@zpartacoos Just posted a long-form comment on Louis Rossman's channel to help him defend right to repair, if you (or anyone else who sees this) has anything to add that I've missed, go give his latest video a quick watch and see if you can help, we NEED right to repair to get through.
Hi Louis,
I'm a bit of an armchair logician, so I'd like to see if I can help with defending right to repair and you from these clearly disingenuous/uninformed critics. Unfortunately, the 4th amendment has been being turned into Swiss cheese for a while now. So convincing government officials (who honestly don't care about property rights, as evidence by recent legal precedent) to care without inspiring a large enough group of people to pressure them is, well...unlikely. Convincing individuals is likely even more difficult, as many of them "don't know how bad things really are".
One of your strongest attacks should be how this will impact the economy of the areas in which this is passed:
1. Thriving small businesses are critical for a healthy middle class, which has been consistently eroded in recent years. Right to repair will increase 3rd party repair, and the number of small businesses. Competition will drive down repair prices for consumers, create jobs, and **create more taxable revenue in the process** (the only thing these guys care about). Overall a win/win/win for everyone but the tech behemoths, who aren't losing much in the process.
2. The right to repair property in general is one of the clear markers of "true" ownership. If you own something, but are being prevented from repairing it yourself, then you really only own it for as long as the manufacturer allowed you to through their planned obsolescence. In this way, the manufacturer forces further consumption, which we know is worse for consumers, and the environment. By forcing the manufacturer to supply repair parts, we increase the life of our devices, which is better for my wallet, and overall less wasteful. Contrary to popular belief, nobody needs the newest iPhone to prevent themselves from going into Apple withdrawals. Longer device lifetime can ONLY benefit the consumer in the long term.
3. The current implicit "right to repair" (really just basic property rights) respects the property owner's right to repair their home, car, papers, land, and more. By extending this to devices, it only further protects the rights of individuals, who do not have the power to fight large companies without a class-action suit, which honestly provides little restitution to the individuals, as the lawyers take a large cut, and the remainder of the settlement is divided among (typically) thousands of participants. Honestly, we need to bolster property rights in this country, and I'm hoping right to repair is the catalyst for starting that change (look up Institute for Justice on YouTube if you want to get more informed about this garbage).
Your primary defensive arguments should be trying to reason by analogy to other property that we actually do have the right to repair (though again, this is becoming increasingly limited by private entities like HOAs etc. which is just ridiculous):
1. Many people choose not to change their oil, rotate their tires, or maintain their vehicle outside of taking it to a certified repair shop; however, that doesn't mean that allowing car manufacturers to have a monopoly on repairing their vehicle, and preventing oil from being sold to people who want to change their oil themselves, is a good thing for car owners. Clearly the owners will try to up-sell you either on "better" oil, unnecessary part replacements, or even telling you "the whole car is broken, we can't fix it" and forcing you to buy a new one because YOU CAN'T GET A SECOND OPINION SANS CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITHOUT 3RD PARTY REPAIR (thought I should emphasize that point). Same thing for devices.
2. Computers and other electronic tools are even more ubiquitous (and arguably more important to people's lives) than automobiles, so why would the right to repair only impact automobiles, when it should more realistically apply to devices which can literally contain the keys to your entire life, identity, memories, and more. The economic impact of not being able to repair a phone or a computer is WAY bigger than not being able to repair a car, as any car that is similar to yours can be a functional replacement. Your devices likely have unique data that is irreplaceable. Thus, in terms of lost work, diminished productivity, and the need to recover key information like passwords, ssh-keys, photos, documents, programs, etc., sub-optimal device repair is currently a huge drain on the productivity of our economy by preventing the affected individual from working at full capacity.
(rant time)
Honestly it's just common sense that people who own something should be able to do whatever they want to with it, and the companies that produce these devices should be supporting the consumer's purchase and allowing them to fix it when needed, rather than bleeding the consumers dry like bloated ticks. I hope you manage get this passed Louis, these massive, unaccountable companies are a blight on society that's masked by emotionally manipulative marketing, and I hope we finally start winning back some rights to own our stuff that we purchased with our hard earned money, rather than being treated like serfs living on Apple(et. al)'s land.
Good luck!
@johnabs right to repair goes directly again established IP laws and culture. For a device to be repairable in principle its deign must be open, and hence conceptually or practically can not be anyone's IP, outside of matters of attribution. This kind of reform will never happen in the US as long as it is in US national interests. Small business and local competition will never match the massive chunk of everyone's pie that they get internationally. IP reform will make US weaker and it's people poorer overall. Then the question to the people becomes:
Do you want to have a unrepairable mac book, or a huawei laptop, for the repairability(or any other quality) of which the responsible parties are located in china, because, surprise-surprise, that's the experience of the most of the rest of the world with IPs and business practices established around them.
