Right to repair

[klaus11]

The right to repair in the state of California, Will it be an obligation for Keysight to offer service manuals?
Opinions are welcome ....

[ebastler]

I doubt it will mention Keysight specifically. Or even test equipment.

Duh, thank you very much for the valuable input. Let me try to rephrase Klaus' question then -- which, I think, is a fair and relevant one:

Will the California "right to repair" bill imply an obligation for Keysight to offer service manuals?

From what I read, the requirement to provide repair information and spare parts to third parties is exactly the intent of this bill: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/03/07/california-right-to-repair-bill/ But this might be limited to (mass-produced) consumer products? Or the access to information and parts could be limited to "qualified" service providers? Apparently the California initiative is at an early stage, so these details might not be clear yet.

[klaus11]

I doubt it will mention Keysight specifically. Or even test equipment.

Duh, thank you very much for the valuable input. Let me try to rephrase Klaus' question then -- which, I think, is a fair and relevant one:

Will the California "right to repair" bill imply an obligation for Keysight to offer service manuals?

From what I read, the requirement to provide repair information and spare parts to third parties is exactly the intent of this bill: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/03/07/california-right-to-repair-bill/ But this might be limited to (mass-produced) consumer products? Or the access to information and parts could be limited to "qualified" service providers? Apparently the California initiative is at an early stage, so these details might not be clear yet.

I do not have more information than you. Only the opinions, maybe we clarify something between everyone. 

[klaus11]

I doubt it will mention Keysight specifically. Or even test equipment.

The laws of my country do not mention my name and my profession, etc ..., but I am obligated to them.
Keysight sells products to Professionals, Institutions, etc. And also to consumers there is no requirement to sell.
I am a consumer like many of Keysight, so it is possible to apply the Law if it is approved throughout the State of California. The opinion.

[Beamin]

I saw on fox news this bill is just job killing regulations (seriously they did a piece on why these type of laws were bad). It kills the jobs of the CEO's?  .

Think how great that will be to fix your own stuff? I have a feeling anything like this will become less and less as corporate buys mare and more polititians or how ever you spell that damn word. 

[IanMacdonald]

It would certainly be good for the environment and reducing waste if some anti-repair practices of the auto industry were prohibited. For example, situations where replacement parts won't work until they are 'initalised' with special software only available to distributors.

[tooki]

The OP said opinions were welcome. You don't know the OP doesn't have a specific reason to single out Keysight, any more than I do.

That’s not how laws work, and you know it. The question wasn’t whether Keysight was singled out, it was whether the law applies to Keysight. You just replied with an obtuse answer to hear your lips flap...

[Mav_2014]

I see Grant Macpherson at Fluke and his cronies having a melt down... Oh no... service manuals in the public domain ...
 We're all doomed !!! 

[Red Squirrel]

This is great but wish it was national or even international. But it's a start.  Maybe it will take off everywhere.

Heck, it would be nice if they simply removed the right of corporations to sue for reverse engineering stuff. So if they don't provide service manuals but someone posts a video on how to fix something, they should not be able to sue.    But if they actually do force to provide schematics and service manuals then that's even better.   I hope this will extend for every product and not just specific ones.

John Deere is going to have a fit if this takes off globally.  They specifically prohibit anyone from fixing or modifying their stuff.  You can get sued for fixing your own tractor.  It's ridiculous.

[ebastler]

John Deere is going to have a fit if this takes off globally.  They specifically prohibit anyone from fixing or modifying their stuff.  You can get sued for fixing your own tractor.  It's ridiculous.

And guess who has been most active in lobbying against "right to repair" legislation in other US states? (Nebraska is one of the front runners, I believe?)  John Deere and ... Apple. What a surprise! 

[ebastler]

The legislation will focus much more on consumer items anyway and test gear would be very niche and probably not even on the legislators radar as a category.

Yeah, right, the legislation will focus exlusively on consumer items. Which is why John Deere are so concerned about it...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2017/04/30/john-deeres-digital-transformation-runs-afoul-of-right-to-repair-movement/#7333b6945ab9
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-john-deere-apple

[Bicurico]

Returning to the original question of this thread, which I will again reformulate:

"Will companies that do not provide schematics or replacement parts (i.e. Keysight), as a consequence of the new law in California, be forced to provide such schematics and replacement parts?"

In my opinion, the answer we want is unfortunately NO.

There is are reasons those schematics and spare parts are not made available:

- The servicing, support and repair is part of the business model and I figure it is an important income source
- Repair attempts on such complex devices will result in even more damage, which might be masked when the device is in the end handed to the manufacturer, afterall
- Schematics are intellectual property
- Spare parts can be used to build concurrent devices
- ...

There are two easy options for companies that do not want to provide schematics and spare parts:

- Move out of California: the devices will get there anyway
- Offer trade-in replacement parts: your PSU is broken? You can "repair" it yourself... Send in the ORIGINAL PSU board and you receive a REPLACEMENT REFURBISHED SPARE PART, costing you an incredible amount of money... Might as well send the device in for repair... Need a new display module? No problem! We offer it as a kit with the full main PCB. Of course it is cheaper to buy a new device.
- Keep the obsolescence on par with how many years you need to provide spares. Probably 10 years or less. No problem from Keysight products - they last longer, hands down
- Offer competitive maintenance contracts with next day replacment over this period. No need for schematics or spare parts to begin with

I think this is another law, where the fine saying applies: "sounds good, doesn't work".

Regards,
Vitor

[klaus11]

- Schematics are intellectual property


Regards,
Vitor

So are the user manuals, and they provide them without problems.

[ebastler]

Returning to the original question of this thread, which I will again reformulate:

"Will companies that do not provide schematics or replacement parts (i.e. Keysight), as a consequence of the new law in California, be forced to provide such schematics and replacement parts?"

In my opinion, the answer we want is unfortunately NO.

I am not quite as pessimistic. California is by far not the only US state considering such a initiative, so simply moving elsewhere is not such an easy option. (And even if a company were to move to a non-affected state, they might still want to sell their products there!)

Also, "right to repair" legislation specifically focusing on cars has been in place for quite a while in the US, and apparently has been effective (if not perfect). I understand that this has ensured that information about diagnostic port protocols is made available, and that compatible 3rd party spare parts may be produced and offered, for example.

Does this mean that full schematics or firmware listings would be made available for test instruments? Not likely, in my opinion. Manufacturers will argue that (a) this would disclose critical, proprietary design information, enabling competitors to copy their designs, and (b) that this is not how they diagnose and repair instruments internally.

But manufacturers would (hopefully) have to enable independent workshops, and maybe even individuals, to diagnose and calibrate instruments using the interfaces and protocols which the manufacturer suggests. They would have to provide documentation for that, and spare parts at "fair market" prices. I am sure there will be resistance, and the need for an arbitration body to determine what's "fair"... Let's see how this pans out.

Meanwhile, in Europe: https://www.itworld.com/article/3204668/consumer-electronics/eu-lawmakers-call-for-a-right-to-repair-electronic-equipment.html


 

[Beamin]

Whats it like not living in America but having to deal with their bullshit laws? Sad part is half of americans don't even vote when people in these other countries would risk getting killed to vote. As an American I can at least vote so I don't feel as bad even though both parties are moving in the wrong direction. A  country gets shitty by having 1000 little things that start to add up.
In America people bitch about a 1 cent tax but have no problem giving %5 of their paychecks in the form of bull shit fees to banks and cell phone companies.

Do your countries try to protect you from things that happen in this country or rather go along with America?

[ebastler]

If the legislation focused exclusively on consumer item I don't follow why JD would be so concerned.

My comment was meant to be ironic, to point out that your "consumer products only" assumption is wrong. I'll use more smileys going forward. 

[james_s]

There are two easy options for companies that do not want to provide schematics and spare parts:

There's a third easy option, go out of business. Good riddance, it would leave the door open for some other less customer hostile company to step in.

It has only been the last couple decades or so that service manuals with schematics and spare parts have not been available, somehow countless companies managed to thrive while still making this information available.

[glarsson]

It has only been the last couple decades or so that service manuals with schematics and spare parts have not been available, somehow countless companies managed to thrive while still making this information available.

But today it is more common for board level repairs to be impractical or too expensive. Causes can be high cost for qualified personell, new technology like BGA chips with hundreds of balls, COB and glue. Should companies be forced to produce service manuals and sell every part? Produce and sell every piece of special equipment required for board level repairs?

[james_s]

It has only been the last couple decades or so that service manuals with schematics and spare parts have not been available, somehow countless companies managed to thrive while still making this information available.

But today it is more common for board level repairs to be impractical or too expensive. Causes can be high cost for qualified personell, new technology like BGA chips with hundreds of balls, COB and glue. Should companies be forced to produce service manuals and sell every part? Produce and sell every piece of special equipment required for board level repairs?

Yes, if they want to sell the products. It's not THAT hard to release the schematics and have things like ASICs and programmed microcontrollers available, or they could offer a board exchange, or at least not actively try to make it difficult to repair. No need to produce any special equipment, that's all supplied by others. Companies would whine and moan, and drag their feet, but like automakers who were forced to implement emission controls and ever higher fuel economy, they would manage or go under to be replaced by companies that could figure it out.