Author Topic: Right to repair, my problem with it  (Read 21104 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9886
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2021, 06:16:36 pm »

Other states like Arizona have different levels of inspection and I have no idea what they mean or what they look at ...e.g.  for a Level 3 inspection - "This highest level inspection can only be conducted by a peace officer "..."Level III inspections are required when a vehicle is restored salvage, a recovered stolen vehicle or has been involved in a collision. This inspection is necessary to verify all major component parts (front-end assembly, engine, transmission, rear-end assembly for trucks and truck-type vehicles), and the vehicle is equipped for highway use."

Why a peace officer? Why not a mechanic? dunno.

Because they don't want to disclose where the hidden VIN numbers are located.  There are VINs all over the place, not just at the lower left of the windshield.  There's actually a 'big book of VIN number locations' available for Law Enforcement (only).

 

Offline robint91Topic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2021, 06:16:44 pm »
For electronic and other consumer equipment that doesn't exist. The only thing that is the conformaty when the device is manufactured.

Every single product that gets out of the assembly line is tested for EMc in the same anechoic chamber its prototype was tested when it was certified by an accredited lab?

No, that doesn't happen. One product gets tested and all the others are the same because of the exact same design and exact same way of producing.

Checkmate. Let me repair so as to restore the product to the exact same design and way of producing (or even better). That's the right to repair in essence.

But that makes you, the repair guy, liable for the conformaty. Don't know if you want that. The manufacturer doesn't grant you conformaty. Without that right to repair is only a hollow vessel.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7934
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2021, 06:18:59 pm »
To rstofer:
That’s why the US is still a federal republic.  Quite a few States mandate safety inspection, which is independent of emissions or electric power.
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2021, 06:20:07 pm »
But that makes you, the repair guy, liable for the conformaty. Don't know if you want that. The manufacturer doesn't grant you conformaty. Without that right to repair is only a hollow vessel.
Again, not an issue with cars. You really need to stop thinking in issues and snap out of your mindset.
 
The following users thanked this post: wraper, Cyberdragon

Offline bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7729
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2021, 06:20:35 pm »
There are quite a few issues with right-to-repair, but it making up FUD does no good.  Most right-to-repair legislation I have seen is relatively well thought out and pretty well focused on what many consider to be unfair or deceptive trade practices.  One of the basic principles behind R2R is the first-sale doctrine.  Once an IP-holder sells the product, the buyer acquires (as to the IP holder) rights which include using, repairing and even modifying the item.  This has nothing to do with other laws that might prohibit such activity for reasons other than the IP holder's rights.

FCC does care when I'm selling a single unit. It needs to be tested according to their rules, why would it be for repair different?

Because the laws explicitly impose specific requirements on manufacturers and retailers.  Those requirements are not imposed on repairers, although separate legal requirements often do apply.  If I sell you a new car, it has to comply with FMVSS (safety) and EPA (emissions) requirements.  If I repair you car, say installing new tires and brake pads, I am not required to recertify it to FMVSS or EPA standards--that would obviously be cost prohibitive.  There may be separate requirements imposed on the repairer and the suppliers of replacement parts may also be required to certify them.  Requiring repairers to recertify the entire vehicle or device to all of the applicable standards would eliminate the repair industry entirely.  Legislators, judges and regulators have concluded that this would be an undesirable result and have made laws that reflect that.  I entirely agree with that, despite the obvious issues that can and do arise from incompetent repair or poor quality parts. 

Quote
So if I ask Intersil to create a custom design for specially me and also ask them to produce it for me. Who are you to demand access to that chip? In my view you are asking for an "Apple component" from Intersil, and not a "Intersil component". Which manufacturer it makes totally doesn't matter. It is a "Apple component" so you should ask Apple if they could supply it to you. I don't see any point to have legally forced to sell you that part. Or should we also demand from Apple that they sell their M1 CPU?

It is wat rstofer said, we need to define "repair". And in my honest opinion and component level repair has already died with the introduction of SMD. And the repair that happens now is just scribbling in the margins.

I've not seen any R2R rules that would require such a bizarre result as demanding access to your proprietary chip.  Typical R2R requirements are simply that independent professional repairers must have the same access to parts and repair information as the manufacturers authorized agent at non-discriminatory pricing and terms.  There are often additional requirements, such as mandating availability of replacement parts for a specific period of time and not taking specific actions that are deemed anti-competitive or solely for the purpose of inhibiting repairs.  As for component-level repairs, I'm not aware of any manufacturer being required to supply any separate board components, schematics or code unless those are available to their own repair personnel.  This is not a violation of your IP rights--you have the right to NOT sell your product.  However, if you choose to sell it to consumers, the government may impose certain requirements upon you as a condition of being allowed to sell the product.

