Right to repair, my problem with it

[robint91]

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? 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?

In my honest opinion the answers to these two last question is: Yes who repairs a product needs to guarantee conformity and he will also be liable if it isn't, No because I as producer doesn't trust that third-party repair. Legislation can't force me to trust nay third-party repair shop that is going to mess with my products. I don't want to take that RISK. If this is true, and I as original manufacture can be hold liable for a nonconformity problem after a third-party repair shop bodged a very low quality repair.

The main questions are, "How much can we deviate from the original tested product such that it still is the same product when viewed from the FCC and CE documents?" and "Who is liable if after a repair the product isn't confirm anymore?"

My experience is that changing footprint compatible components is already borderline, and sometimes requires retesting. Nobody wants to take that risk.

For example, this repair by one of the employees of Louis Rossmann, how can this repaired laptop the be the same as the original ones, so the same FCC testing documents still hold? I see 8 new added antennas. Did he tested that laptop for the particular EMC standard in which the original laptop adhered? What about the intended radiators inside of it? Is it still in spec with the original standard.  I don't know, Louis Rossmann doesn't know. Or does he test every Laptop for the same standard as which Apple did in a FCC/UL certified measurement setup?



Source:

Does anybody here want to take this risk to put in on paper that this fixed doesn't have impact on the EMC and EMI performance of that laptop? And also face the consequences(which can be severe) when it does have negative impact?

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?

Second issue I have is with the statement that components should be available to the public. For example in this video

that ISL9240 is a customized design for Apple. Apple invested in that part, why should Apple sell you that part? So you can try to repair it and bring it out of conformity and make a whole lot of legal mess when something bad happens after that repair. Also that design or specification to that design is intellectual property of Apple, why should it be open for everyone?
Or are we going to ask TSMC or Samsung for Apple M1 chip or Nvidia GPU chip to repair a board?

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.


These are just some ramblings, but I find this the two major holes in the whole right-to-repair movement. If you can plug these two, it would make the case stronger. But I don't think that this is very easy. Any legislation trying to counter these will bringing unwanted side effects.

[wraper]

Lack of original components and service instructions/schematics does not prevent unauthorized repairs from happening. It only makes them more dodgy.

Is it my place to sell a board where I don't have the intellectual property anymore?

IMHO USA fucked over itself and the rest of the world by its overzealous protectionism of IP to the point that many industries are broken, and things cannot be produced without a lawyer squad involved.

[pqass]

No one will hold the original manufacturer liable for work they didn't do.  The last one in gets all the blame.

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. 

WRT your second issue...

Wasn't that the same argument Qualcom made?  That is, Apple paid for chips but not the IP? 
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.

_______________________
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."  --Upton Sinclair

[rstofer]

There simply has to be some kind of time limit.  The manufacturers can't stock parts back several generations.  If required to do so, there still needs to be a sunset because if they run out of inventory they probably can't get any more from the chip manufacturer.  Those folks will have moved on to a different manufacturing process and have no ability to make obsolete components.  And even less interest in doing so.

The parts are going to be expensive.  First there is the actual chip cost but then there is the cost of maintaining an inventory including warehouse space, administrative costs and, in some cases, inventory taxes.

The difficulty of actually performing the repair won't get less when we ask for more features in the same package.  The alternative is probably through-hole components and a cell phone you can carry in a backpack.

So, the manufacturers offer big chunks.  You can't buy the CPU but you can buy the entire PCB.  You can buy the display and maybe even the case.  And there is no way in the world you're going to get the source code or any documentation about the CPU internals.  It's not necessary for the repair and there is no reason to disclose it.  TV manufacturers went to the 'big chunks' model decades ago.  Component level repair simply isn't done.  Change the PCB and call it good.

My big concern is that manufacturers quit innovating simply because they would have to inventory yet another BOM.

People know when they buy a cell phone that it is probably not economically repairable.  They are under no obligation to buy the product.  They can simply say "Hey, it can't be repaired so I'm not going to buy!".  The manufacturers won't miss either one of the customers that abstain.

