The background level of software copyright legal actions is significant enough. If plane attacks happened that much then it would give us solid evidence of TSA effectiveness even if they never caught anyone directly.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. "Not getting sued" doesn't validate a legal theory - legal theories are validated in court where they become case law. Until then, they are plainly speculative.
This "clean room RE" fabrication is also not something so obviously compelling that nobody would ever attempt to challenge it - it's just that nobody has cared to put dollars behind it. IP provenance cases are enormously difficult to prove and are almost always settled ahead of trial. This concept is software engineer folklore more than anything.
Saying you won't believe it's effective at all until someone sues and loses isn't the most compelling argument. If nobody sues then yes that is some evidence of effectiveness. It's not an absence of evidence, you're misusing that line.
If you're going to make some kind of argument about the benefits of copyright for preserving software jobs, keep in mind this is a driver for hardware apple sells. Everyone would be better off if drivers were mandatory open source.
The point of a clean-room implementation is that the only thing passing from A to B is a detailed specification written from scratch, because functional details cannot be copyrighted.
Which I think you know, so I don't understand your argument.
You said in another comment "However, this specific thread is about the scenario where an employee has inside knowledge and is passing that knowledge on to the implementer."
It being proprietary and/or secret information doesn't affect the copyright of the clean-room output. If there's trade secret implications those are worth discussing, but as a separate issue.
I like to look down at my wrist and see the time down to the second, and my Apple Watch S7 can't deliver on that. Either the screen doesn't light up, or it lights up after a second or so, or it lights up but it's showing me the Smart Stack or an old notification instead of the watch face. And the screen fades quickly and hides the second hand (my girlfriend's S10 shows the second hand when the screen is dimmed, so they've at least fixed that in newer models).
It also needs to be charged daily which is inconvenient, whereas a normal watch lasts for years, and the smart ring lasts several days.
The smart phone integration features don't really work well either. It'll buzz with a notification, I'll look down and there's nothing. 2-3 seconds later the notification appears, but it'll only say who it's from, not the contents, despite my privacy settings being set correctly. I tap it, and a second later the message appears. I may as well have pulled out my phone instead.
By normal, these are the criteria I've decided I want in a watch, after trying out a handful from aliexpress:
- Quartz mechanism
- day-date
- Arabic numerals
- light face
- some sort of illumination
So that's all valid but those are pretty much all reasons to not want a smart watch, or it failing to do its basic job. When you talked about not wanting two watches, I thought you meant that even if you had a smart watch you liked, you'd still want a normal watch on top.
It's a by-word for expert systems with management conception as well as multi-domain comprehension these days. Reasoning through failures in one sensor domain with limited data from other domains within a fixed period following strict risk protocols at 3:01AM is the sort of thing AI would excel at versus humans.
When we're looking at whether the company is "insolvent" then they definitely could stop training and it's worth checking if they would survive in that situation, at least for a while.
reply