Electronics manufactures must from Saturday fit all devices sold in the EU with USB-C charger ports in a bid by the 27-nation bloc to reduce waste and cut costs for consumers, who will no longer have…
The new law allows you to have more than one charging connector provided that either the USB-C one is the best one, or the USB-C one is as good as the spec allows. If the new connector’s genuinely better, then it’ll beat a maxed-out USB-C connector, so devices will provide it in addition to a maxed-out USB-C connector.
uh huh and when the company is sued into oblivion proving their tech is better then what? the problem with laws like this (and I generally support it) is that they give bad actors ways to club others to stifle competition.
Sued for following the law and making sure the required connector is present and functional? Unless I’m missing something, the law doesn’t require the port be exclusive. I mean, if it did, they’d have to stop including wireless charging, and I don’t see that happening.
Yes, its additional cost which acts as a moat by increasing development costs. now you need to design your new connector and make sure its compatible with the existing standard.
If I’m a company who builds widgets and this new startup will have a better design you damn well bet i’m going to sue them to increase costs and decrease the likely hood they’ll succeed.
standing isnt some mythical unambiguous concept. in fact its almost entirely a legal fiction. times when standing should be granted its not and times when it shouldnt be it is. trying to make an argument that standing invalidates my point is fairly silly, since the very existence of this law has a chilling effect. denying that is foolish.
Starting today, all new mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, speakers, keyboards and many other electronics sold in the EU will have to be equipped with a USB Type-C charging port,"
Looks like the devices are named in annex Ia, and includes 13 items.
If there is something so valuable as to require a new port on one of those devices, I’m sure they’d come up with something, such as by having USB-C for charging and something else for data.
What happens if the better technology is invented by a company not part of that chosen tech club? They get to block it’s adoption?
If it’s really that much better, it’ll be used for other things and catch on, then they’ll be a part of the group.
How can it be used for other things, if this law makes that illegal?
The new law allows you to have more than one charging connector provided that either the USB-C one is the best one, or the USB-C one is as good as the spec allows. If the new connector’s genuinely better, then it’ll beat a maxed-out USB-C connector, so devices will provide it in addition to a maxed-out USB-C connector.
uh huh and when the company is sued into oblivion proving their tech is better then what? the problem with laws like this (and I generally support it) is that they give bad actors ways to club others to stifle competition.
Sued for following the law and making sure the required connector is present and functional? Unless I’m missing something, the law doesn’t require the port be exclusive. I mean, if it did, they’d have to stop including wireless charging, and I don’t see that happening.
Yes, its additional cost which acts as a moat by increasing development costs. now you need to design your new connector and make sure its compatible with the existing standard.
If I’m a company who builds widgets and this new startup will have a better design you damn well bet i’m going to sue them to increase costs and decrease the likely hood they’ll succeed.
And it would be tossed out for lack of standing before any arguments are heard or considered.
standing isnt some mythical unambiguous concept. in fact its almost entirely a legal fiction. times when standing should be granted its not and times when it shouldnt be it is. trying to make an argument that standing invalidates my point is fairly silly, since the very existence of this law has a chilling effect. denying that is foolish.
It doesn’t. It only applies to “smartphones, tablets and cameras”, according to the article.
Source: the article
Well now I don’t know what to believe. Anyone have a link to the legislation?
https://lemmy.world/comment/14191329
Looks like the devices are named in annex Ia, and includes 13 items.
If there is something so valuable as to require a new port on one of those devices, I’m sure they’d come up with something, such as by having USB-C for charging and something else for data.
[…] have to be equipped with […]
That does not mean only equipped with
@catloaf
Walkies #hamradio plz
@iii