Trying to prevent competitors from interoperating with the service also may be construed as anticompetitive behaviour.

The implementation details of an authentication process do not beget legal privileges to be a monopolist. What an absurd thought.

Docker did not invent Linux containers. They did not invent namespaces or chroots.

You'll be hard pressed to name the things they did invent and those things have long ago left Docker to hang dry (OCI imagespec).

OrbStack is built by a single person and it provides an objectively better experience than Docker Desktop, built presumably by dozens of full time engineers.

People detest incompetence and rent seeking. That they do.

The lack of important contributions of Docker can be best summarized by all the alternatives that popped up in no time. With Kubernetes now defaulting to CRI-O, modern container stack has precisely zero Dockerisms.

As such, the sentiment in this thread is chilling.

Google does not care about FIDO or standards compliance. They care about vendor lock-in their proprietary passkey offerings allow.

Citrix involvement has subsided in meantime and the ecosystem is much healthier (governance is actually under Linux Foundation), but the damage was done.

Xen to this day lacks in features, also.

The current design and usage of cryptographic primitives does not allow for unlikability (it is actually quite easy to for verifiers and relying parties to collude) and it certainly is not state-of-the-art. BBS signatures would achieve actual unlinkability, but those have been outright rejected by the designers.

Current implementation is poised to not comply with the regulation that established the mandate for the wallet and it violates GDPR. The best one could hope for is for CJEU to strike down the whole project.

The GitHub organization of the OP's post has various issues that discuss these ills. Here is a position of several cryptographers against the current design: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-archi...

This at best is force majeure that prohibits OpenAI with satisfying its contractual obligations that are there to comply with EU law. But contractual obligations are not the only control organizations have to ensure compliance with EU law, so this is not a defense.

OpenAI has not started to "be incompliant" with GDPR with this order, yes. More like OpenAI was always incompliant because it does not have relevant controls installed that mitigates extraterritorial tendencies of US law.

Regardless of legality of retention this order brings, them not notifying their users (the court did not compel them to hide this from their users (no gag order is in place) about this material change of data processing, could be constituted as breach of various consumer protection laws, misrepresentation, unfair dealing, false advertising and related.

For crying out loud, as an American you cannot work on your own house, since a lot of labour is licensed (electrical work, etc) and taped in red.

The regulation Americans talk of in disparaging way is always the regulation that shifts and allows consumer/user surplus.

But ECHR is not part of EU law, especially it is not binding on the European Commission (in the context of it being a federal or seemingly federal political executive). This creates a catch-22 where member states might be violating ECHR but are mandated by EU law, though this is a very fringe consequence arising out of legal fiction and failed plans to federalize EU. Most recently, this legal fiction has become relevant in Chat Control discourse.

Great Britain and Poland have explicit opt-outs out of some European law.

If even consent does not apply, then the data shall not be processed. That's the end of it.

If United States was honestly concerned about data protection and privacy, it would devise a federal privacy law that models GDPR. They are trying to pass a federal law now, but it is seriously flawed and they are trying to preempt more user-centric privacy laws of the states.

Finally, such partisan, targeted and unprincipled bans reenforce that EU's approach on issues such as data transfers abroad (see Schrems 1 and Schrems 2) is perfectly valid. EU has a principled regulation, which gets evaluated by free and democratic courts. The outcomes are what they are. Not partisan and discriminatory, as they are here.