Right to Repair... Is it Safety or something else?

[spuwho]

Per PCMag.com:

http://www.pcmag.com/commentary/351877/there-is-no-right-to-repair

There Is No Right to Repair

BY JOHN C. DVORAK

Right to repair is back in the news because Apple is opposing a Nebraska bill that would require electronics companies like Apple to produce repair manuals and sell replacement parts.

Apple only got involved because the bill—one of eight nationwide, according to Motherboard—threatens its software licenses. We saw a similar battle between farmers and John Deere, which asserted that ownership of John Deere equipment "does not include the right to copy, modify or distribute software that is embedded in that equipment."

This all stems back to the 1980s when the CEO of MicroPro International, Seymour Rubenstein, developed the licensing agreement for WordStar, the premier word processor of the era. It was based on the licensing agreements used by software vendors for mainframe and minicomputers, which have evolved into the fully legal shrink-wrap licensing agreements we know today.

Rubenstein saw this as the future of all commerce, with even books being licensed and not sold. In his perfect world, you'd never buy (or own) anything. Everything would be a rental agreement and you could never resell anything.

I can assure you that every car manufacturer, as well as the entire spate of Internet of Things makers, is considering the idea. Why would Samsung, for example, want to license its IoT refrigerator rather than sell it to you? Many reasons: To prevent you from using anything other than an official Samsung repair service. To prevent you from reselling the device. To prevent you from bad-mouthing the product.

Yes, a lot of licensing agreements do not allow criticism of the product. License holders have yet to go the mat over customer complaints, but it could—and will—happen someday.

There is a lot you can put in these agreements. The courts have upheld them and that's the real problem.

Do you want the right to fix and repair? How about fixing and repairing bad code? How do you accomplish that? When you boil it all down, much of the fixing needs to be done at the software level. That means releasing the source code. The big software companies, as well as Apple and others, purposely sketched the Digital Millennium Copyright Act with that in mind. They were afraid the courts would make companies show their code; the DMCA would be the only law that prevents people from stealing the code after that happens. Yet that's the same DMCA used to prevent farmers from fixing their tractors.

Computer enthusiasts must realize that this is not about Apple. It's about the limitations created by licensing. Apple knows the ropes, understands the downside to the company, and it's fighting to stop these laws in Nebraska and elsewhere. Naturally.

Let's see if the long-established licensing ploy finally gets tossed for good. Because the future of everything is at stake.

[Steve]

^Just fyi, vehicles are different under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. For instance, if you repair or upgrade the intake on your car, the manufacturer can't refuse to fix an issue with the fuel pump as they are unrelated.

I understand that. In his scenario above, however, he was saying he damaged Part B because of his work on part A. In that case I think he'd be out of luck.

I stated my point poorly. My point was not if you clearly broke Part B - that I would expect would be my responsibility. My point was let's say a week after you fixed Part A, Part B stopped working. The manufacturer claimed that Part B was damaged as a result of something done with Part A where you feel it had nothing to do with Part A (like the intake-fuel pump example above).

My whole point was it does go down a grey area, especially with electronics (and I think more of these issues will come in the auto industry as cars today have exponentially more electronics/computers than in years past).

To be clear, I'm generally in favor of Right to Repair in concept. If I own the device, I own the device. I'm not sure manufacturers should be required to sell replacement parts or publish repair manuals though. In some industries, it's just good business to do so but I'm not convinced that applies in all industries.

[BridgeTroll]

If manufacturers are not required to sell replacement parts or publish manuals... then they need to allow a third party to do so...

[Steve]

If manufacturers are not required to sell replacement parts or publish manuals... then they need to allow a third party to do so...

I want to agree with this because it benefits the consumer. But think about electronics. Let's say you have a resistor that goes bad. I buy a new resistor from a third party, and it malfunctions and destroys something else. Is that the problem of the original manufacturer?

I also think Parts and manuals are very different. Parts are specific devices that serve a purpose  (how many people make USB cables)? Manuals on the other hand are intellectual property.

[BridgeTroll]

If manufacturers are not required to sell replacement parts or publish manuals... then they need to allow a third party to do so...

I want to agree with this because it benefits the consumer. But think about electronics. Let's say you have a resistor that goes bad. I buy a new resistor from a third party, and it malfunctions and destroys something else. Is that the problem of the original manufacturer?

I also think Parts and manuals are very different. Parts are specific devices that serve a purpose  (how many people make USB cables)? Manuals on the other hand are intellectual property.

I would like to separate devices still under warranty from things that no longer are.  If your phone or tractor is under a manufacturers warranty then you probably need to use that manufacturer to repair.  To me this seems clear.  It is the after warranty time frame where the right to repair needs to be extended or allowed.  Post warranty you should be able to use the repair mode of your choice.

Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what?  As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok.  Copyright protection should cover it right?  Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?

[TimmyB]

^Just fyi, vehicles are different under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. For instance, if you repair or upgrade the intake on your car, the manufacturer can't refuse to fix an issue with the fuel pump as they are unrelated.

I understand that. In his scenario above, however, he was saying he damaged Part B because of his work on part A. In that case I think he'd be out of luck.

I stated my point poorly. My point was not if you clearly broke Part B - that I would expect would be my responsibility. My point was let's say a week after you fixed Part A, Part B stopped working. The manufacturer claimed that Part B was damaged as a result of something done with Part A where you feel it had nothing to do with Part A (like the intake-fuel pump example above).

My whole point was it does go down a grey area, especially with electronics (and I think more of these issues will come in the auto industry as cars today have exponentially more electronics/computers than in years past).

To be clear, I'm generally in favor of Right to Repair in concept. If I own the device, I own the device. I'm not sure manufacturers should be required to sell replacement parts or publish repair manuals though. In some industries, it's just good business to do so but I'm not convinced that applies in all industries.

