> A lawnmower isn't a piece of software. It's not licensed. There's an expectation it should continue working.
I believe we should be able to have the same expectation of software, at least where not specifically sold as "X months of access".
> If I sell you an IoT lawnmower, and you get 20 years out of it, do I owe you a full refund if I shut down my server?
Ideally, to avoid unnecessary e-waste, you should patch out the requirement or release the server-side code so I can continue using my lawnmower. Buying it off me might also work, if you're offering approximately what I'd get out of having it continue to work, but I'm not sure if that scales well.
> I don't think all the patches are small costs when you factor in licensing
If bills like this pass, middleware providers would need to license under terms that allow distribution at end-of-life, or lose out on all customers selling software in California/EU/etc. Should also help clear obstacles for developers who already want to distribute their server/source code even before this law but are held back from doing so.
> Mandating you need to put out a patch creates a legal obligation that would sit on your books
There's no issue with creating the patch/releasing the server-side software early, just that I assume they'd want to maintain exclusivity to milk profit for as long as possible.
> It was an externality that made consumers sad, not one making products more expensive
If you expend resources to create some media/software/product, then brick that product while customers would've otherwise still extracted value in excess of the patch's resource cost (developer time, not licensing price), then you're on net wasting resources and thus making products in general more expensive.
Issue is that because the cost of patch is borne by the company, whereas they get to ignore the cost to the customers of bricking the products, the latter is often preferred even though it's typically the more expensive option by a significant margin. A bill like this should fix that.
> I think it's a slippery slope to turn that entitlement onto multiplayer games; if not that, then why not all software that you buy?
I believe it should, and that for a lot of software the case is even stronger.
> Everyone should get a full refund when any software EoL's and companies go bankrupt whenever an online product stops being profitable.
If you take someone's money to buy a CAD package, then no longer want to provide some service it relies on (usually just for authentication reasons), then you should release the server software or patch out the authentication check.
> We didn't give HP the option "make your competitors ink work on your printer, give full refunds, support indefinitely, or open up your ink manufacturing line blueprints"
I'd 100% support doing that!