General > General Technical Chat
Right to repair, my problem with it
<< < (13/39) > >>
rsjsouza:
I also don't grasp the resistance here. To add to the set of examples, you can take the appliance repair market in the US (and perhaps other countries): several websites sell parts and have service manuals free to be downloaded so the repair can be done by the owner. If one is not technically inclined to do so, a completely independent third party repair company can perform the service for you.

Besides, the original post is talking about cellphones and laptops, not ECG, dosage delivery devices, ABS, etc. Sure, LiIon batteries could be a problem for this class of devices, but there is an entire aftermarket of such products (with a wide variety of quality levels) that still allow a user or a repair shop to replace it - if it weren't for repair shops and spare part availability, the only solution would be to simply throw the entire device away. The liability for a faulty battery would be an exception and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it would have to be treated case by case (I just bought yet another battery replacement for one of my laptops - not original as the machine is already ten years old)

Also, both my cars were plagued with the infamous Takata airbag - the manufacturer performed the repair themselves and I expect full liability in case it needs to be deployed. A similar story for many other systems on the car that are equally critical for safety: they are checked and repaired by a third party shop and, in case something goes wrong, it would be an exception and handled case by case.

(edit: clarity)
bdunham7:

--- Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 11:16:07 pm ---My argument was that I suspect Intersil is colluding with Apple to make a part unavailable to third parties so that end-users don't have the opportunity to economically repair common failures in the products they buy.  This has a direct advantage to Apple's income.

--- End quote ---

Colluding, conspiring and cooperating all mean about the same thing, but the first two seem 'bad'.  If I contract with a company to make a specific product for me only, they have a contractual obligation to not sell copies to anyone else and probably an NDA that prohibits them from revealing any information about it.  R2R is not the right to easily reverse engineer.  Any obligation to supply repair parts would be the responsibility of whoever sells to the consumer market, not the contract manufacturer.  What you are missing about IP is in what I wrote earlier.  If Apple has that chip customized in any way--even relabeled--and they take the appropriate steps to keep the chip and how they use it as a trade secret, that is a legitimate form of IP.  Their rights don't have to attach solely to the chip itself.  How far they can extend this and what rights companies can keep are determined partly by how badly they abuse them.  Think ink and toner, Keurig coffee, things like that. 
robint91:

--- Quote from: bdunham7 on July 18, 2021, 10:19:34 pm ---
I'm not sure what you are advocating.  Are you saying that anyone who repairs any device should submit the repaired unit for full certification testing of every standard that the original item was required to meet?  So that if I replace the bumper on your car, I have to perform the full suite of destructive crash tests? 

Or are you saying the repair should be done in a manner that reasonably ensures conformity with the original standards, with limited testing appropriate to the situation?  After all, as I believe you pointed out, the original manufacturer's conformity testing is done on a sample, then uniform manufacturing practices ensure conformity of the entire production batch.  The car company crashes one car to test the bumper, then assumes the rest will work similarly.  The same would apply to repairs, would it not?   If I replace your bumper with a proper part and install it in conformity with the manufacturers procedure, it should be good?  Same-quality replacement parts and proper procedures, right? 

What better way is there to achieve that then to mandate the availability of those parts and procedures?  Your top post shows what you seem to think is an awful bodge (although it likely is good enough for any reasonable purpose) but ignores the fact that the availability of that part would have allowed for a nice, neat and completely compliant repair.  I'm not necessarily arguing that Apple should be required to supply that part if they don't replace it themselves in their repair shops, but I think its pretty clear that withholding OEM parts is going to create a market for questionable quality repairs.

--- End quote ---

My reasoning behind this is just to find out who is liable for the repair and they can proof if a problem arises in the repaired product that the fault doesn't come from that intervention. Say you replaced a battery charger chip inside a laptop and at first glance everything is fine. After a while stresses caused by the repair influence the circuit (for example a bad connection on an WLCSP) and the battery heats up and explodes. How are you going to defend yourself to all possible claims? Now think that this happens on a plane...

If you touched it, you are liable for it. Is that what we actually want? Because this will be a side effect of this legislation, the liability will be transferred from manufacturer to the repair people. I don't know if I want to have that.


