Hacker News Reader

Comment by felipelemos | Hacker News Reader

Let me fix that for you: > Would a toy manufacturer be sued in Brazil for selling toys without a charging cable?

The answer is: Yes.

To add it further. If it required some cable that could be considered standard enough so people can buy it anywhere from anyone, then the answer would be "no".

AFAIK, technically nobody ever deemed any cable standard enough. I am confident (but IANAL) you would win the suit if you require a USB A to USB C cable, but you will probably get sued.

Ok TIL. But still makes no sense to me if they informed you about what was in the box. I’m just stuck in that mental model I suppose.

Also doesn’t quite make sense why charging cables is different than any other power source. Batteries for toys, fuel for cars, etc. Seems kind of arbitrary.

> Also doesn’t quite make sense why charging cables is different than any other power source. Batteries for toys, fuel for cars, etc. Seems kind of arbitrary.

I mean, it seems pretty easy to distinguish between those two to me? One set are consumables ("batteries for toys", "fuel for cars"), while the other set are long-lived goods ("charging cables").

But why should one be included and the others can be excluded, the fact the cable was available for purchase should have been enough.

The law has to draw a line somewhere. Cars have to come with wheels, even if wheels are available for purchase. Appliances have to come with power cable, even if wires are available for purchase.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com