I guess before we take hard positions on 'right to repair', we need a clear definition of 'repair'.  Component level?  Board level? Replace the entire product?  Buy the latest and greatest?  Maybe at a discount when the old device is turned in?  Said exchange cost will be buried into the cost of all devices sold.

[rstofer]

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.

Typically a year for manufacturing defects.  Those probably aren't the reason that cell phones get cracked screens or fractured cases.

The Apple Limited Warranty covers your iPhone and Apple-branded accessories against manufacturing defects for one year from the date you bought your product. The Apple Limited Warranty is in addition to rights provided by consumer law. Our warranty doesn't cover damage caused by accidents or unauthorized modifications.

Emphasis added...

The California Lemon Law applies to appliances as well as vehicles but it certainly seems cumbersome and I'm not sure how long it applies:

https://lemonlawnow.com/is-the-lemon-law-just-for-vehicles/

The requirement that the consumer make 3 attempts at repair and the fact that the manufacturer only allows authorized repair centers makes this process problematic.

Figure a cell phone is viable for the duration of the warranty - typically 1 year.  If you get more, great!

[narkeleptk]

My only wish is they would release datasheet or real part#'s on obsolete ic parts.

I work on automotive modules and many are no longer manufactured and people are forced to repair original or take chances on another used which usually have the same problems sooner then later because its a poorly designed unit.  I don't think people purchased vehicles thinking they would not be repairable or expect they can no longer buy a simple engine control module from the dealer any longer after 10 years.

I could see why manufacturers would not be too happy about a lot of what people lobby for on r2r but a good common ground in my mind would be to dump some no longer supported data on their obsolete stuff.  They can claim compliance while still protecting their future interests.

[robint91]

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.

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

[bsfeechannel]

For example, this repair by one of the employees of Louis Rossmann, how can this repaired laptop the be the same as the original ones, so the same FCC testing documents still hold?

You are confusing the right to repair with the right to bodge.

I can bodge whatever any time I want and I need no laws to protect that right.

[robint91]

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.

But for cars you have mandatory safety inspections. And those will get more intense with the increase in technology we punt into a car.

For electronic and other consumer equipment that doesn't exist. The only thing that is the conformaty when the device is manufactured.

[robint91]

For example, this repair by one of the employees of Louis Rossmann, how can this repaired laptop the be the same as the original ones, so the same FCC testing documents still hold?

You are confusing the right to repair with the right to bodge.

I can bodge whatever any time I want and I need no laws to protect that right.

Sorry, but he repairs a laptop for a customer. It goes from "not working" to "working". That is repairing.

I have no problem with bodging stuff only which the people using them definitely know what the bodge is and what the risk of that bodge is. A general consumer cannot make the assessment on the risk that this bodge can produce.

[bsfeechannel]

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?

[Fixed_Until_Broken]

But for cars you have mandatory safety inspections. And those will get more intense with the increase in technology we punt into a car.

That depends on where you live. Here in Florida, we have zero vehicle inspections. I would also argue that the inspections actually get less intense with more tech because they just use the OBD2 port to do the whole inspection in some states and don't do a physical inspection. There is a huge market for Can-Bus filters that will spoof sensor data and pass inspections.

[Mr. Scram]

But for cars you have mandatory safety inspections. And those will get more intense with the increase in technology we punt into a car.

For electronic and other consumer equipment that doesn't exist. The only thing that is the conformaty when the device is manufactured.

Some places have mandatory inspections, some don't. Those that do don't tend to check in great detail and just basic conformity, which means passing cars and unsafe cars are far from mutually exclusive groups. Again, people are looking for issues while we have a lot of experience with such a system and it tends to work fairly well.

[ataradov]

FCC does not care as much about a single modified unit. There are limits to this, of course, in case if intentional radiators, but generally it dos not matter. The same as RoHS. You can use leaded solder for repairs, nobody will fine you.

The goal of those regulations is to prevent massive amounts of devices that are not compliant, and possibly can't even function when multiple of them are in a close proximity.

Where do you have mandatory safety inspections? There are often exhaust compliance inspections, but I don't even know what that safety inspection would look like.

[bsfeechannel]

Sorry, but he repairs a laptop for a customer. It goes from "not working" to "working". That is repairing.