I appreciate your point, but if you think about it, we kind of already have situations like this.  We take our under-warranty vehicle to the "fast oil change" place, but then something goes wrong in the engine.  Now, the dealership says that they're not sure if warranty will cover it because you didn't have the maintenance done with them.  I've read/heard too many of those through the years.

You are 100% correct that we will see more and more of this as cars become even more tech-dependent.  My Subaru with the Eyesight system is simply amazing and I can understand why the manufacturer would not want anyone tinkering with THAT software, but these legal battles are way above anything I can do about!   

[remc86007]

Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what?  As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok.  Copyright protection should cover it right?  Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?

A couple of comments on this. First, yes, the information contained in manuals is largely intellectual property, however, the information itself isn't copyrighted (though the manual itself may be). The information about the product is generally covered by patents and, perhaps more importantly, trade secrets. Trade secrets are where the real problem for manufacturers is as they are no longer "protected" if they are disclosed by the holder. Chiltons and Haynes manuals are different because they are created in a process similar to the software design term "cleanroom development." They completely take apart a car and put it back together and document their process of doing so. Much of the technical information in the manuals is provided to Chiltons and others by the manufacturers because they wish to maintain and create customer loyalty.

[Steve]

Post warranty you should be able to use the repair mode of your choice.

100% Agree

Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what?  As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok.  Copyright protection should cover it right?  Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?

As someone in IT who got into this field as a software developer, this is where I have a hard time. What's fundamentally the difference then if I have to toss my source code out there? Not that I'm some God of a programmer and 99% of my work is owned by either my current or former employer (pretty common that employers in the creator space ask this, though not all do) so really it would be my employer's decision.

The point is that I do believe that companies and people that create things shouldn't always be required to divulge their intellectual property.

[Steve]

Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what?  As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok.  Copyright protection should cover it right?  Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?

A couple of comments on this. First, yes, the information contained in manuals is largely intellectual property, however, the information itself isn't copyrighted (though the manual itself may be). The information about the product is generally covered by patents and, perhaps more importantly, trade secrets. Trade secrets are where the real problem for manufacturers is as they are no longer "protected" if they are disclosed by the holder. Chiltons and Haynes manuals are different because they are created in a process similar to the software design term "cleanroom development." They completely take apart a car and put it back together and document their process of doing so. Much of the technical information in the manuals is provided to Chiltons and others by the manufacturers because they wish to maintain and create customer loyalty.

Loyalty can certainly be gained by providing that information yes - I completely agree. In that case, it's good business to provide this information because put aside any laws for a second...if a manufacturer decided to not provide this information and all service had to be done at the dealer, the consumers would likely go elsewhere for cars. In other words the market is really deciding, not the law.

[BridgeTroll]

Post warranty you should be able to use the repair mode of your choice.

100% Agree

Manuals are indeed intellectual property but so what?  As long as I am not building a phone or tractor on the basis of the information in the manual it should be ok.  Copyright protection should cover it right?  Repair manuals such as Chiltons ( http://www.chiltondiy.com/ )have been around for decades... What is the difference?

As someone in IT who got into this field as a software developer, this is where I have a hard time. What's fundamentally the difference then if I have to toss my source code out there? Not that I'm some God of a programmer and 99% of my work is owned by either my current or former employer (pretty common that employers in the creator space ask this, though not all do) so really it would be my employer's decision.

The point is that I do believe that companies and people that create things shouldn't always be required to divulge their intellectual property.

As an IT pro myself (more on the admin/maint side) I certainly understand your point.  I think there are ways to protect that property and still give people the right to repair.  We all know about the myriad of IT type certifications for creating, maintaining, using, hardening etc hardware and software of various manufactures... Cisco, Microsoft, IBM etc certify technicians, hardware manufacturers, software designers to use their products properly.  Seems to me John Deere, Apple and others could easily do the same...

[ChriswUfGator]

The market would crucify a company that doesn't let you do this. If I couldn't go to ubreakifix or wherever and get my screen replaced or whatever broke, I wouldn't have an iPhone. If I couldn't call detroit diesel and get a service manual showing me how to service the engines in my boat, then I wouldn't have bought that boat. I wouldn't buy a car that I can't readily have serviced in the market. In theory, yes, all this stuff is legally the IP of whoever designed and copyrighted it, and yes in theory they don't legally have to share it with you. But in practice if a manufacturer ever actually did that, then think about it, their market share would go to effectively zero. Few would buy something that permanently ties you at the hip to only one service provider.

[spuwho]

The market would crucify a company that doesn't let you do this. If I couldn't go to ubreakifix or wherever and get my screen replaced or whatever broke, I wouldn't have an iPhone. If I couldn't call detroit diesel and get a service manual showing me how to service the engines in my boat, then I wouldn't have bought that boat. I wouldn't buy a car that I can't readily have serviced in the market. In theory, yes, all this stuff is legally the IP of whoever designed and copyrighted it, and yes in theory they don't legally have to share it with you. But in practice if a manufacturer ever actually did that, then think about it, their market share would go to effectively zero. Few would buy something that permanently ties you at the hip to only one service provider.

Oh?

Tesla? the Apple car?

[finehoe]

Few would buy something that permanently ties you at the hip to only one service provider.

I was going to say the same as spuwho.  Apple has done quite well with this business model (iTunes).

[Adam White]

Few would buy something that permanently ties you at the hip to only one service provider.

I was going to say the same as spuwho.  Apple has done quite well with this business model (iTunes).

But iTunes is free. And Apple hardware can be repaired by third parties. Well, could be. Not sure what's going on with that (following the iPhone screen issue).

[finehoe]

I highlighted Chris' last sentence for a reason...when you use iTunes, you're essentially permanently tied at the hip to only one service provider.