Re: OT: Huge Right to Repair Win for Consumers
Milan Kupcevic wrote on 6/10/21 6:10 AM:
> On 6/10/21 12:53 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> On 6/10/21 2:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
>>>> The report and its recommendations may provide a means
>>>> to pierce the veil of closed platforms, like closed-sourced firmware.
>>> It seems unlikely to me that we will ever see a "Right to Repair" for
>>> software, firmware or gateware.
>> So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software
>> but not the IP of hardware companies?
>> What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in
>> reality an
>> initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual
> When you are bringing the question of property up, just ask yourself
> what happens when you buy an item. Who is the owner of the item you've
> just bought? Who decides from that point on how are you going to use
> the item? Is it you, or somebody else? Has your property been
> protected? Do you have any rights?
At this point, you have effectively no protection. Here's a real-world
example. I have two 1080p, Wi-Fi enabled HD security cameras that worked
great for years, until FLIR Corporation decided they didn't want to be
in that business sector anymore, sold the business unit to Lorex, and
suddenly I have two 1080p doorstops instead of cameras. And
incidentally, Lorex wants me to buy their new shiny cameras. These sorts
of business practices are antithetical to good planetary stewardship.
Any company who makes firmware for a device can abandon it, hope that a
majority of the customers of the previous, abandoned (but not
technically obsolete) product generation/line.
IP Law is important, but it _should not trump all other considerations_,
which, Adrian, seems to be what you're arguing for. If a manufacturer is
going to abandon suport for a product mere years after they've
introduced it, it should be their responsibility to ensure the majority
of those devices do not end up in landfils, or scrapped for plastic and