Re:U.S. states plan to sue Facebook next week: sources
by zepto on Thursday December 03, 2020 @11:25AM
(#25290520)
You’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.
Re:U.S. states plan to sue Facebook next week: sources
by hnick on Thursday December 03, 2020 @05:41PM
(#25296304)
I 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.
Re:U.S. states plan to sue Facebook next week: sources
by zepto on Friday December 04, 2020 @11:13AM
(#25303950)
How is a standardized charging socket in any way comparable to banning trade secrets?
This doesn’t make sense to me.
Re:U.S. states plan to sue Facebook next week: sources
by hnick on Sunday December 06, 2020 @08:56PM
(#25328635)
It'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.
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.