything that cloners could want to use, their "secret sauce" is in the display technology (for TVs) and their userspace applications (for phones) and neither would be exposed by an extensive right-to-repair legislation. Cloners need to be tackled differently anyway, I'd propose attacking these on the marketplaces - ban all sort of marketplace where the platform operator does not physically buy the product to resell it. The third-party ecosystem was an experiment, and it had a good run - but it also has significant downsides, and it's not just taxes or barely any enforcement of environmental safety laws, but particularly from companies not caring at all about waste. So much utterly cheap crap that would normally not pass any incoming QC from a classic big box store gets imported into our markets, our consumers discover it's crap... and while the consumers usually get a refund, the crap has to be disposed of at the consumer's and eventually taxpayer's cost.

Aurornis 1y ago

> Schematics cannot be copyrighted Schematics are absolutely copyrighted. Maybe you meant that the knowledge about connections between parts can't be copyrighted? Someone could have reverse engineered the connections and posted their own interpreted schematic. However, the schematic that is shared is very much copyrighted. Any competition trying to use it internally in any way would put themselves at legal risk. In this case, the value to competitors is virtually nil as the schematic is for Apple specific chips which competitors wouldn't have access to.

varispeed 1y ago
This is incorrect. Copyright protects the artistic layout of the schematic, not the functional circuit itself. The circuit design is an uncopyrightable 'system'. A competitor can legally use the information to build their own product; they just can't reproduce the drawing. The schematic is also incredibly valuable. It's a blueprint to Apple's design philosophy and the only public map of how their custom silicon actually functions in the real world. That's priceless information for any competitor.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  Sorry, this is incorrect. The schematic copyrighted. The logical connection of components is not, but the literal schematic PDF is indeed copyrighted. The schematic is also not “priceless” information. It does not give any secret information about how the Apple part functions. Most of it is generic connections between parts which are not the least bit surprising to any experienced EE. I have actual real world experience working on these types of systems. I don’t understand how so many HN commenters are so confident about their EE knowledge when they clearly don’t have the experience.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    You are now agreeing with the core point: the functional design isn't copyrightable, only the literal drawing is. The entire discussion is about the value of that uncopyrightable information, not the right to distribute the PDF file. Focusing on the PDF's copyright is like arguing a treasure map is worthless because the paper it's printed on is copyrighted. The value is the map, not the paper. No one suggests every connection is a revelation. The value is in the complete, validated system architecture for a black-box SoC. It’s the specific power sequencing, the exact filtering on high-speed lines, and the full support circuitry taken as a whole. That integrated blueprint is the "secret sauce," and its value is self-evident, regardless of any single engineer's experience with generic circuits.