Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software
> companies but not the IP of hardware companies?
>
Are patents not enough?
> What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an
> initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual
> property.
>
No, it is not correct.
> Why should any company take the risk of investment for new hardware
> developments when they have to fear that every other company in the world
> will get free access to their blue prints?
>
It is not about the blue prints. If someone wants the blue prints they will
get them anyway.
> The claim that hardware companies intentionally make it hard to repair
> consumer products is a conspiracy theory. In reality, a consumer product
> is primarily optimized for production costs which implies cheap capacitors
> or cases that are glued together.
>
You are also a conspiracy. The most highly payed engineers are those that
construct (mostly the enclosure) of the product in such a way that it can
not be opened without breaking.
I wonder from which universe you are coming now.
> Lots of consumers seem to forget that a product sold into the market not
> only must cover the material costs but also the costs of engineering,
> marketing, customer support, customs, compliance tests and so on. And in
> the end, you still want there to be a small profit left which is what
> makes the whole business model viable in the first place.
>
I wonder from which universe you are coming now (again).
This is not true since products are made in China or Asia and cost nothing,
but are sold here for much higher price. Wake up - it is only about profit!
The small profit you talk about is if you manufacture in the west with
expensive labor cost.
It is about the greed of the share holders - not a conspiracy but evidently
proven.
And BTW the reason is on Wall Street - it turned into a casino and is much
easier to make money. It sucked the money from the industry in the past
15y.
But this does not have anything to do with the right to repair.
> If law initiatives also now want to take away the exclusive rights of
> hardware designers over their blueprints and hence the market advantage
> over competitors that they took an investment risk for, companies will
> lose the incentive to design and develop new products.
>
> Companies aren't charities so in the end they must protect their
> investments and have to make profits to survive.
I am amazed what and how you think. Have you ever seen the movie "The Light
Bulb Conspiracy" - it was Conspiracy before proven true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzJI8gfpu5Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWJC5ieUAe4
you know the term "planned obsolescence" ???
The right to repair is about availability of spare parts, manuals and
ability to open the enclosure of a product without breaking it.
It will also reduce environmental pollution and help us live better.
I repair a lot. I give you two examples.
1. A display does not work anymore. A display costs about 100,-. It turns
out it is the power supply. Power supply costs 15,-. I could even diagnose
power supply and replace the broken electronic component, but the risk is
too high to have other components broken and I do not have proper test
equipment for this power supply.
2. A sound system has a problem - hassle noise, does not turn on/off etc.
The sound system costs about 70,-. It turns out the potentiometer switch is
broken. It costs 0,10.
I have endless list ... especially cars, car electronics and more expensive
products.
When you wake up and finally land on mother Earth, come back here to this
forum to advocate for the greed of shareholders.
Reply to: