> This is on the general topic of right to repair and freedom of fixing and so forth so naturally HN hates the train company. Actually, the issue here is that

> This is on the general topic of right to repair and freedom of fixing and so forth so naturally HN hates the train company. Actually, the issue here is that the train company is on the wrong side of this issue. > Further, if your company is financially liable for a product failure, and another company is not, that second company can totally fix it more cheaply than you can. As it's not their liability. There are tons of cases where the repairer, not the OEM is held liable. The manufacturer is at fault for the defective parts/product. The repairer is liable for a defective repair. Courts have been sorting this kind of thing out for centuries and it's not a difficult thing to deal with. > "we want to use this cheaper repair shop, and it's now our problem when the budget train fix kills people" - that seems totally legitimate to me. Except that really isn't the case at all, and hasn't been the case. If the repairer does not do the repair correctly, the repairer is liable, not the manufacturer. Most mechanical shops even carry insurance and offer their own warranties on their work. Most cities (and hopefully consumers) will only do business with repair shops that are insured for this exact reason. > Say Tesla made all reasonable steps they could take to detect third party mods and refuse to start the car, do we hate them too? Yes. It is not their car. It is my car. Ford is not liable if that variable geometry camshaft I installed in my Mustang causes the engine to blow, killing six people with shrapnel. I would be liable for that. Why should Tesla be liable for someone hacking the software? The issue here is the world doesn't work the way you are describing, where manufacturers are held liable for the work of third parties. Tesla is held liable for their own warranties and laws applying to product safety.