I'm hoping this is broader than it appears. For example, a mobile phone is assumed to receive updates to its software for, let's say, security purposes, and th

I'm hoping this is broader than it appears. For example, a mobile phone is assumed to receive updates to its software for, let's say, security purposes, and the customer may well consider that to be a real factor in deciding to buy the phone. If the manufacturer stops issuing security updates, I would read this exemption as protecting work to ensure that phone can continue being secured, even if that's by community patches that are backported, or even by installing another OS that is still supported. I have no idea if this interpretation would fly legally, but it passes the common sense test: just because a manufacturer decided to stop issuing patches for your phone doesn't mean you should have to choose between spending hundreds more for a new phone and being totally exposed to security vulnerabilities, all in the name of a copyright law that designed to prevent piracy (presumably).