so many people start asking random questions like these acting as if judges are drooling baboons or something
“What’s even an operating system will this apply to my toaster?” - probably not, a judge would ultimately decide.
“What’s even an operating system will this apply to my toaster?” - probably not, a judge would ultimately decide.
> “What’s even an operating system will this apply to my toaster?” - probably not, a judge would ultimately decide.
> or ovens which do not provide an App Store, I cannot tell what the intent of AB 1043 should be.
- Does the oven have an "account setup" process?
- Does the phrase "the user of that device" make sense for this oven?
- Does "the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store" make sense for this oven?
- Does "to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal" seem relevant to this oven?
One judge might look at an appliance with no screen or input and “nope” it quickly.
Another might decide that these OS designers should show more caution. And just because their distro supports ovens, it also supports Amazon Echo.
While we're at it, does fdroid count as the sort of app store that this law cares about? Because an end user can install that for themselves.
F-Droid is more abusable, unfortunately.
Could the law be better written? Probably. But at some point there will always be a grey area that needs to be slowly defined through jurisprudence and case law.