Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 177 posts

Re: The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

#151

Post by userbinator »

pavon wrote: post #30
mschuster91 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Road vehicles should already be covered by existing right-to-repair rights, are they not? Otherwise, how would independent repair shops still exist?

Purely due to industry norms, no laws that I am aware of. For example Tesla makes it much harder for third parties to repair vehicles both by not making parts available and by using DRM/part-pairing/phoning-home to require authorization from them to replace some parts.

Also the not-to-be-underestimated culture around car modding and the aftermarket, which has lead to a situation where you can build a stereotypical mid-century vehicle with entirely aftermarket parts, but parts availability falls drastically for anything newer.

Re: The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

#152

Post by glitchc »

sokoloff wrote: post #40
glitchc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this is probably the best way to ensure that price gouging does not happen. The fixed and NRE costs are already included in the price of the original device. Charging those again for replacements would be double-dipping. And the law still leaves it up to OEMs to decide how to cost the replacement, so there's some wiggle room there. This is an intelligently crafted bill.

I don’t agree that Gillette making a profit on razor blades is “double-dipping” and certainly not in a way that I want to prevent. The main point I made is the upthread summary (which appears to be unreviewed ChatGPT spew, adding noise rather than signal to the discussion) of the law is incorrect in an obvious way that the actual bill is not.

Comparing consumables like blades to replacements like screens is intellectually dishonest. Those two are not the same thing and there is no merit to your argument.

Re: The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

#153

Post by aaron_m04 »

zaphar wrote: post #137
onli wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such restriction in the law. The relevant section reads like this, section 3: > an original manufacturer may not use parts pairing to: ... Cause a digital electronic product to display misleading alerts or warnings about unidentified parts, which the owner cannot immediately dismiss. So of course there can still be a notice, it just has to be dismissable. But Apple (the main company using part pairing aga…

Also be aware that the in the case of a TPM and fingerprint sensor there are some very important security guarantees that a part must make in order to preserve the security of the system. So it is not in fact scare mongering to try to get this right in the law and commenting about the difficulty of getting this right is not being infected by Apple follower talking points.

Ok, how would you ensure this is right in the law without creating a loophole?

Re: The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

#154

Post by int_19h »

charcircuit wrote: post #44
zkmon wrote: post #23

I might need an ELI5 here. "Right to repair" as in "right to choose someone who repairs"? Don't think anyone stops you from repairing your own stuff yourself.

It's purpose is to legally force other companies to serve the interests repair shops over consumers. Instead of letting the free market, consumers, dictate what aspects of a device are important repair shops want to be able to profit off of every device and stay relevant even if it results in worse products for the consumer.

We've "let the free market decide", and the consequence is that consumers got fucked.

In general, this tired adage about "market efficiency" has stopped making sense to most people a long time ago. Whatever unregulated markets are efficient at, it's not making the average person's life better. Don't be surprised then that said average person votes for regulation.

Re: The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

#155

Post by nickpsecurity »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #82
sokoloff wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree that Gillette making a profit on razor blades is “double-dipping” and certainly not in a way that I want to prevent. The main point I made is the upthread summary (which appears to be unreviewed ChatGPT spew, adding noise rather than signal to the discussion) of the law is incorrect in an obvious way that the actual bill is not.

The razor blades thing is a problem specifically with the patent system. The intent of a patent is that you invent something useful and get a temporary monopoly over it as the incentive for the invention. The premise is that the value of the patent is proportional to the value of the invention, and therefore the incentive we want to create for inventing it. If you invent something which is no improvement over the sta…

One proposal I keep mentioning for copyright and patent reform is they can never apply to data formats or digital/physical interfaces. Also, an exception to reverse engineer those for compatibility. That combination might combat a lot of problems.

Re: The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

#157

Post by grishka »

amazingamazing wrote: post #121
walterbell wrote: post #3

https://www.ifixit.com/News/110039/double-trouble-for-repair... Come January 1, 2026, manufacturers must also stop using parts pairing to block repairs for these devices. That means no more pop-ups that say “unknown part” when you swap in a working screen. No more downgrading your camera or fingerprint sensor just because you repaired your own phone. SB 5680 goes even further for wheelchair users. It covers power whe…

> That means no more pop-ups that say “unknown part” when you swap in a working screen. No more downgrading your camera or fingerprint sensor just because you repaired your own phone. I'm curious if that means that it's now illegal for the company to tell you if you have a device with fake parts. I also don't quite understand the security implications. If you need some attested part, like a TPM, and this and some oth…

Why not allow pairing the fingerprint sensor with the SoC fully offline?

Re: The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

#158

Post by onli »

Loughla wrote: post #129
onli wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such restriction in the law. The relevant section reads like this, section 3: > an original manufacturer may not use parts pairing to: ... Cause a digital electronic product to display misleading alerts or warnings about unidentified parts, which the owner cannot immediately dismiss. So of course there can still be a notice, it just has to be dismissable. But Apple (the main company using part pairing aga…

So there's nothing stopping them from having that pop up every single time you turn your phone screen on?

Just above it says:

> an original manufacturer may not use parts pairing to ... Reduce the functionality or performance of a digital electronic product

Dismissable would have to be defined, but when being annoying about it it should be possible to show that it reduces the functionality. It would be clearly against the spirit of the law, but sure, Apple already risked management jail time by ignoring court orders so they might try stuff here as well.

Re: The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

#159

Post by onli »

zaphar wrote: post #137
onli wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such restriction in the law. The relevant section reads like this, section 3: > an original manufacturer may not use parts pairing to: ... Cause a digital electronic product to display misleading alerts or warnings about unidentified parts, which the owner cannot immediately dismiss. So of course there can still be a notice, it just has to be dismissable. But Apple (the main company using part pairing aga…

Also be aware that the in the case of a TPM and fingerprint sensor there are some very important security guarantees that a part must make in order to preserve the security of the system. So it is not in fact scare mongering to try to get this right in the law and commenting about the difficulty of getting this right is not being infected by Apple follower talking points.

The replacement parts have to work, otherwise they are not replacement parts. Neither fingerprint sensors nor TPM chips are magic. There is no difficulty here.

Re: The Right to Repair Is Law in Washington State

#160

Post by paulddraper »

rconti wrote: post #138
onli wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such restriction in the law. The relevant section reads like this, section 3: > an original manufacturer may not use parts pairing to: ... Cause a digital electronic product to display misleading alerts or warnings about unidentified parts, which the owner cannot immediately dismiss. So of course there can still be a notice, it just has to be dismissable. But Apple (the main company using part pairing aga…

Sorry, I can't parse the multiple negatives of "hopefully this doesn't mean they can't.." followed by "there's no such restriction". I legitimately share the parent's concern. In a related matter, insurance companies are allowed to force me to accept non-OEM parts when my car is repaired. It sucks that someone can crash into me, and force me into taking sub-standard parts.

If someone damages your property, they must pay for damages.

That doesn’t mean you’ll wind up with the same car you had before. The parts might be unobtainable. Or the car’s value may have depreciated enough to be less than the cost of repair.

It’s sucky that you are “forced” to acquire new parts or car, but that’s life. They will pay you the fair amount for damages, not necessarily restore exactly to the previous state.

Post reply on HN