These are not just consumer protection laws, they are fair trade and competition laws.  A manufacturer that shirks its generally accepted warranty and support obligations gains a competitive (cost) advantage over a manufacturer that provides an acceptable (or required) level of support.  And relying on consumers to sort that out by reputation sounds like nice free-market idea, but in reality they don't have any way of knowing ahead of time who is going to decide to screw them and who isn't. 
A 3.5 digit 4.5 digit 5 digit 5.5 digit 6.5 digit 7.5 digit DMM is good enough for most people.
 
The following users thanked this post: wraper, Cyberdragon, Brumby, newbrain, gnavigator1007, bsfeechannel, pqass

Offline Fixed_Until_Broken

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2021, 06:20:52 pm »
It's not a purely economic matter. We're still stuck in a 1960s mindset where we just throw out a phone and replace it for not a lot of money. We're slowly realising that resources are in fact finite and that we can't keep digging up stuff to put in landfills after a few years. The market loves it, but it's not a sustainable model. We filled up the world with crap in a few short years. Repair needs to be normalised and preferably quickly.

Completely agree here. The sustainably of our current model does not work! Repair needs to be normalized and throwing out ostracized.
 
The following users thanked this post: george.b

Offline Fixed_Until_Broken

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2021, 06:22:47 pm »
There's actually a 'big book of VIN number locations' available for Law Enforcement (only).
As a prior law enforcement officer, I have never seen this book. Maybe only the DMV gets it?

Edit: or maybe you made that up.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 06:24:29 pm by Fixed_Until_Broken »
 
The following users thanked this post: narkeleptk

Offline pqass

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 706
  • Country: ca
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2021, 06:27:52 pm »
The purpose of EMC on manufacturers is to stop them from producing millions of EMI radiators.  I don't think the FCC/IC/etc. cares about one-of repairs.  A few mm of extra wire at these power levels aren't going to swamp-out anything (except AM radio at 2ft).  Every jurisdiction has a low-power license exemption for individuals. 

FCC does care when I'm selling a single unit. It needs to be tested according to their rules, why would it be for repair different? Are you willing to take the risk of putting a product back into the hands of the customer when there is a possibility that isn't doesn't comply. For smartphones and laptops it could be benign (expect when it burst into flames) but for a ADAS module for a car, I would be a bit more cautious.

If that EMI is no big deal, why do we have such strict rules about them. Everyone should adhere those ruleset, repair people included.

The difference is quantity.  There will be orders of magnitude less repaired products in use vs working originals.

As Louis pointed out in past videos, as an individual, you are allowed to work on your own brakes and home wiring.  What happens afterwards is between you and your insurance company.  So yes, there is a double standard between manufacturers and the individual [who assumes the risks of the repaired product].

Quote
Well then, add a line item for the IP as well when you sell the contracted chips/board to a third party.  Remit the IP $ to the IP holder.

If you are a separate legal entity (from the contractor), I don't see why anybody can't ask you for a chip/board if they pay for the one-time engineering, IP licenses, and minimum quantity (batch).  Everyone gets paid.   What's the problem?   Oh right, the collusion is missing!  Duh!

If you are NOT a separate legal entity from the contractor (ie. in-house, wholly owned/majority sub), then consumer protection laws should govern minium product support period.

So if I ask Intersil to create a custom design for specially me and also ask them to produce it for me. Who are you to demand access to that chip? In my view you are asking for an "Apple component" from Intersil, and not a "Intersil component". Which manufacturer it makes totally doesn't matter. It is a "Apple component" so you should ask Apple if they could supply it to you. I don't see any point to have legally forced to sell you that part. Or should we also demand from Apple that they sell their M1 CPU?

It is wat rstofer said, we need to define "repair". And in my honest opinion and component level repair has already died with the introduction of SMD. And the repair that happens now is just scribbling in the margins.

"...ask Intersil to create..."  or mark chips with my proprietary part numbers all sounds like collusion to me as they seem to rely on IP that is already mostly developed by the OEM and is being incorporated in other chips they sell to distributors/general public. So I, a third party, should not be barred from buying same (subject to one-time, license, and minimum quantity charges). 

"Collusion is a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right[/u].' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Apple doesnt sell their M1 chip or any other chips to distributors/general public. They purchased a chip design house to design the M1 from ARM IP + their own IP and contracted Samsung? to deliver wafers or packaged chips for them.  Apple owns the masks; not Samsung. 

Right to repair is mostly about stopping stupid shit like re-labeling and deliberate obfuscation.  No one is compelling TSMC to produce 30yo chips.


 

Offline ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #33 on: July 18, 2021, 06:28:46 pm »
All major parts of the car body and engine have VIN stamped on them. But I'm not sure it is such a huge secret. There are books of them, but I'm pretty sure they are not secret either. They are there so that you can inspect the car prior to sale and stuff like this.
Alex
 

Offline DrG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 1199
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #34 on: July 18, 2021, 06:28:58 pm »

Other states like Arizona have different levels of inspection and I have no idea what they mean or what they look at ...e.g.  for a Level 3 inspection - "This highest level inspection can only be conducted by a peace officer "..."Level III inspections are required when a vehicle is restored salvage, a recovered stolen vehicle or has been involved in a collision. This inspection is necessary to verify all major component parts (front-end assembly, engine, transmission, rear-end assembly for trucks and truck-type vehicles), and the vehicle is equipped for highway use."

Why a peace officer? Why not a mechanic? dunno.

Because they don't want to disclose where the hidden VIN numbers are located.  There are VINs all over the place, not just at the lower left of the windshield.  There's actually a 'big book of VIN number locations' available for Law Enforcement (only).

I got ya - they want to make sure it is not stolen ... but I would still want a safety inspection, not just a stolen property inspection - but maybe the Levels are cumulative so that if you have to get a Level III you also had to have a Level II - that kind of thing.

I wonder what level this one had...that looks a lot like a couch I had once!



- Invest in science - it pays big dividends. -
 

Offline bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7729
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #35 on: July 18, 2021, 06:51:53 pm »
"...ask Intersil to create..."  or mark chips with my proprietary part numbers all sounds like collusion to me as they seem to rely on IP that is already mostly developed by the OEM and is being incorporated in other chips they sell to distributors/general public. So I, a third party, should not be barred from buying same (subject to one-time, license, and minimum quantity charges).

I disagree with robint91, but you are badly misstating his argument here.  He wasn't referring to re-marking, but to a contractually supplied custom chip where the customer holds the IP.  Applying FRAND to that is ridiculous.

Quote
Right to repair is mostly about stopping stupid shit like re-labeling and deliberate obfuscation. 

Not at all.  There are two avenues available to protect your IP--the copyright/patent route and the proprietary/trade secret route.  Both are legitimate.  You can design a product with magic module that has all the IC labels sanded off and then the whole thing potted in cement if you like--there's no R2R law I've ever seen that would prohibit that.  What R2R might require is that if you sell a product containing the magic potted module to an end user that is a consumer,  you or your dealer supply that module to the consumer or an independent repair facility on non-discriminatory terms.

A 3.5 digit 4.5 digit 5 digit 5.5 digit 6.5 digit 7.5 digit DMM is good enough for most people.
 

Offline T3sl4co1l

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21609
  • Country: us
  • Expert, Analog Electronics, PCB Layout, EMC
    • Seven Transistor Labs
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #36 on: July 18, 2021, 07:00:43 pm »
I think that people are overlooking a few aspects of the whole right to repair legislation. I see two big asterisks in the whole discussion.

The first one is "product conformity" and how much repair can deviate from the original design. I know that it takes very very little modifications to a design to invalidate any EMC/Intended radiator/Safety/... test for FCC/UL and CE. The producer has to be sure that every product he makes is exactly the same as the one which is tested. He is liable if it doesn't adhere to the same standards. So they have meticulously create internal assembly guidelines on how to create the exact same product, how to open/close the enclosure, how to apply shielding tape,... Just to ensure "product conformity".

How can somebody without proper training do this correctly?

Exactly.  This is another excellent point!

How can repair people figure these things out, correctly, without instruction from the manufacturers?  It's a crap-shoot at worst, and best-practices at best.

If manufacturers responded to certain detailed questions about repair, the repairs could be done in a manufacturer-approved way.

This isn't a denial-of-service thing.  They're big, they have plenty of time to respond to questions.  More to the point, repair people only need one answer, and they can share it among themselves (e.g. via Rossmann's wiki).

That communication could take many routes: it could be ad hoc, everyone for themselves; it could be structured, through designated channels e.g. a few people in the community volunteer as liaison; it could be formal via an industry group/consortium that collects community questions, sorted by priority, relevance, etc.; lots of possibilities.

