[FireBeyond]

> knowingly circumvent the intent by being minimally compliant. They can sue but it won’t go their way, and the government could move against them hard for willful non compliance.

In the eyes of the court, there's no "minimally compliant". If they are compliant, they are compliant.

If the agency keeps moving the goalposts to "clarify" intent because it was not sufficiently clear initially, that's on them, but it's also not a failing of Nvidia.

[josefx]

> In the eyes of the court, there's no "minimally compliant". If they are compliant, they are compliant.

Right, so if there is a new export ban then nvidia will be in violation and the agency just clarified that it will create such a ban if nvidia makes it necessary.

The cost of trying to play cat and mouse would be on nvidia loosing lots of R&D time and money and not the agency that only has to copy paste the product details into what is probably a preexisting form.

[fnordpiglet]

I’d also note a lot of regulation is not enforced at court, but by the regulator. They get to decide. You can appeal it to a court, but courts also grant the regulators pretty good latitude to interpret behavior as willful non compliance even when it’s done literally compliant but to the extent it enables and facilitates the specific outcome the regulation is intended to prevent. Technologists always have a hard time accepting the idea laws and regulations aren’t absolute or formulaic. Judgement and common sense can also be used and often is in situations where there is an intentional evasiveness.