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.
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.
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.
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?
All this means is that you move one level up on what it is you are diagramming and replacing. I don't expect to replace the integrated circuit on my instant pot, but I do expect to be able to replace the control board or the thermal fuse. And instructions on how to do these things would be great! A simple diagram showing how the larger things are connected is all that's necessary. I don't need a map of all the traces, or a list of the surface mount components.
Not to say it wouldn't be useful to someone, somewhere, or save you 10 minutes, but I suspect if you are capable of replacing the control board and thermal fuse, willing and motivated to do so, have the equipment and workspace to do it, willing to spend almost as much on a replacement control board as you would on a new Instant Pot, and don't need a map of all traces or list of components, you can likely find the fuse yourself without much bother.
But that's still a different argument to the one I was responding to which was "People have a right to know what they're buying" - and the claim that products are "not too complex" for that. At the point we turn it to a diagram which says "fuse connects to System-on-Chip blob ground pin 0 and data pin 7. Button board connects to blob ground pin 0 data pin 8" are we any closer to "knowing what we're buying" in a meaningful way?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Well if you want to avoid getting into the weeds, since it appears you have a peculiar idea of validity that does not reflect the legal or logical usage, then by all means.
Anyways I agree this is a tangent from the main comment chain, if that's what your implying. I included the last paragraph for that reason:
> 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.
You don't get how trade secrets work. What makes them enforceable, actionable.
The classic example was during the 90s. A company was building a new factory, and as a result, it was open to the air. A competitor, wanting to legally discover how the manufacturing process of the company was orchestrated, flew over the construction site, taking photos, pictures.
The competitor claimed, that they obtained such information without trickery. The company said that they had taken reasonable precautions, to conceal their manufacturing process, with employee NDAs, and security around the construction site, yet ... that there was absolutely no precaution which could be taken to protect from plane or satellite, and thus, the took all reasonable precautions. That the plane + photos were akin to someone sneaking into the factory, and taking photos as well.
The company won, their trade secret was protected.
The point of this illustrative story, is that reasonable attempts at secrecy of things such as manufacturing processes must be attempted.
A key part of a trade secret is in its name, secret. You cannot keep a secret in public, and even if you do, for a brief period of time, you are not attempting to conceal it if everyone and their dog may look at it. Nothing you sell to a consumer is a trade secret. Nothing. Not a single thing.
You may have a trade secret in how that product was made, but you do not have a trade secret in how that product fits together. At all. A schematic of a circuit board is not a trade secret, and this is the context you started this conversation on.
To speak to this, if anyone, ever, discovers how to take apart and repair this glass trackpad you discuss, there is no trade secret, and no judge will ever ever help anyone enforce protections on the same.
To put it another way, and going back to the example at start of this message, if you hold tours of your factory with trade secret manufacturing processes in it, you no longer have trade secret manufacturing processes. Your competitors may tour it at whim, as part of the tour group, and use such information to derive and copy your no longer enforceable trade secrets.
That's simply how it works.
And there's nothing more public than selling something to the public.
I think you are confused, because Apple may claim it's a 'trade secret', in how they manufacturer said glass trackpad. But the part in consumer hands is not a trade secret. You can put the blasted thing under an x-ray, an electron microscope, and yes these are valid ways to examine things, and there's literally even remotely a trade secret to enforce from this angle.
This, any schematics provides are not going to invalidate what already exists.
I won't bother looking back at this any more, for two reasons. First, it's falling off the first page of my comments I look at, for replies. And second, your over the top, absurd attack on a correct use of the word 'valid' is quite odd, and smacks of a lack of good faith.
You've said your part, I've said mine, and I don't see much value beyond my extended attempt to discuss my reasoning re: trade secrets, how I believe they work, etc. above.
Oh, one final note. I've noticed some larger corporations, and some dark corners of the legal profession attempt to shift the line in terms of rights. We've seen absurd attempts at this in the last 20 years, and we've seen industry practices which are in effect for 10 to 20 years, in terms of IP shot down again and again.
Part of me suspects you may have fallen into a trap, where perhaps Apple claims something they cannot claim, such as extending trade secrets to devices held in people's hands. If they are, they will fail in this, unless there is a deep legislative change, and even then I doubt it won't be kicked, and you should not listen to such absurd claims.
You appear to be assuming that the 'schematics', even if they were provided by the manufacturer, describe the actual product in your hands, which is probably the source of confusion.
They don't, at least not for modern products of some intricacy.
Going back to the example of Apple's glass trackpad, there's a decent chance that literally every Macbook ever sold with it has a unique trackpad, because some transistor(s) were slightly off, due to manufacturing tolerances, requiring slightly different resistor(s) to compensate, etc..., and so on.
And there are hundreds of components just in the trackpad.
So even in the literal sense of examining it under various microscopes and so on, I think it's pretty fair to say that it's secret enough for it to be very very difficult to recreate.
But this all seems like arguing at windmills, because in practice, Apple's shareholders, board, management, employees, suppliers, customers, and competitors behave as if it was a trade secret. Which is more then sufficient for all practical purposes most HN readers are concerned with.