> Goes directly against culture and IP laws
Not all parts of any culture are good. Some laws are moronic. Some things are sick and need reform. This is one of those things for reasons I'll outline after I deal with your argument.
> For a device to be repairable in principle its design must be open
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. IP is all "open source" so to speak, in that the patents are public access, and must be to facilitate IP claims in the first place. I can't violate your IP if it's not a registered patent (this makes it's a trade secret, which by definition is not protected IP).
This is NOT about requiring manufacturers to allow others to manufacture their products and infringe upon IP. It's about allowing people to use the existing, (and often already available in some form or another) schematics by purchasing parts made by the manufacturer. All this requires is that the manufacturer sells parts to 3rd party vendors or individuals so they can repair their products with whomever they choose. Clearly this doesn't violate IP in any way, as nobody else gets the rights to produce the parts, only to use the parts.
> This kind of reform will never happen in theUS as long as it is in US national interests. It will make the US weaker and the people poorer overall.
Regardless of what is in "the US' interest" (whatever that waffly idea entails), the citizens of the US have had their right to property decimated over the last 100 years. This is immoral, and needs to be curtailed immediately, hence my desire for right to repair as a stepping stone to protect the ownership rights of US citizens.
Secondly, China regularly steals up to *half a trillion* dollars in IP from the US. *PER YEAR*. IP is NOT a valid protection from them (since we do all our manufacturing there and they completely disregard our and their own laws to get ahead); so reforming it in our own country clearly can't exacerbate the issues of blatant theft of nearly a trillion dollars annually.
Thirdly, one of the reasons so many people are becoming poorer in the United States is due to our trade deficit with China, which is maintained to keep the US dollar as the world's reserve currency and maintain US hegemony. Our citizens suffer directly as a result of this, and will do so even more now that we've pumped trillions of legal (and stolen) dollars into the Chinese economy, the leader of which is a authoritarian despot with aspirations of world domination and Han supremacy.
> Do you want an unrepairable mac or a huawei laptop?
Finally, I currently use a 10 year old Thinkpad on principle, and the Framework laptop (designed, sold, and patented in the US) looks like an excellent, right-to-repair respecting laptop that I will be investing in soon. When they become international, I suggest everyone purchase them as a way to extend your rights and fight against the behemoths who's moral compass only points to money (e.g. the Uygher slave labor used by Apple, Google, etc.).
Sacrificing principles to "protect interests"(whatever that means) screws everyone eventually. The US did it in the middle east, these companies are doing it in China, and we continue to do so at our own peril.
@johnabs You are presenting moral arguments now, my argument was that you have no economic argument so let's stick to it. You seem to try to prove that IP is irrelevant, but the go and point out how china steals all the IP. If it was so irrelevant you would have never known about it. It is very much relevant and is a big threat to US and others which rely upon it, and hence all the fuss. But this argument is tangential, and I don't know why present it when you reject the premise that IP law goes against right to repair, which is the crux of my argument. If you reject it we should focus on that, cause nothing else makes sense past that point.
Apple could be a good boy and do good things, the question is why and how can it do the bad things it does. In relation to that the only argument I see is the "I don't want the design of the chip I just want the manufacturer to sell it to me". Have you thought about why such a bogus arrangement with the manufacturer is even possible? It is because the chip is proprietary. It is not patented with design available, it's not a trade secret either, it's an intellectual property subject to copyright law, which includes things like "no reverse engineering". It such protection were not in place, it would be trivial to find a replacement for the chip. It's not that complicated of a thing, the problem is you would never be able to prove you haven't "reverse engineered" it if you make the replacement. If it wasn't an established culture that it's ok for you to have not a clue how your device works or how it is designed, nothing like an no-trade arrangement with one manufacturer would stop you from repairing it, and as long as the cultured is in place, many a similar things will be used to exploit you. We are deep in this hole, and unless we realize it, we will never crawl out. No matter how much better you personal laptop is compared to a MAC book, you still do not fully own it and have a very limited capacity to repair it, without wholly relying on the benevolence of the IP owner.
1. Yes, because by only considering economic consequences is how we end up endorsing slavery, as we have in Xinjiang. You cannot have a "morally isolated" economic system unless everything is completely controlled and self-sustained by amoral actors (e.g robots). Additionally, there's the whole "is/ought" problem that comes up when desiring to make change (in general) and specifically change that is not necessarily economically feasible in the short term, but is morally necessary in the long term, like ending slavery, or dealing with the consequences of climate change, etc.