The point is to have anything at all, and not be just guessing all the time.

Nor is this an IP thing.  Specific, pointed questions about component availability or replacement, reveal absolutely nothing about the IP.  There's very little protectable about PCBs anyway, and in the recent past, no one had any problem with distributing schematics and even board and layout photos.  (The schematic might be protected by patent if novel, and layout is protected by copyright either way, IIRC.  Doesn't matter how you publish it, or in what forms.)

So you make an excellent point.  I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that it works against RtR.  Such a conclusion almost seems it has to be a case of, looking at the current state of industry and saying "well this is terrible, how could it ever improve, I'm not going to do anything to fix it!"


Quote
And this training is not about if they can replace a SMD resistor or do rework on super small BGA component, that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters if the repairs happens accordingly to the same way a new product is assembled. A repair guy can be very skilled at dissembling and reassembling a laptop, but the main idea here is, did he used the same methodology as they did in the production line? Must that repair guy guarantee "product conformity"? Or is the original producer still liable for the product conformity when a third-party repair has happened?

How can an auto repair guarantee that emissions control systems work as intended?

Well, there are means of testing this, but before these were available in the 90s, what did they do?  Well, they didn't do anything, they just replaced parts more or less to spec and that was that.  Best practices.  The same works here.

Maybe they got a bum part sometimes, or didn't install it correctly, and you had some stinky cars on the road.  Maybe they were later discovered, and fined, or repaired.  Responsibility goes to the owner first, then repairer, then manufacturer, as noted by others.

Have you had a product returned by FCC complaint?  Are you familiar with the procedure?

In principle, a sale of 1 should be tested as much as anything else.  But there's The Law, and there's "The Law".  In practice, you can have... thousands, hundreds of thousands even, of products out in the wild, without testing.  Maybe they even generate complaints, maybe they pass after all whether by good luck or intent.  I've seen it before.  The first step is typically a licensed user making a complaint -- the FCC has little time to wardrive anymore (they're more concerned with [not] regulating telecom these days).  A C&D is sent to the user.  On repeated complaint, the user may be investigated or fined.  Only when a pattern of behavior is found, does the manufacturer get notified, and then a recall, or fines or other remediation, might be used.


As for actual repairs, stuff like pictured, doesn't bother me in the slightest.  Antennas?  Perhaps.  The wires are low to the ground plane, hardly different from the traces they're extending.  They're short, only relevant in the GHz.  (I would go a bit further than pqass, and say no, it won't have any effect at AM BCB at all.)  Perhaps this would raise the radiated floor a few dB in the 1-10GHz band.  It's not even obvious if they'd do anything at all -- there might be an absorber or shield over the location in question.


You're also missing something about the nature of this kind of repair -- many of them are "heroic", patching traces from water damage, shit like that.  No one's going to guarantee that kind of work.  Well, maybe they do, I don't know.  It would be foolish to give a guarantee on something that's cursed with contamination and chronic corrosion.  If it can't be cleaned up, and it's going to keep spreading, just get out of there -- back up your files and get a new machine.

The purpose of such efforts is to recover anything.  Remember, Apple thinks YOUR FILES DON'T EXIST ANYMORE if you so much as break a key off your keyboard, let alone any kind of damage like this.  If your alternative, as a customer, is to literally throw away everything on that machine; or pay much less than the cost of a new machine, to a maybe un-reputable (certainly not manufacturer-approved) service -- what are you going to do?  It's an insane, retarded situation to be put in.  And it's an entirely, intentionally constructed situation.  The manufacturers MEAN to do that to you.

Probably, a lot of people do continue to use machines after such treatment and repairs, anyway.  That's fine, they do so at their own risk.  Maybe they take the lesson and use NAS backups (or backups of any kind at all).  Maybe they follow through on the action and actually get a new machine.  Whatever -- it's on them, the repairer has done their due diligence.


One more point about EMC.  It can fail spontaneously over time.  The manufacturer tested one article and put it into production.  What happens to the components in operation, who knows.  In particular, X1 type filter caps are made with very thin materials, and are exposed to mains surges; over time, they self-heal, meaning some of the material breaks down and vaporizes, "healing" the wound.  After enough time, whole sections of electrode can be "healed" away, significantly reducing the capacitance.  They also corrode: the metal layer is so thin, it can be fully oxidized by exposure to oxygen or moisture -- which diffuse in through the plastic slowly but surely.  So, they even have a shelf life.  All in all, they can end up with very little value after a decade or so of service.  You'd think this should generate huge amounts of reports, but, eh?  Just seems to be part of modern life, having awful reception in the MW to SW bands.

