Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
nationaleconomicseditorial.com
Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
#2I expect we will only have a license to operate printers/ink cartridges at some point in the future, rather then owning them.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
#3This case was covered on HN recently, in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261
I think this editorial is making this case out to be more than it is.
There are many ways that a company can work to restrict a person's ability to modify a product that they have purchased. Patent infringement is one way, and that argument's effectiveness has been reduced.
But there are other ways that a person's ability can be restricted, such as licensing and proprietary parts. This case says nothing about that.
So please, author, don't make like I was going to be sued if I tried to replace my iPhone's battery.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
#4What does "stuff" mean? And what's a "right" in this situation? Does "stuff" include things like a Tesla Model S, and a "right" means that Tesla cannot remotely brick your car due to modifications? Does the "right" to repair only protect from prosecution or does it imply being given access to documentation and spare parts?
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
#5Man, if only they'd made the cartridge play a little tune when the chip is disabled. Then they could do the full DMCA game. Seems like the key to modern security is to have something copyrighted behind a terrible lock
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
#6What does "stuff" mean? And what's a "right" in this situation? Does "stuff" include things like a Tesla Model S, and a "right" means that Tesla cannot remotely brick your car due to modifications? Does the "right" to repair only protect from prosecution or does it imply being given access to documentation and spare parts?
Usually a "right" defines a grant of legal ability to act, that is illegal for a third-party to attempt to constrain.
Examine the right to free speech:
• it is a denial of your rights if a third party interfere with your exercise of your free speech (by e.g. forcefully "silencing" you in the public square—maybe using noise-cancelling speakers or something.)
• It is not a denial of your rights if you made an agreement with the third party that they would aid you in your exercise of your free speech, and then they choose to stop honoring this agreement. (I.e. forums are allowed to ban people.) This is, in-and-of-itself, a consequence of the right to freedom of association.
I would expect the same to apply to the "right to repair": Tesla is allowed to revoke its complicity in helping you drive its cars—by "bricking" them—but you then have a right to circumvent that bricking, and they would be infringing on your rights by trying to prevent you from doing so.
They don't have to make it easy; logically, with a highly-complex software system like a smart-car (that hasn't gone through an ecosystem-wide standardization like PCs have), the vendor's complicity is required to make doing anything at all with the car easy, and they're not required to give you that complicity. (Consider: even if the law required them to, they could always just go out of business in response, like Lavabit did.)
But once you start "hacking your car", anything they do in response to that to inhibit you would be a violation of your right to repair.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
#7This case was covered on HN recently, in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261 I think this editorial is making this case out to be more than it is. There are many ways that a company can work to restrict a person's ability to modify a product that they have purchased. Patent infringement is one way, and that argument's effectiveness has been reduced. But there are other ways that a person's ability can be re…
I was going to mention something similar. Someone, somewhere, is looking at all the ways you can headline the same information to generate clicks[1].
I've seen a number of people make this particular leap though, that people will cite this as a precedent for either reversing or defending lawsuits against post sale use.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
#8This case was covered on HN recently, in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14446261 I think this editorial is making this case out to be more than it is. There are many ways that a company can work to restrict a person's ability to modify a product that they have purchased. Patent infringement is one way, and that argument's effectiveness has been reduced. But there are other ways that a person's ability can be re…
Or, a company just refuses to sell you parts.
If the Rolex on my wrist stops working, I can take it apart, and clean/oil it, but couldn't buy a part from Rolex.
That is without going through a lot of expensive training, and certification.
Even then--their master plan is just restricting parts, so you need to send it back to them. "Here is you $900 bill from the Rolex factory".
Companies will just start ramping up the whole "Quality Assurance" BS. It's my expensive gadget. It's out of warranty. Allow me access to parts, and information--if you have them? I'm not being unreasonable?
Would I buy a new high end watch again--no, with the exception of a Seiko. They sell parts.
(I've been repairing watches for 15 years now.)
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
#9Here is the ruling if anyone is interested (the opinion starts on page 6): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf
I think this article is taking what the ruling says and bringing it a bit far. Essentially this suit was about Lexmark suing a "remanufacturer", Impression Products, Inc., that takes used ink cartridges and refills them, instead of the consumer returning them to Lexmark, for parent infringement (I think in this specific case, the remanufacturer was refilling toner cartridges). Impression Products won this case, and the suit says that patent rights end once the cartridge is sold to a consumer.
I can see that this could be a landmark case in the future when one of those Right-To-Repair laws (like the one in Nebraska(?)) if the specific reason manufacturers don't want to let consumers repair their own products is due to patent issues, but more broadly I don't think it covers the entirety of the "right to repair". That case might use this as a precedent, but it will still need to be decided in a court.
Re: Supreme Court Sides with Consumers–Affirms Your Right to Repair Stuff
#10Which Judge voted against it?