2. I'm not saying IP is irrelevant. I'm saying the way you invoked IP laws to defend your amoral (or more generously "economically focused") position is irrelevant. The reason it was irrelevant is because IP laws have not stopped another nation from stealing our IP. We have been effectively powerless to prevent it from happening, due to the "economic incentive" of operating in China, which has actively come back to bite us in full force. So reforming laws which only really impact us internally seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
3. Wait a minute. So what you're saying is that the information is not open, and is protected by copyright instead of patents? In that case, there's even less of an argument to be made, against right to repair, as reverse engineering becomes substantially harder. Even if it's still possible without the designs (which there's a lot of research to suggest it is via electron microscopy), I am going to get the chip one way or another, either by buying the laptop or by buying the chip itself. So if someone is really that dedicated to reverse engineer their parts, it can be done 100%. But considering it hasn't really happened yet, I have a hunch it's not economically feasible to sell apple knockoffs. This isn't even factoring in the massive overhead that would be needed to start and sustain such an operation. In the olden days with simple mechanical machines and parts? Sure. But now, with billions of 7-14nm transistors, I highly doubt it.
4. Honestly, I'm all for open-sourcing everything, and as many SBC manufacturers have shown, it's economically viable, even when the Chinese decided to take your design and sell clones on Alibaba for 1/3rd the cost. I love the RISC chips, the Power9 as well, but we can't make perfect the enemy of the good. We have to start somewhere, and I think the moral arguments for why it must be done easily trump the soft economic reasons of why it "cant".
I actually do fully own and can repair my own laptop (and can flash whatever BIOS, install any OS, etc.) that I want. Aftermarket replacement parts are pretty readily available, but I would prefer direct OEM support. So, instead of relying on benevolence, why not just legislate it via right to repair as I was initially suggesting? It honestly seems like we agree at this point unless I'm missing something here.
@johnabs I'm nor arguing against your morality, there was no morality in your OP, you pretended that it's an economic argument and that it would be economically beneficial to all in the US. It will not be. That's my argument. Nothing against morality as it was not central to your argument prior to me replying, but now for some reason it is. And again it is tangential and secondary to the argument of IP vs right to repair, so I'll address those part only.
> I am going to get the chip one way or another, either by buying the laptop or by buying the chip itself. So if someone is really that dedicated to reverse engineer their parts, it can be done 100%. But considering it hasn’t really happened yet, I have a hunch it’s not economically feasible to sell apple knockoffs.
It is illegal in your country and any other country that respects IP from your country, hence even if a business was feasible it is impossible in your country, hence the argument of "it doesn't exist, therefore it probably can't exist" doesn't work.
> But now, with billions of 7-14nm transistors, I highly doubt it.
You do not need to produce an exact copy, you need to produce an equivalent design, that can serve the same function. That is illegal in your country, as you can never proof that you designed a replacement part, without reverse engineering the original device, to figure out the function of the part.
> We have to start somewhere, and I think the moral arguments for why it must be done easily trump the soft economic reasons of why it “cant”.
My argument is that you are wasting time trying to invent ineffective laws, if you ignore the elephant in the room that is causing all your problems.
> I actually do fully own and can repair my own laptop (and can flash whatever BIOS, install any OS, etc.) that I want
Are the designs open or proprietary. If the latter then you are at the mercy of the IP owner. If they decide you don't get the part you won't get the part. You can't go to a third party and ask them to make the part for you or make an independent business out of that. But yeah sure you are free, as long as your favorite brand wishes to cater to your specific needs and bank on your specific niche.
@johnabs freakin markdown by default again, screwing up my formatting... those last paragraphs formatted as quotes include replies -_-
@namark @zpartacoos I'll have to get back to you soon; I'm really tired and felling ill unfortunatley, but I'll respond once I'm feeling better.
@johnabs
> Monopolistic business practices are known to cause economic hardship, as do oligopolies/cartels
Locally yes, but these IP monopolies are held by many US corps globally. I highly doubt you can offset that revenue with local business. The money not going to US government through taxation does not mean that it does not come back to US in one way or the other. The government has also other interests in proliferation of these monopolies that are ultimately its "subjects", than just taxation. If we are talking about reforming IP law to something like copyleft, it will not just be a detriment to companies like Apple or Microsoft, it will be their end. They will no longer be able to do business in any capacity, except maybe some small local software repair shops (the type of which which currently do not exist anywhere in any meaningful way, and that is not a coincidence). The world will be a much better place, but US (and others who rely on these practices) will end up weaker and poorer as a result. This is why I think such a reform will never happen in US. Now whether it is necessary or not for "right to repair" is a separate, though more important thread of discussion, since that's what most people argue on.
> The fact that making direct Apple chip knockoffs hasn’t taken off in China...