I have no problem with bodging stuff only which the people using them definitely know what the bodge is and what the risk of that bodge is. A general consumer cannot make the assessment on the risk that this bodge can produce.

And you have a problem with companies providing the original components and service manuals with all the information for an impeccable repair.

[SiliconWizard]

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".

You make a very good point about this. Indeed, any non-approved repair (approved meaning repair according to the vendor's procedures, done by qualified technicians, with exact replacement parts, etc) would potentially invalidate any FCC/CE marking. This is a real issue there.

This is one reason why (and see the other thread about it too) I think the "right to repair", even though I'm all for it, has probably little applicability. For all you know, you may be granted a theoretical right to repair on any product that's complying with it, without effectively being able to repair it, or to use it once it's been repaired. It's a can of worms really, and making the right to repair of any practical use will be very difficult IMHO - outside maybe of a very restricted number of cases, being more related to "maintenance" than true repair.

[rstofer]

IIRC, my Galaxy J7V cell phone cost about $150 when I bought it back around 2017.  How much can I spend on repair?

No, it's not an iPhone Pro but for my usage it is entirely adequate.  It will probably last forever!

There are still some inexpensive cell phones available.  Of course, there are some very expensive models as well.  But probably not for me...

[robint91]

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.

[TimFox]

FCC does not care as much about a single modified unit. There are limits to this, of course, in case if intentional radiators, but generally it dos not matter. The same as RoHS. You can use leaded solder for repairs, nobody will fine you.

The goal of those regulations is to prevent massive amounts of devices that are not compliant, and possibly can't even function when multiple of them are in a close proximity.

Where do you have mandatory safety inspections? There are often exhaust compliance inspections, but I don't even know what that safety inspection would look like.

There are jurisdictions, State by State in the US, with mandatory safety inspections on brakes, lights, etc.  Google “vehicle inspection in the United States”, which details requirements for safety and emissions testing.

[rstofer]

FCC does not care as much about a single modified unit. There are limits to this, of course, in case if intentional radiators, but generally it dos not matter. The same as RoHS. You can use leaded solder for repairs, nobody will fine you.

But I wouldn't want to fly with one!  In theory, they shouldn't affect flight controls but I believe the verbal instructions still ask for cell phones (and other electronic devices) to be turned off during takeoff and landing.  Otherwise, the takeoff might actually be a landing...

I have no idea what a bodged laptop could do.

[bsfeechannel]

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.

[DrG]

---
Where do you have mandatory safety inspections? There are often exhaust compliance inspections, but I don't even know what that safety inspection would look like.

Many states in the US have mandatory vehicle safety inspections. Some have annual safety inspections. This, apart from mandatory emissions testing (where required).

In some states they are pretty relaxed but in others they are relatively thorough (IMO).

e.g., New York https://dmv.ny.gov/inspection/inspection-requirements

..and here is what they look at in NY https://dmv.ny.gov/brochure/new-york-state-vehicle-safetyemissions-inspection-program [corrected link]

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.

[rstofer]

FCC does not care as much about a single modified unit. There are limits to this, of course, in case if intentional radiators, but generally it dos not matter. The same as RoHS. You can use leaded solder for repairs, nobody will fine you.

The goal of those regulations is to prevent massive amounts of devices that are not compliant, and possibly can't even function when multiple of them are in a close proximity.

Where do you have mandatory safety inspections? There are often exhaust compliance inspections, but I don't even know what that safety inspection would look like.

There are jurisdictions, State by State in the US, with mandatory safety inspections on brakes, lights, etc.  Google “vehicle inspection in the United States”, which details requirements for safety and emissions testing.

Yes, there are!  But California only requires emission testing and that doesn't apply to my all-battery Chevy Bolt!

I'm certain that more involved mechanical inspections, beyond emission testing, would disproportionally affect low income voters.  That isn't going to happen any time soon.

[Mr. Scram]

IIRC, my Galaxy J7V cell phone cost about $150 when I bought it back around 2017.  How much can I spend on repair?

No, it's not an iPhone Pro but for my usage it is entirely adequate.  It will probably last forever!

There are still some inexpensive cell phones available.  Of course, there are some very expensive models as well.  But probably not for me...

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.