Detailed specs make everything easier. :) Even if you just have the part name but not necessarily all the schematic info for how it's used that will help a lot

Detailed specs make everything easier. :) Even if you just have the part name but not necessarily all the schematic info for how it's used that will help a lot because you can usually then go find the datasheet for it and from there figure out how to replace it if you need to. Replacement might be hard or easy, it really depends on the component. Functional specs would help but aren't necessarily enough, because there's extra information in the datasheet like value and thermal tolerances that the circuit might be relying on, and analog vs digital matters too. For 555 chips, those are used in analog circuits typically as clocks, so the functional spec would be something like what clock frequency is expected on the output line and maybe the shape of the wave. A clock is trivial with an FPGA or microcontroller but you can't simply stick one in the same pins as those are for digital circuits, at least not without some converter help. You might be able to replace a big chunk of the analog circuit with a digital timer though. Binary blobs definitely are annoying. If the circuit is using a microcontroller but you don't have the code it was programmed with then as you say it's not exactly helpful that you could buy a blank replacement. But depending on the part you can sometimes get away with not knowing the code, or even being able to dump the code, and relying on capturing raw signals with an oscilloscope (assuming you have access to a functioning device) to develop a replacement. A lot of repairs don't always leave the thing just as good as before, so it might be acceptable to have a washing machine that only does a basic cycle because no one has yet deciphered the signal sequence to make it do other types. Or sacrifice the chime functionality. On the other hand modding to make a superior replacement is sometimes possible... The only legislation I really like is not being able to go after modders/hackers/reverse engineers/repairers, even those making a profit as a side business. Mandating some sort of standard to make those things not exceed a certain level of difficulty seems really hairy to define and undesirable in general if it means a lot of things simply won't get made at all. Mandating opening after some time period or when a device is sunset might be workable and not impose any real expense but I don't see it being implemented any time soon. For binary blobs even if it's old or not a "trade secret", it's still "IP". (FPGA companies even call their programs "IP Cores".) We can't even get Green Eggs and Ham into the public domain for like another 40 years thanks to the 1978 law changes, so I wouldn't count on government force to get companies to open software up. The best approach seems to be the combination of cultural practice within software and slowly more and more of hardware communities, and pointing out the business incentives for sharing more things.