They are indeed plenty of knockoffs there, but they didn't take off simply because they were not marketed. In case you didn't notice this entire snake oil industry hinges on marketing. I'm sure you do not actually think that apple products are some kind of gold standard of quality that everyone is just itching to copy. There are no standards. There is no competition for any standards to form. There are only international monopolies riding on pop culture fads.
The problem isn't that it's not economically viable to copy apple in china, there is just no reason to do it. There would be plenty of reason to do it on countries where Apple's fads are rennin successfully. I mean at this point you are content with their product being crap right? You are just pissed that you can't repair that crap cause someone just decided to not sell you a part. Well I'm trying to explain to you how someone deciding to not sell you a part can even be something that can stop you. If you car manufacturer does not want to sell you a part, you go to a local machinist pay a little extra and get the part anyway. If enough people want it, you can arrange a production, cut the costs a bit and make a business. You might actually end up making better and cheaper parts if you are good at it.
> I don’t want the secret sauce to manufacturing the chips/tires/whatever
The IP stronghold does not protect the secret sauce of a particular manufacturer on how they can make so many of those parts for so cheap, it protects the functional logical description of the chip, the equivalent would be your car being welded shut everywhere it can be, and you being under legal threat for trying to bring an angle grinder to it. The secret sauce remains secret as long as you keep it secret, and no you can't tell how a thing was made by just looking at it, it's neither true for machined metal parts, nor molded plastic, nor ICs, you can only tell their function by looking at them, and if you are experienced, think of ways you could make them, and maybe independently rediscover the secret sauce, or an even better sauce, all of which you are prohibited under current IP laws, when it comes to ICs.
If you just treat the symptoms by weirdly specific and vague laws like "you have to sell parts" or "allow independent repair shops to acquire parts", without addressing the root cause, tomorrow you will be exploited in yet another way. Rossman has been there and done that, they passed a bill in one or the other state, and it turned out to be useless. Any other bill that is addressing symptoms will be just as useless IMO, and any bill that addresses the root cause will never pass in US.
@namark @zpartacoos I'm back and feeling better for at least long enough to respond to this thread. Let's ignore the morality part, as you've suggested.
Economically, I do think this will be of detriment to Big Tech, but frankly I don't care about them. Monopolistic business practices are known to cause economic hardship, as do oligopolies/cartels. So while I think there will be some minor pain for these trillion dollar companies, I think the net revenue generated across the country from 3rd party repair will increase tax revenue, especially considering most small businesses don't evade their taxes via foreign havens like Ireland (e.g. Apple). This isn't even factoring in the economic benefit that will come from longer lasting tools, and the reduced strain on our environment and waste processing facilities.
Secondly, I wasn't referring to my country. I was referring to countries which steal, repurpose, and resell IP anyway such as China. The fact that making direct Apple chip knockoffs hasn't taken off in China seems to indicate you can get away with selling "form over function" by selling a Xiaomi Mac look-alike, without needing to violate their M1 Arm chip copyright (which has no legal basis in China anyway). Since they don't reverse engineer these chips in the electronics manufacturing center of the world (which also has practically nonexistent copyright laws), it seems like it's not economically viable to do so, particularly in countries with enforceable copyright. So legislating right-to-repair laws in the U.S./IP respecting countries is a complete non-issue from the IP perspective.
The parts available to my computer are limited, yes. E.g. I can't manufacture a drop-in replacement for my Intel chip; however, I don't have to. I can go directly to the manufacturer and purchase a replacement chip, and use it to repair my computer if/when the processor dies. Same thing with the ram, the SSD, the wifi-module, etc. In fact, I can even find schematics and board-views and send those to a repair shop who can do the work for me. I only have this "luxury" because the computer is 10+ years old and both aftermarket and OEM parts are available. With Apple, I cannot replace the CPU, RAM, SSD, or really anything on their machines without de-soldering the components from the board and re-soldering them, assuming the BIOS doesn't use a whitelist to prevent me from replacing an SSD with another identical but "non-apple-approved" variant.
This is the kind of nonsense that infringes on user freedom that right to repair is trying to fix. Can you only replace tires with "Toyota Certified" tires on a Corolla? No, and that would be a system rampant with abuse and monopolistic price gouging. I don't want the secret sauce to manufacturing the chips/tires/whatever (which I could get just by purchasing the product and disassembling it anyway). I just want these companies to sell me replacement parts to fix my machine, even if they do it for some reasonable amount of profit. I expect to be able to care for my devices as I would a vehicle, a home, or any other piece of my property. However, my options are either nonexistent or severely limited by vendor lock-in enforced via a programmatic contract I didn't sign (or wasn't aware of when I purchased the machine).
That's wack.