--- Quote ---I don't know where you are, but here that is not the law nor is it likely to become the law.  Laws requiring inspections of furnaces, cars, etc. are very unpopular and seen, IMO mostly correctly, as supports for trade unions and business interests.  People don't like being regulated, but they don't mind regulation of others....

--- End quote ---

How are you sure that your house wouldn't blow up, due to failing equipment without regular inspection. Do you trust yourself in checking those things? Do you have enough knowledge to interpret the results of such check up?

We have so much technology now, that it is almost impossible to be able to fix everything yourself according to appropriate standards.

pqass:

--- Quote from: bdunham7 on July 19, 2021, 04:23:51 am ---
--- Quote from: pqass on July 18, 2021, 11:16:07 pm ---My argument was that I suspect Intersil is colluding with Apple to make a part unavailable to third parties so that end-users don't have the opportunity to economically repair common failures in the products they buy.  This has a direct advantage to Apple's income.

--- End quote ---

Colluding, conspiring and cooperating all mean about the same thing, but the first two seem 'bad'.  If I contract with a company to make a specific product for me only, they have a contractual obligation to not sell copies to anyone else and probably an NDA that prohibits them from revealing any information about it.  R2R is not the right to easily reverse engineer.  Any obligation to supply repair parts would be the responsibility of whoever sells to the consumer market, not the contract manufacturer.  What you are missing about IP is in what I wrote earlier.  If Apple has that chip customized in any way--even relabeled--and they take the appropriate steps to keep the chip and how they use it as a trade secret, that is a legitimate form of IP.  Their rights don't have to attach solely to the chip itself.  How far they can extend this and what rights companies can keep are determined partly by how badly they abuse them.  Think ink and toner, Keurig coffee, things like that.

--- End quote ---

Wrapping a trade secret in a contract doesn't make it legal. If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.

R2R is partly about access to the same components that sellers put in their products. I wasn't saying anything about reverse engineering. The scheme is to make every component appear to be one-of-kind so the only option offered to an end-user is to replace whole boards at 85% the product cost.  And they use contracts to bind suppliers from selling re-labelled chips that are supplier-designed minor customizations.

Right now if you accidentally drop your new purchase or it breaks outside its meager one year warranty, you're at the mercy of the sellers service offering. He can tell you to get stuffed and buy another one.  In a just world, consumer protection law should compel product seller to supply parts for 1yr for every $200 spent on electronics (spend $1K = 5yrs parts support).  It is not acceptable to sell the last product and have no means fix it.
robint91:

--- Quote from: pqass on July 19, 2021, 06:07:38 am ---Wrapping a trade secret in a contract doesn't make it legal. If its deemed anti-competitive, it's void and both parties will have legal trouble.

R2R is partly about access to the same components that sellers put in their products. It's not about reverse engineering anything. The scheme is to make every component appear to be one-of-kind so the only option offered to an end-user is to replace whole boards at 85% the product cost.  And they use contracts to bind suppliers from selling re-labelled chips that are supplier-designed minor customizations.

--- End quote ---

There is nothing illegal on what Apple and Intersil or other manufacturers are doing. You can have still access to other battery charging chips. They are not limiting access to that technology, they are not pushing other battery charging chips off the market. It is just that Intersil doesn't have the right to sell that customized part to other clients. Making this kind of deal illegal, is opening a can of worms for other small businesses and design houses.

Right to repair is for me that you have the right to demand a repair for a product after the warranty ends from a manufacturer. But that repair isn't free and should be accordantly priced.


--- Quote ---Right now if you accidentally drop your new purchase or it breaks outside its meager one year warranty, you're at the mercy of the sellers service offering. He can tell you to get stuffed and buy another one.  In a just world, consumer protection law should compel product seller to supply parts for 1yr for every $200 spent on electronics (spend $1K = 5yrs parts support).  It is not acceptable to sell the last product and have no means fix it.

--- End quote ---

Warranty doesn't cover that. Warranty is only for manufacturing defects. If you drop your laptop at day 2, you have created the problem, not the manufacturer. If the manufacturer doesn't want to repair it, it is their full right to do so. It is not that you made a mistake that the manufacturer needs to invest time and money into it, to fix the problem that you created.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod