16 ms·

Intellectual property protection is a major inhibitor of repair. When only one organization can legally produce replacement parts, repair becomes relegated to o

Intellectual property protection is a major inhibitor of repair. When only one organization can legally produce replacement parts, repair becomes relegated to outlaws. Companies default to closed source, guaranteeing that at some point what they produce will all end up in a landfill unless it can be recycled. It’s an obscure position but I believe that intellectual property protection increases material waste and accelerates the destruction of the natural world. It’s an issue that sadly few people think much about, and one that I believe is invisibly harming the earth. Recently I met Neil Gershenfeld from MIT, who advocates for research and development in to universal machinery that can assemble itself, perform its duties, and then disassemble itself back in to parts when complete. [1] As he says, “there is no trash with LEGO, and there is no trash in a forest.” It’s a far off idea it seems, but intriguing nonetheless. In the near term, we as consumers can help avoid this waste by refusing to buy proprietary materials that will eventually become landfill waste. Don’t buy cheap Halloween decorations at the dollar store that will fill up the dump. Don’t buy cheap Christmas presents for the short term amusement they provide. We can point fingers at manufacturers for producing goods they know will become trash, but we are just as complicit for buying those things from them. Support producers who believe in repair and you will be doing the earth and all its future inhabitants a favor. [1] https://youtu.be/3pkqm-mzXDU https://youtu.be/3pkqm-mzXDU

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Intellectual property protection is a major inhibitor of repair. Notice that this is only a problem as a result of excessive copyright terms and patent thickets/evergreening. If you buy a product halfway through its twenty year patent term and then have to repair it after ten years, no problem, by then the patent is expired and anyone can make parts. Unless by then the manufacturer has stopped making new software/firmware for the device and the old version has security vulnerabilities or isn't compatible with modern systems, yet no one can fix it because the old unsupported software still has an unexpired copyright even though the vendor has abandoned it.
icebraining 8y ago
Who does believe in repair? I'm a strong believer in it, but I don't remember ever finding producers listing it as a feature. I know there are guides like iFixit, but I'm never sure those producers actually consider it or just used a design thst happened to be more repairable than others.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Car companies do. They want the car to run without repair for 3 years, with repair for 10, and after 12 years enough breaks at once that it isn't worth repairing. This gives their direct repeat customers a quality experience, and enough quality leftover that there is a good used market so the direct customers feel they can get enough trade-in value that they can afford a new car every 3 years. They also want a few 30+ year old cars (nothing in between!) to show how long their cars last. This is just enough that everybody sees such a car, but not enough that many people have such a car.
  - Afton 8y ago
    I believe you, but do you have a source?
  - blihp 8y ago
    Only because they were legislated into wanting it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty... etc) Prior to being forced to allow third-party repair shops and parts, they would use every opportunity to void warranties and shut down third parties just as tech companies like Apple are doing today. ('So sorry your engine block cracked. You're right, that would be covered under warranty but we see you had someone install a 3rd party radio so the warranty is void...')
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      cough Tesla cough
      - 8y ago
majormajor 8y ago
I think blaming "intellectual property protection" abstracts this a bit too much. There's real human effort on the other side, not just a concept. Companies not wanting things to be repaired is a major inhibitor of repair. Those companies push for those laws, but they often do other things too to make it hard.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Let's put the blame where it belongs: on the consumer. If there was a market demand for repairable products, companies would make them. It's not like Apple is using IP law to keep you from repairing an iPhone. If people wanted repairable products, there would be demand for them. (I have a dryer I was going to throw away until my father in law spent $50 replacing the belt. Now I have a stupid old dryer that doesn't match my fancy new Samsung washer that I feel too guilty to replace.)
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Make a cost-benefit calculation and maybe you won't feel as bad throwing it out. It will depend on financing and electricity costs which way is cheaper in the long run. :-)
    - mmt 8y ago
      I think you (and the OC) will find that, with dryers, there's really not much room to gain efficiency. It's not as if modern dryers are using a heat pump instead of burning gas [1] or "burning" electricity with resistive heating. [1] and natural gas tends to be cheaper than electric heat pumps, especially nowadays
      - jacobush 8y ago
        That sounds reasonable, except there is an almost 10 year old Miele dryer in my apartment, with a heat pump. Here's their top of the line current offering in the USA: https://www.mieleusa.com/domestic/tumble-dryers-1575.htm?mat=10666300&name=TWI180_WP_Eco%26Steam_WiFiConn@ct https://www.mieleusa.com/domestic/tumble-dryers-1575.htm?mat... Natural gas dryer I never even heard of, but I am not surprised - when I visited Pennsylvania I saw quite a lot of clever uses of natural gas.
bluGill 8y ago
Those same laws that mean you can't change the software on a car also mean that you can't change the tuning to make the car pollute more.
- Declanomous 8y ago
  That's nonsense. It's literally illegal to change your car so that it pollutes more. You don't need a second law making it illegal to modify any and all software to make sure that doesn't happen.
  - bsagdiyev 8y ago
    Illegal where? California, sure. But even the rules there aren't as cut and dry as that. I can swap an arguably higher polluting Chevy Small Block in any car, get it certified with the BAR and now I have legally modified my car to pollute more.
    - RaceWon 8y ago
      Well yeah, but how many people are gonna stick a crate motor in a car. *Note: these are likely my peeps btw.
    - bsagdiyev 8y ago
      Since I can't reply to RaceWon directly (not sure why?) -- depends on your scene, I know a lot of people who do it since its one of the few legal ways to get more power in some imports without risking an impound or ref ticket, losing your fancy RB/SR/whatever JDM motor in the process.
naveen99 8y ago
there was a disassemblable furniture startup in the last yc batch: https://shop.aalo.co/ https://shop.aalo.co/
- qwertay 8y ago
  I'm not sure how useful this is. The furniture I have had usually wears out fairly evenly so by the time something actually fails the whole thing is in a pretty bad state. Having it disassembleable might actually make it worse because instead of strong welds you have screws which can wobble around a bit and make the item less stiff. There are other items where this kind of thing makes a lot of sense though. My 3D printer is extremely easy to pull apart and replace parts for. I have a full manual for how every single bit goes together and the parts are usually generic things I can buy off ebay for a few $.
  - thekhatribharat 8y ago
    Which 3D printer do you have?
    - qwertay 8y ago
      The Pursa i3 MK3. The whole thing is open source including all the part designs, hardware and firmware. The creator also designs guides to upgrade your old printer to work better when new designs come out so instead of having to buy a new device every 2 years you just read the manual on making your old device work like the new one.
      - thekhatribharat 8y ago
        Looks good.
Joakal 8y ago
If there was government regulations that mandate producers must also take back the waste. This should dramatically raise prices of disposables that consumers will not like the price and lean towards cheaper products ie long term or sustainable ones. Producers would be very conscious to minimise waste. Think of it akin to fees for externalised costs such as pollution (ie carbon fee/tax) but applied to all products.
- Swenrekcah 8y ago
  This would be brilliant! Buy any product over $200 and 10kg? If it breaks within x years you repair it or if thats impossible/too hard, return it to a broken-shit-r-us where you get $20 and they turn around and charge the manufacturer full retail price as mandated by law. Should be incentive enough for easy repair design.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    I would love that. I can already imagine the manufacturer outlet going all, "please, PLEASE don't drop this on us; here, take this free complimentary toolbox and a set of spares, also our associate over there can make you that repair for free". One could only dream.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      I would imagine this would disincentivize manufacturing in general giving consumers fewer options and the industry fewer players amongst which to innovate. It's a good way to entrench only those that can absorb losses though.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        The demand would still be there, and so would the opportunity. The main difference would be that new players would have to build something serviceable. They wouldn't be able to crank out shit in the amount and pace of today, but that would be a great thing for the planet.
- 8y ago
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
IP is but one inhibitor of repair. I'm far from convinced it's the main, or even a major one. It's more a concerted effort to make repair expensive, unexpected, unfashionable and gratuitously difficult across as many industries as possible. 30 or 40 years ago nearly all simple products were repairable, easily and cheaply. You went to any major retailer and they'd have a spares section along with aisles of new product. All of them. You could buy a new element for your toaster, kettle, heater or coffee machine. They'd keep seals and limescale filters and so on. Some of these were standard enough that they'd fit a wide range of manufacturer's products. They'd still be there years after the particular model was discontinued. There'd be a few third party offerings that were rarely as long lasting but perhaps £1 or £2 instead of £3 or £4. Now? Nowhere sells spares, nor are they an expected part of most products. A kettle manufacturer might condescend to carry a few consumables like a limescale filter for a year or two. Then charge you around £10 with £2 p&p for a simple piece of plastic. Want a replacement element? That's basically never a spare part any more, though they don't last any longer. A fridge manufacturer might charge £18 with £4.95 p&p for a thermistor and a little heat shrink tube, but no longer have the one of the three that fails most often available at all. For a few year old refrigerator. (recent actual examples) For larger products manufacturers are combining parts and modules into indivisible units that might ease manufacture a microscopic amount, but absolutely make many simple repairs no longer possible. So what was recently a £20 simple repair to your fridge or cooker is now a £200 major component and more labour than it's probably worth. > Support producers who believe in repair I've spent years, decades, trying to. There are effectively none left. Even the most expensive brands are aiming to have you throw it away and buy another as soon as they can get away with. Which leaves who?
- cm2187 8y ago
  I think if you are in china you probably can buy all the parts you want for cheap. It is just that these parts aren't in Europe/US. But I think the main point isn't manufacturers making repairing expensive, it is them making buying new stuff so cheap. It's just not worth the time and hassle to repair most devices. Buy the cheapest device you can find, if it breaks, replace it. Still cheaper than buying the high end, expensive one.
new299 8y ago
I have a hard time thinking of a product where the repair is inhibited by IP issues. Can you give a specific example? I tend to buy and repair scientific and lab equipment and repair it. I also do/try for consumer stuff sometimes, it’s usually not economical. Tried to repair a microwave for example, but couldn’t find a replacement magnetron. That part isn’t covered by patents, it’s just not available... if there was more interest, I think there would be more stripped parts on eBay too.
- bcassedy 8y ago
  John Deere tractors is one example
  - new299 8y ago
    I guess intellection property protection to me means IP law (patents etc). But if DRM was meant I can see how there are cases where this could be a problem (I don’t think it is yet a very common problem however, or one that prevents the majority of goods from being repaired).
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      It's a combination. And as more and more goods transition from purely mechanical/electrical through electronical to software-defined, this problem is going to get even worse.
- thekhatribharat 8y ago
  Companies legally prohibit 3rd party repair as it affects their IP. There are a lot of companies that void all warranties if you try a 3rd party / DIY repair. I've had first-hand experiences with Apple and Samsung in India. There are lots of other companies, see - https://repair.org/industries/main/ https://repair.org/industries/main/ Coming back to your situation, a magnetron might not be patented but that could just be one of the many components that renders a microwave non-functional and a lot of those other components might be patented. A microwave repair shop cannot possibly be profitable if it only fixes magnetron issues. It would want to fix most, if not all, issues with customers' microwaves. But it can't as companies legally prohibit 3rd party repairs. Sure, people still reverse engineer and fix things by themselves but these laws are major blockers for 3rd party repair markets to flourish. Despite the laws, there are pockets where this still occurs (e.g. China). And should the ban on 3rd party repair be lifted, it's going to be a different ball game and opportunities could bring us a lot more big businesses like iFixit.
ZenPsycho 8y ago
One of my favourite films is Brazil. The premise is basically, “what if orwell’s 1984 were a comedy?” in Brazil, Robert Deniro plays a vigilante repairman, swinging heroically from apartment to apartment doing unauthorised repairs of broken air conditioning systems. He is the state’s most wanted outlaw, in the film, even more sought than actual terrorists.
- monocasa 8y ago
  > even more sought than actual terrorists I don't think there are actual terrorists in Brazil. All their crap is breaking down, and terrorists are a convenient scapegoat that government there I'm sure internally thinks exist. A sort of systemic hallucination.
  - ZenPsycho 8y ago
    It never occurred to me the explosions were due to poorly maintained systems, but that seems like a common interpretation, when I searched around it. It doesn't quite make sense to me though. If you take the explosions literally, ventilation systems don't tend to do that sort of thing, and if/when they do fail, it tends to be by suffocating everyone with freeon or carbon monoxide, not with explosive fireballs. Boilers can explode, but those are usually in basements, not at the floor level of a restaurant. Restaurant kitchens can and do regularly catch fire, as a result of failing to clean the grease out of cooktop exhaust filters. But again, this usually isn't an explosion. I suppose the explosions could be a kind of visual metaphor, for the way a small clerical error snowballed into a rolling deadly disaster due to the inhumane and inflexible nature of the bureaucracy. I'll have to watch the film again to see where all the explosions are- but while I think the explosions are evocative of societal failures, I'm not convinced they're purely metaphorical, or purely meant to be mechanical failures. The film was made in the historical context of the IRA bombing places in real life regularly, and the film would have been stupid to imply, in effect, that the IRA's bombings were government fiction. Edit: Just had another quick search around and it seems possible that the restaurant explosion scene, character reaction to it, and news rhetoric depicted around terrorism in general could have been inspired by this contemporary event (notably, Thatcher, like the characters in the film, attempted to carry on with the conference as if nothing had happened): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Intellectual property protection is a major inhibitor of repair. Notice that this is only a problem as a result of excessive copyright terms and patent thickets/evergreening. If you buy a product halfway through its twenty year patent term and then have to repair it after ten years, no problem, by then the patent is expired and anyone can make parts. Unless by then the manufacturer has stopped making new software/firmware for the device and the old version has security vulnerabilities or isn't compatible with modern systems, yet no one can fix it because the old unsupported software still has an unexpired copyright even though the vendor has abandoned it.

icebraining 8y ago

Who does believe in repair? I'm a strong believer in it, but I don't remember ever finding producers listing it as a feature. I know there are guides like iFixit, but I'm never sure those producers actually consider it or just used a design thst happened to be more repairable than others.

bluGill 8y ago
Car companies do. They want the car to run without repair for 3 years, with repair for 10, and after 12 years enough breaks at once that it isn't worth repairing. This gives their direct repeat customers a quality experience, and enough quality leftover that there is a good used market so the direct customers feel they can get enough trade-in value that they can afford a new car every 3 years. They also want a few 30+ year old cars (nothing in between!) to show how long their cars last. This is just enough that everybody sees such a car, but not enough that many people have such a car.
- Afton 8y ago
  I believe you, but do you have a source?
- blihp 8y ago
  Only because they were legislated into wanting it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty... etc) Prior to being forced to allow third-party repair shops and parts, they would use every opportunity to void warranties and shut down third parties just as tech companies like Apple are doing today. ('So sorry your engine block cracked. You're right, that would be covered under warranty but we see you had someone install a 3rd party radio so the warranty is void...')
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    cough Tesla cough
    - 8y ago

majormajor 8y ago

I think blaming "intellectual property protection" abstracts this a bit too much. There's real human effort on the other side, not just a concept. Companies not wanting things to be repaired is a major inhibitor of repair. Those companies push for those laws, but they often do other things too to make it hard.

rayiner 8y ago
Let's put the blame where it belongs: on the consumer. If there was a market demand for repairable products, companies would make them. It's not like Apple is using IP law to keep you from repairing an iPhone. If people wanted repairable products, there would be demand for them. (I have a dryer I was going to throw away until my father in law spent $50 replacing the belt. Now I have a stupid old dryer that doesn't match my fancy new Samsung washer that I feel too guilty to replace.)
- jacobush 8y ago
  Make a cost-benefit calculation and maybe you won't feel as bad throwing it out. It will depend on financing and electricity costs which way is cheaper in the long run. :-)
  - mmt 8y ago
    I think you (and the OC) will find that, with dryers, there's really not much room to gain efficiency. It's not as if modern dryers are using a heat pump instead of burning gas [1] or "burning" electricity with resistive heating. [1] and natural gas tends to be cheaper than electric heat pumps, especially nowadays
    - jacobush 8y ago
      That sounds reasonable, except there is an almost 10 year old Miele dryer in my apartment, with a heat pump. Here's their top of the line current offering in the USA: https://www.mieleusa.com/domestic/tumble-dryers-1575.htm?mat=10666300&name=TWI180_WP_Eco%26Steam_WiFiConn@ct https://www.mieleusa.com/domestic/tumble-dryers-1575.htm?mat... Natural gas dryer I never even heard of, but I am not surprised - when I visited Pennsylvania I saw quite a lot of clever uses of natural gas.

bluGill 8y ago

Those same laws that mean you can't change the software on a car also mean that you can't change the tuning to make the car pollute more.

Declanomous 8y ago
That's nonsense. It's literally illegal to change your car so that it pollutes more. You don't need a second law making it illegal to modify any and all software to make sure that doesn't happen.
- bsagdiyev 8y ago
  Illegal where? California, sure. But even the rules there aren't as cut and dry as that. I can swap an arguably higher polluting Chevy Small Block in any car, get it certified with the BAR and now I have legally modified my car to pollute more.
  - RaceWon 8y ago
    Well yeah, but how many people are gonna stick a crate motor in a car. *Note: these are likely my peeps btw.
  - bsagdiyev 8y ago
    Since I can't reply to RaceWon directly (not sure why?) -- depends on your scene, I know a lot of people who do it since its one of the few legal ways to get more power in some imports without risking an impound or ref ticket, losing your fancy RB/SR/whatever JDM motor in the process.

naveen99 8y ago

there was a disassemblable furniture startup in the last yc batch: https://shop.aalo.co/ https://shop.aalo.co/

qwertay 8y ago
I'm not sure how useful this is. The furniture I have had usually wears out fairly evenly so by the time something actually fails the whole thing is in a pretty bad state. Having it disassembleable might actually make it worse because instead of strong welds you have screws which can wobble around a bit and make the item less stiff. There are other items where this kind of thing makes a lot of sense though. My 3D printer is extremely easy to pull apart and replace parts for. I have a full manual for how every single bit goes together and the parts are usually generic things I can buy off ebay for a few $.
- thekhatribharat 8y ago
  Which 3D printer do you have?
  - qwertay 8y ago
    The Pursa i3 MK3. The whole thing is open source including all the part designs, hardware and firmware. The creator also designs guides to upgrade your old printer to work better when new designs come out so instead of having to buy a new device every 2 years you just read the manual on making your old device work like the new one.
    - thekhatribharat 8y ago
      Looks good.

Joakal 8y ago

If there was government regulations that mandate producers must also take back the waste. This should dramatically raise prices of disposables that consumers will not like the price and lean towards cheaper products ie long term or sustainable ones. Producers would be very conscious to minimise waste. Think of it akin to fees for externalised costs such as pollution (ie carbon fee/tax) but applied to all products.

Swenrekcah 8y ago
This would be brilliant! Buy any product over $200 and 10kg? If it breaks within x years you repair it or if thats impossible/too hard, return it to a broken-shit-r-us where you get $20 and they turn around and charge the manufacturer full retail price as mandated by law. Should be incentive enough for easy repair design.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  I would love that. I can already imagine the manufacturer outlet going all, "please, PLEASE don't drop this on us; here, take this free complimentary toolbox and a set of spares, also our associate over there can make you that repair for free". One could only dream.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    I would imagine this would disincentivize manufacturing in general giving consumers fewer options and the industry fewer players amongst which to innovate. It's a good way to entrench only those that can absorb losses though.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      The demand would still be there, and so would the opportunity. The main difference would be that new players would have to build something serviceable. They wouldn't be able to crank out shit in the amount and pace of today, but that would be a great thing for the planet.
8y ago

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

IP is but one inhibitor of repair. I'm far from convinced it's the main, or even a major one. It's more a concerted effort to make repair expensive, unexpected, unfashionable and gratuitously difficult across as many industries as possible. 30 or 40 years ago nearly all simple products were repairable, easily and cheaply. You went to any major retailer and they'd have a spares section along with aisles of new product. All of them. You could buy a new element for your toaster, kettle, heater or coffee machine. They'd keep seals and limescale filters and so on. Some of these were standard enough that they'd fit a wide range of manufacturer's products. They'd still be there years after the particular model was discontinued. There'd be a few third party offerings that were rarely as long lasting but perhaps £1 or £2 instead of £3 or £4. Now? Nowhere sells spares, nor are they an expected part of most products. A kettle manufacturer might condescend to carry a few consumables like a limescale filter for a year or two. Then charge you around £10 with £2 p&p for a simple piece of plastic. Want a replacement element? That's basically never a spare part any more, though they don't last any longer. A fridge manufacturer might charge £18 with £4.95 p&p for a thermistor and a little heat shrink tube, but no longer have the one of the three that fails most often available at all. For a few year old refrigerator. (recent actual examples) For larger products manufacturers are combining parts and modules into indivisible units that might ease manufacture a microscopic amount, but absolutely make many simple repairs no longer possible. So what was recently a £20 simple repair to your fridge or cooker is now a £200 major component and more labour than it's probably worth. > Support producers who believe in repair I've spent years, decades, trying to. There are effectively none left. Even the most expensive brands are aiming to have you throw it away and buy another as soon as they can get away with. Which leaves who?