Also, besides capacitors, I suppose stuff like EMI tape might fatigue and break, if subjected to flexing; or EMI springs may not wipe cleanly, or get clogged with gunk.  (Both of which can be repaired, if a tech is instructed to look for such things!)


Quote
Or do we want year checkups of all our electronic device, the same way we do for our Car's in the annual vehicle safety inspection? A yearly EMC inspection?

It's funny because that would actually be pretty feasible... get a LISN for mains checks, a CDN or cable clamp for peripherals/telecom lines, and a TEM cell for radiated.  Hook it to a spec -- pretty cheap these days for the couple GHz you need -- and you can do these checks in under an hour.  Nothing like the certified lab experience of course, but if you have a baseline, and you have a device that exceeds it considerably, well that's a good hint that something might be wrong!

I wonder if I could make a sales case for that... heh...

The funny part is, it's literally just making more work for the end user.  So, I think not.  Unless the FCC requires it, which I've seen nothing to hint at that.  So, possible, but highly unlikely. :)


Quote
Apple invested in that part, why should Apple sell you that part?

Well, "invested" is maybe an overstatement.  But sure, they customized it, and to the extent of NRE and minimum order quantities, you could say that.

Why should they sell it?  They shouldn't, and Rossmann has noted this before.  You can hold onto all the chips you want.  You're an asshole, but you have the right to be an asshole in this country.

Securing parts supply is probably a pipe dream, but it's still one of extreme importance to board-level repair, so he will always be bringing it up.


Quote
That this happens is just NORMAL way of doing business. I design and manufacture boards for a customer, and a customer of my costumer comes directly to me for a replacement board, should I sell it to him? Is it my place to sell a board where I don't have the intellectual property anymore? If I did this and my customer knows about it, I would a serious court case against me, with a very slim chance in winning. Same applies to Intersil. If the original customer, which hold the IP, doesn't want to sell the board, then it is too bad I can't help you.

If I will be legally forced to sell those boards to customers the value of doing design work and contract manufacturing will drop. I think this will render most "Do not compete" void.

You're extrapolating pretty far down one track here...

First off, if such a law were enacted -- it would either have to grandfather in prior terms like you're working off of above, or provide some graceful means, or remediation, to break the clauses relevant to the above.

So, going forward, such agreements would simply be made with different terms, allowing for whatever that law would cover.

More likely, such a law would target the product OEM, not their suppliers.  They ordered custom parts, so they should retain extra stock of them, or make them available as long as they support the product themselves, or retain some amount of stock thereafter; whatever.  It needn't be the 10 year sunset period that auto parts have.  It needn't be much of anything at all, just so long as the parts are available at all, through some means other than desoldering junked boards.

They can even turn a profit on them.  Hefty one at that, it seems.  Or they can set the price sky high, and even write press releases saying We DiD tHe ThInG gUyS, reLaX!!11  They can continue to, you know, be an asshole, as is their right.

Anything like that, would be a step in the right direction.  Right now, it's outright impossible, they refuse to release any stock.  At least then, it would be a matter of negotiating price.

Tim
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electronic design, from concept to prototype.
Bringing a project to life?  Send me a message!
 
The following users thanked this post: TimNJ, george.b

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: 00
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2021, 07:04:31 pm »
But that makes you, the repair guy, liable for the conformaty. Don't know if you want that. The manufacturer doesn't grant you conformaty. Without that right to repair is only a hollow vessel.

Those who are demanding the right to repair don't seem to have a problem with that liability. Quite the opposite. They're confident that the product will be back to the same (or even better) performance it had before it failed.
 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9245
  • Country: us
  • $
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #38 on: July 18, 2021, 07:11:24 pm »
you know you are supposed to repair those things in the proper manner, if there was serious repair shops they would have the best in PACE tools and things like that do do board level repair properly. I can imagine a TON of stuff that could be improved with the idea that volume brings capital.

These repair shops don't have volume because consumer behavior/culture sucks balls , so they can't raise capital for the best tools, so you get half assed jobs.

Also don't think we are in some kind of apex of repair tool technology, its just that it is not developed because there is no demand (related to volume), so no one will ever get their R&D back.


I.e. you can repair a trace with a floating bodge wire or you can repair a trace with a heat glue pace cutout with epoxy overfill, new vias, etc. The 2nd one is expensive and rare because its like military tech. But so were half the things we use often right now. PCB repair tools are an unexplored market IMO

Those repair shops right now are practically poorly funded counter culture run hold outs. try to imagine what would happen if they got big.

Think about the 50's. When you had demand to repair televisions and radios, the pharmacy turned into an analog testing center with high voltage component testing machines and vacuum tubes. Right now the best tool you can get in a pharmacy is a primitive cheap screw driver in a blister pack, and its 70 years later. Someone might think they walked into dystopia had they walked into a modern pharmacy. They would have expected fusion reactor parts.

You can't look at what you see right now if you want to change culture by making repair popular, economical, etc. IMO we get 'partisan' (in the sense of soldiers hiding in the woods in enemy territory) technology in these places right now because the law is unfriendly, and business even more so.


Without repair, in a modern house, you can easily be screwed for a years worth of savings with just random appliance and technology failures if they sync up right, double that with automotive problems. Its ridiculous.

I would say the repair quality is very promising , it basically says you can fix things even if the odds are totally stacked against you if you are creative enough. Things would only get better with better and cheaper repair tech. These repairs now seem to require a dentist (precision parts casting and x-rays (this one is hard without communal ownership in a pharmacy or something, scan you parts for 3$) lol

And how much easier would repair get if you had some kind good streamlined part duplicator? I.e. glue broken part back together with shitty glue and put it into a machine that will actually scan it good without needing a associates degree in CAD analysis and make you a replacement part? Its clearly possible, you can kinda do it, but its super thorny. If you had good cheap wax - zinc castings made for duplicate parts you could repair a TON of mechanical BS with higher quality replacements. I.e. stupid printer parts remade out of zinc. It has to be easy though, like an appliance, that actually works.

At best the best repair technology right now moved from skilled engineering team to somewhat specialized technician, IMO with UV-resin printers being somewhat the exception (that thing actually worked brilliant out of the box with no work, but its damn weak, but its cheap enough and you don't need to mess with alignments and beds, face it, thats technician setup work). It can go ALOT further.

Also with EMC, you can do ALOT better then chase repairs. Try not designing the product so its passing the test by a bee penis laid against the compliance trace. Then if you replace it with something a little different, guess what, your fine. Not to mention it will protect your company from parts obsolesce and design changes in the future. That's where consumer law and good engineering decisions can satisfy safety requirements. Minor changes causing huge problems = symptom of hyper focused cost engineering.. that stuff is done by rabid people.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 07:38:35 pm by coppercone2 »
 

Offline pqass

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 706
  • Country: ca
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2021, 07:28:40 pm »
"...ask Intersil to create..."  or mark chips with my proprietary part numbers all sounds like collusion to me as they seem to rely on IP that is already mostly developed by the OEM and is being incorporated in other chips they sell to distributors/general public. So I, a third party, should not be barred from buying same (subject to one-time, license, and minimum quantity charges).

I disagree with robint91, but you are badly misstating his argument here.  He wasn't referring to re-marking, but to a contractually supplied custom chip where the customer holds the IP.  Applying FRAND to that is ridiculous.


I fail to understand what IP the contractor to Intersil might have in a battery charging chip that doesn't involve a new mask.  Binning? Blown fuses in an existing Intersil design?  Smells like collusion to me.  If Apple wants to keep it proprietary they should pay Intersil for the IP and use Apple design people to add their 2cents and contract TSMC to produce a few million.  Otherwise, it should be purchasable by anyone.

In the case of a board with MCU, sell the board with unprogrammed or missing MCU, and I'll take care of the rest.

Quote
Quote
Right to repair is mostly about stopping stupid shit like re-labeling and deliberate obfuscation. 

Not at all.  There are two avenues available to protect your IP--the copyright/patent route and the proprietary/trade secret route.  Both are legitimate.  You can design a product with magic module that has all the IC labels sanded off and then the whole thing potted in cement if you like--there's no R2R law I've ever seen that would prohibit that.  What R2R might require is that if you sell a product containing the magic potted module to an end user that is a consumer,  you or your dealer supply that module to the consumer or an independent repair facility on non-discriminatory terms.

Yes, consumer protection law should kick-in to compel the 1st party to sell components to affect a repair for a set period of time after the original sale.  And none of this replacement board which costs 85% of the original price shit either.
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4983
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2021, 09:01:49 pm »
Something very basic:

A manufacturer should keep a specific percentage of each component that's not easily available commercially as spare part inventory, for the expected duration of the device plus a reasonable amount of years.

For example, if a user expects a laptop to last 3 years until it's obsoleted by newer more powerful models, then the manufacturer should have a certain percentage of parts for 3 + 2 years = 5 years.
Also, keep making stock for each year until the laptop model is discontinued.  ex. the laptop starts being made in 2009, they give it a 3 year life, but they keep making it until 2015, they would need to stock parts every year from 2009 to 2015, and keep some amount of spare parts until 2020 (2015 +3 years expected life +2 years).

Let's take that custom Intersil chip that's not available as spare parts.

Force Apple to keep 5% of the amount used in a laptop model as spare inventory, and review this 5% each year ... meaning if only 1% of the chips were requested by service companies and people in the first year, then maybe for following year production only require 3% of total amount of chips used that year.

Allow Apple to sell these parts with a "reasonable" profit to service places and regular users, for example maximum 500% for chips that cost under 5$, maximum 200% for chips over $5, and reasonable shipping costs - if they bought the chip for 3$ they could still sell the chip for 9$ plus 5-20$ shipping.

The reasonable profit would also cover paying for the employees who print labels and ship packages and receive the faulty chips  back and make sure they don't just ship back some random chips to have their limits reset.

In order to prevent people from scalping these genuine spare part chips, restrict the amount and increase it as needed.

For example, a company like Louis Rossman's would have the start limit set to 10 chips, but a regular home user (private person) would be limited to 1 or 2 per week.

The company will have its limit reset to 10 or to a higher number only once they ship the faulty chips back to Apple. If they don't ship the chips back, then have their limit go down to 5, then to maximum 2 per week or something like that.

If a company can prove they service so many laptops a week that they deserve to order bigger batches than 10, then increase their limit.. they can prove it by shipping back the faulty chips. 

So a company like Louis' apple repair could order 10 chips, use 7 of them, ship the faulty chips to Apple and the next week they'll have their counter reset to 10, or to 7.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 09:04:12 pm by mariush »
 

Offline ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11228
  • Country: us
    • Personal site
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2021, 09:28:59 pm »
Significant part of the issue is also software tools, not just parts. There is no use for a new part, if it will not be authenticated by the rest of the system after the swap. And that's where manufacturer's rhetoric about security comes in full swing.

So basically this whole thing relies on manufactures playing ball and doing things in good faith. And most of them have shown unwillingness to do so. So unless there is strict enforcement, they will always find a way to screw you. And it is hard to enforce laws against Apple, there is no imaginable fine that would do any dent in their bank account. And if necessary, they will just buy the government.
Alex
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone, TimNJ, Gregg, Alti

Offline Fixed_Until_Broken

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #42 on: July 18, 2021, 09:36:22 pm »
and it is hard to enforce laws against Apple, there is no imaginable fine that would do any dent in their bank account. And if necessary, they will just buy the government.

As if apple has not already purchased a government. I seem to remember them buying off Ireland at one point in time.

Apple is not the only problem child, they are just in the public eye.

I am very pro-RTR IMO the main problem with The right to repair is that it's a big circle jerk of technical people and it doesn't make it to the masses. This issue plays a role in every single person's life. IF more everyday people talking about this I think lawmakers would have no other option than to act.
 

Offline robint91Topic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 44
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #43 on: July 18, 2021, 09:41:29 pm »

How can repair people figure these things out, correctly, without instruction from the manufacturers?  It's a crap-shoot at worst, and best-practices at best.

If manufacturers responded to certain detailed questions about repair, the repairs could be done in a manufacturer-approved way.

...

So repair is all damage that isn't a manufacturing detect.

I see 2 options:
  • The repair people have explicit authorization to repair manufactures A products. Manufacturer A checks the quality and is thus liable for the product conformity
  • The repair people don't have explicit authorization to repair, they are liable for the product conformity and needs to be able to proof it

I have no problems with both options, but the consequence of both should be made clear to all.

My reasoning is that repair shops want a third option to shift the liability to the consumer. Which I fully oppose. If you do a repair on something, you see that it back to specifications and provide guarantee that it will make those.


How can an auto repair guarantee that emissions control systems work as intended?

Well, there are means of testing this, but before these were available in the 90s, what did they do?  Well, they didn't do anything, they just replaced parts more or less to spec and that was that.  Best practices.  The same works here.

FCC...

Here, they must do testing and report it. Even for gas furnaces, they require a check up and maintenance by a licensed people here. Why can't I do that myself, with the instructions of the manufacturer. Purely because of liability.

If a product is used by everyday consumers it should every time it passes from technician to consumer when acquiring or repairing be fully inline with all the harmonized standards the device shipped with initially.

That is or should be the law. Deviating from that is unsavory business.



I fail to understand what IP the contractor to Intersil might have in a battery charging chip that doesn't involve a new mask.  Binning? Blown fuses in an existing Intersil design?  Smells like collusion to me.  If Apple wants to keep it proprietary they should pay Intersil for the IP and use Apple design people to add their 2cents and contract TSMC to produce a few million.  Otherwise, it should be purchasable by anyone.


What is the difference, we don't got to TSMC because X doesn't want to sell us parts. That statement you make is a non argument. The deal is done, the contract is made, both parties are bound to it. Making a law that prevents this will impact a lot of contract stuff. Don't underestimate how much of the industry works with these kind of contracts.

The only thing you can legislate correctly is that manufacturer A can in its best effort try to repair their product for X years after the legal warranty period against manufacturing defects ends. I guess that all other legislation to further open this up, will have more negative side consequences.

 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7934
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #44 on: July 18, 2021, 09:43:46 pm »
A large group of non-electrical folk who are concerned about RTR is farmers, since large tractor manufacturers such as John Deere are resisting it.
 
The following users thanked this post: cdev

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2021, 09:45:40 pm »
The whole point of "right of repair" in my opinion is to return sanity to electronics and other complicated, bought proprietary technology. Its really gone out of control. Even hard core IP maximalist legislators are sick of all the horror stories they hr from constituents whoose trctors, computers, etc could not be repaired except by the manufacturer at a cost far exceeding reasonable.

Now there is finally inertia to do something about it. Otherwise people will be so angry they will voe out the legislators who swallow the big companies BS. No matter how much they contribute to campaigns. At least it seems that is the way things are heading here in the US.

Also once software is abandonware people should have the right to repair it in any way possible without getting in trouble.

Also software updates should never render commercial software unusuable unless its absolutely unavoidable for  a Well documented,  obvious and unassailable technical reason.

Government customers get a copy of the source code, commercial customers should too. This is why if you have a business you should never depend on commercial closed source SW. It never remains compatible for decades any more. Thats common with FOSS though.   
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #46 on: July 18, 2021, 09:49:31 pm »
Farmers should band togther to develop open agricultural machinery platforms and agricultural automation platforms in different sizes and types,standardize parts for it.


Lets help solve real peoples problems affordably and help Feed the people of the world an save family farms from foreclosure in this era of climate change with open robots.


A large group of non-electrical folk who are concerned about RTR is farmers, since large tractor manufacturers such as John Deere are resisting it.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 09:51:11 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline langwadt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4392
  • Country: dk
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #47 on: July 18, 2021, 10:01:58 pm »
Why do people have so much trouble getting to grips with right to repair? We've had it for years and in a much more safety critical situation too. Cars! We have OEM parts and repair, aftermarket parts and repair, salvage parts and all permutations of those and it works. Any and all safety and regulatory issues that could apply to electronics definitely apply to cars. Yet the system works and with comparatively few issues.

and in some places the manufacturers can't even require you use an authorized shop to do maintenance as a requirement for warranty
 

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9886
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #48 on: July 18, 2021, 10:10:29 pm »
Allow Apple to sell these parts with a "reasonable" profit to service places and regular users, for example maximum 500% for chips that cost under 5$, maximum 200% for chips over $5, and reasonable shipping costs - if they bought the chip for 3$ they could still sell the chip for 9$ plus 5-20$ shipping.


And the repair shop will screw up the installation and claim that the replacement part is defective.  You can see that coming a mile away!

In terms of electronic gadgets, I view R2R as the "Louis Rossman Enrichment Act".  I don't see any practical way to make it work that protects the manufacturers from substandard work.  The manufacturers will need to add a cost to every device to cover the inevitable poor repair jobs and I don't want to pay for it.  It's probably better for the manufacturers to assume they are going to need to replace 'x'% of all devices sold and just embed the cost.  Do a full replacement and call it a day.

In effect, they already do this for the first year so all we need to do is decide how long a full warranty should last.  Three years?  Twenty years?  It's just money!



 

Offline Fixed_Until_Broken

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • Country: us
Re: Right to repair, my problem with it
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2021, 10:17:49 pm »
In terms of electronic gadgets, I view R2R as the "Louis Rossman Enrichment Act".
So your real issue is with a person and not the right to repair.

You have used every technique to deflect or ignore everyone's comments in here that pokes holes in your logic.
You are grasping at straws I almost feel like you are trolling at this point.
 
The following users thanked this post: Brumby, MT, old-jo


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf