[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 06:53:57AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software companies
> but not the IP of hardware companies?

Ideally it shouldn't.

> What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an
> initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual
> property.

There are plenty of other things that protect that (or fail to do so
either way).

> 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?

There are plenty of companies (often in China) that have no problem
copying a product without the schematics.  So at best that would save
them a tiny bit of work.  So that argument is nonsense.

> 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.

Apple has made TI not sell power management chips to anyone but apple.
So if a laptop stops charging because that chip broke, rather than
solder on a new chip, Apple wants you to replace te entire board
(which conviniently has the SSD soldered on, so goodbye to your data).
Or clever people will take that chip of a broken board where that chip
still works and save the owner a lot of hassle and money.

Never mind the insanity that is John Deere.

There is no conspiracy theory, but clearly plenty of clueless people.

> 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.

They can still do that.  But they better not rely on insane repair costs
or early replacements as part of making it profitable.  The product as
originally sold should cover that.

> 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.

Strangely companies had no problem making and selling products in the
past when it used to be common to include repair schematics with products
(like stoves, fridges, washing machines, furnaces, etc).

> Companies aren't charities so in the end they must protect their investments and have to
> make profits to survive.

Some of them seem to be making plenty and certainly not paying their
share of taxes for society to function properly.

Len Sorensen

Reply to: