I get what you are saying.... that we can use the law to gain the right to repair. But step back - how is any of that morally right? Why should people have t

I get what you are saying.... that we can use the law to gain the right to repair. But step back - how is any of that morally right? Why should people have to fight corporation in court to get a basic right to repair the thing they bought? Its insane! Surely, if there was any sense to this, the presumption would be in favour of the purchaser by default! Regardless of any service contract or other legal agreement. That it should be for the corporation to argue in court that there are some special circumstances that mean that default ruling does not apply, even though you bought (not rented) their product. The fact it is this way round tells you all you need to know. At best, the consumer can waste time (10 years?) and money (lots) to hopefully (but perhaps not) prove the obvious case. OTOH, there is no incentive for the corporation not to try the dirtiest most unfriendly tactics they think they can get away with. Esp. if they have a near monopoly in their domain (eg John Deere). For this reason and others, I see governance and law as captured entities - they are captured by corporations and we the consumers are there to have our wealth extracted from while retaining very few rights. Frankly, it is neo-feudalism. Or fascism (corporate+government together).