cm2187 8y ago
I think if you are in china you probably can buy all the parts you want for cheap. It is just that these parts aren't in Europe/US. But I think the main point isn't manufacturers making repairing expensive, it is them making buying new stuff so cheap. It's just not worth the time and hassle to repair most devices. Buy the cheapest device you can find, if it breaks, replace it. Still cheaper than buying the high end, expensive one.

new299 8y ago

I have a hard time thinking of a product where the repair is inhibited by IP issues. Can you give a specific example? I tend to buy and repair scientific and lab equipment and repair it. I also do/try for consumer stuff sometimes, it’s usually not economical. Tried to repair a microwave for example, but couldn’t find a replacement magnetron. That part isn’t covered by patents, it’s just not available... if there was more interest, I think there would be more stripped parts on eBay too.

bcassedy 8y ago
John Deere tractors is one example
- new299 8y ago
  I guess intellection property protection to me means IP law (patents etc). But if DRM was meant I can see how there are cases where this could be a problem (I don’t think it is yet a very common problem however, or one that prevents the majority of goods from being repaired).
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    It's a combination. And as more and more goods transition from purely mechanical/electrical through electronical to software-defined, this problem is going to get even worse.
thekhatribharat 8y ago
Companies legally prohibit 3rd party repair as it affects their IP. There are a lot of companies that void all warranties if you try a 3rd party / DIY repair. I've had first-hand experiences with Apple and Samsung in India. There are lots of other companies, see - https://repair.org/industries/main/ https://repair.org/industries/main/ Coming back to your situation, a magnetron might not be patented but that could just be one of the many components that renders a microwave non-functional and a lot of those other components might be patented. A microwave repair shop cannot possibly be profitable if it only fixes magnetron issues. It would want to fix most, if not all, issues with customers' microwaves. But it can't as companies legally prohibit 3rd party repairs. Sure, people still reverse engineer and fix things by themselves but these laws are major blockers for 3rd party repair markets to flourish. Despite the laws, there are pockets where this still occurs (e.g. China). And should the ban on 3rd party repair be lifted, it's going to be a different ball game and opportunities could bring us a lot more big businesses like iFixit.

ZenPsycho 8y ago

One of my favourite films is Brazil. The premise is basically, “what if orwell’s 1984 were a comedy?” in Brazil, Robert Deniro plays a vigilante repairman, swinging heroically from apartment to apartment doing unauthorised repairs of broken air conditioning systems. He is the state’s most wanted outlaw, in the film, even more sought than actual terrorists.

monocasa 8y ago
> even more sought than actual terrorists I don't think there are actual terrorists in Brazil. All their crap is breaking down, and terrorists are a convenient scapegoat that government there I'm sure internally thinks exist. A sort of systemic hallucination.
- ZenPsycho 8y ago
  It never occurred to me the explosions were due to poorly maintained systems, but that seems like a common interpretation, when I searched around it. It doesn't quite make sense to me though. If you take the explosions literally, ventilation systems don't tend to do that sort of thing, and if/when they do fail, it tends to be by suffocating everyone with freeon or carbon monoxide, not with explosive fireballs. Boilers can explode, but those are usually in basements, not at the floor level of a restaurant. Restaurant kitchens can and do regularly catch fire, as a result of failing to clean the grease out of cooktop exhaust filters. But again, this usually isn't an explosion. I suppose the explosions could be a kind of visual metaphor, for the way a small clerical error snowballed into a rolling deadly disaster due to the inhumane and inflexible nature of the bureaucracy. I'll have to watch the film again to see where all the explosions are- but while I think the explosions are evocative of societal failures, I'm not convinced they're purely metaphorical, or purely meant to be mechanical failures. The film was made in the historical context of the IRA bombing places in real life regularly, and the film would have been stupid to imply, in effect, that the IRA's bombings were government fiction. Edit: Just had another quick search around and it seems possible that the restaurant explosion scene, character reaction to it, and news rhetoric depicted around terrorism in general could have been inspired by this contemporary event (notably, Thatcher, like the characters in the film, attempted to carry on with the conference as if nothing had happened): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing