3 ms·
A crucial part is the contract wording regarding what exactly was sold when NEWAG sold the trains to the operator - namely, the documentation for maintenance an
by p_l 3y ago
A crucial part is the contract wording regarding what exactly was sold when NEWAG sold the trains to the operator - namely, the documentation for maintenance and repair was supposed to be complete. As in, should NEWAG encounter a critical existence failure, it should still be possible for a third party to service the trains so long as parts could be acquired, and in worst case, start working on replacement parts.
With most other right-to-repair cases there's way less recourse. With trains in Europe you have legal rules that disallow hiding critical maintenance data behind trade secrets, for example.
- scyzoryk_xyz 3y agoThis is quite the insight - we’re talking about something purchased in public tender process by a public entity. The train is almost more like a commodity and less like a product. Or „Train-as-a-service” even perhaps? My suspicion is that a lot of this happens only 99% of cases never see light of day due to NDA-s and settlements
- bdavbdav 3y agoIn my industry we often escrow source code for these situations.