the pairing restriction would “undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices.”
If only there were options that would encourage the use of safe, genuine parts.
What, like companies selling high quality, reasonably priced parts?
My favorite part of the MN right to repair bill is that it requires OEM parts/software/schematics to be offered to consumers at the lowest possible price, including any rebates, sales, deals, etc. It’s not quite an “at cost” situation, but it’s probably about as close as you can get without crossing that line
It sounds good, but that’s enough wiggle room to drive a truck full of money through. Even “at cost” has been abused pretty badly.
Yea, I agree. I think these bills should require the maximum cost to be cost of manufacture at the date of engineering; i.e. a part designed in 2008 can not cost more than the materials to make it and it must keep that price for as long as it is used.
But progress is progress, we’ll get there eventually as long as we keep up the political pressure.
Edit: please read the spirit in that example rather than to the letter. There’s a lot of nuance that I just skimmed over, and that’s because I don’t want to write the bill.
Even better. I thought we were just talking about the cost to provide the repair information, which should be free after so many years of shenanigans.
Good points about parts cost/availability. Hopefully ORs bill keeps costs down with the threat of competition.
That’s what the auto industry does. They have to sell you access to their system to allow third parties to program modules, but that cost can be excessive, especially if a small shop only needs to program one module in a blue moon.
I was actually thinking about OBD2 when I wrote that. The old CRT pedestal style code readers cost as much as a new car, fairly reasonable from an automakers perspective but expensive enough to put plenty of small shops out of business.
It was one of the first big top-down push that I remember. It’s a pretty good parallel for the current right to repair legislation. The automakers fought it tooth and nail back then too. They made similar claims about their new cars being so complex that they simply had to be serviced at the dealerships. And, to your point, they are still getting away with it to a degree.
The “undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices” line is the same reasoning used by AT&T back in the old days as to why you couldn’t buy your own phone or use a dial-up modem.
like a fucking replacement display could spy on you…
Parts pairing is prohibited only on devices sold in 2025 and later. And there are carve-outs for certain kinds of electronics and devices, including video game consoles, medical devices, HVAC systems, motor vehicles, and—as with other states—“electric toothbrushes.”
What’s a good-faith argument for exempting these devices? Or was it simply successful lobbying in protecting corporate interests.
I could see an argument about medical devices, HVAC, and vehicles… But I don’t think I’d agree with them. Except maybe medical.
Consoles and toothbrushes though? What the fuck?
I guess console because they want the whole thing intact to enforce DRM?
Exactly.
For toothbrushes, are they worried repair won’t re-seal it effectively so make it unsuitable for use in the wet environment?
Which is dumb, because there’s nothing stopping anyone from replacing the seals/glue when they put it back together. And at least in the USA manufactures have been covered for damages/harm resulting from a flawed consumer-based repair since since 1975.
I hope you’re right and this isn’t about them getting ready to DRM brush handles to brush heads. Sonicare brush heads are ridiculously overpriced compared to the knock offs
HP screaming
I wonder what Louis Rossmann has to say about this.
Next up: printer ink??
W
