6 ms·

The text of this law is here [1]. The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections

The text of this law is here [1]. The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation. Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the “technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment” and that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they trust. Without these certifications, you are not an independent repair provider and manufacturers can refuse to allow you to do anything. You can be just an average person repairing your own device, in which case the manufacturer must work with you. But you can expect to be forced to prove that you own the device before that happens. [1] https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1596/Enrolled https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Downloads/Meas...

Spivak 3y ago
It's the same for doing work on your house. If you're the owner you don't need to be licensed to do most repairs or renovations but to work on other people's houses you need certification. Not saying it's a good system, just that it's consistent.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  No, this would be like if the city's electrical supply house got to choose what counted as an electrical qualification.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  The difference being is that electricians are certified by a real and reputable body and manufacturers don’t get to pick and choose. No doubt they will weaponise this ability
  - samatman 3y ago
    No they won't. The disconnect between computer programming and law is a rich and perennial source of amusement here on Hacker News. What happens if the manufacturer decides to be unreasonable, by saying that no industry standard of certification is acceptable, or just the one organization they founded themselves, or that sort of thing, is that they get a sharply-worded letter from the Oregon DA. If they don't sort it out then legal action will be taken. So they're not going to do that in the first place, because everyone actually involved in this stuff already knows that. The law isn't compiled. Its function relies on a common understanding of context which is the major course of study in law school. If a CEO ordered a company to do the sort of thing you're proposing, it would be against the advice of council.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > What happens if the manufacturer decides to be unreasonable, by saying that no industry standard of certification is acceptable, or just the one organization they founded themselves, or that sort of thing, is that they get a sharply-worded letter from the Oregon DA That assumes that the Oregon DA isn't collecting a bunch of campaign funds, gifts, etc from Apple in which case the DA will do nothing and taking apple to court yourself will likely end in a loss since our legal system is often pay to win and apple can out-spend you. >If a CEO ordered a company to do the sort of thing you're proposing, it would be against the advice of council. CEOs often break the law because they (and their council) know the risks of getting caught are small and/or that if they are caught the worst punishment they'll face is a fine which won't come anywhere close to the amount of money they'll make by breaking the law. Generally, it's a good thing that laws are subject to interpretation by humans and not treated like code written for machines because we want flexibility, but without enough oversight and accountability that doesn't work out so well for us either.
throw10920 3y ago
> Without these certifications, you are not an independent repair provider and manufacturers can refuse to allow you to do anything. If this is true, it doesn't seem like it's actually "right to repair" at all.
- delfinom 3y ago
  Yep this law is just a giant handout to the industry. I wouldn't be surprised if they use this law to now sue "uncertified" repair shops.
  - ZanyProgrammer 3y ago
    Yes, it's such a giant handout that Apple came out against it.
    - throw10920 3y ago
      The implicit claim being made in this sarcastic comment is that it's not possible for a law to be detrimental to one company while unfairly favoring another. Which, of course, is obviously false when you think about it.
      - digging 3y ago
        Which major tech companies would it be good for while being bad for Apple? Keeping in mind that the owner of a device is also allowed to repair without certification.
        throw10920 3y ago
        Where did I say "major"?
        afavour 3y ago
        The OP said "a giant handout to the industry". If you're trying to make a point that excludes all the major players in the tech industry then by all means go ahead but it isn't the conversation you joined.
WesternWind 3y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you are parsing that correctly according to legal canons of construction. Generally all language in a law must be considered relevant, and or implies a disjunctive list. Finally permissive language like such as grant discretion. https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION.pdf https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring... So the language says "...in accordance with widely accepted standards, such as..." and lists stuff like A+ and WISE certs. The per the OEM standards is probably best undrstood as modifying the or another certification, so I think the language you are referring to is allowing an additional certification that the OEM considers valid. It's unclear whether that means it counts as a widely accepted standard, or is allowed even if it's not a widely accepted standard, but pretty sure it's understood as modifying the last antecedent, rather than the clause as a whole in a way that eliminates the widely accepted standard portion.. It would require ignoring the widely accepted standard language and several other departures from the canons of construction to reasonably have the interpretation you use. The language could be cleaner like they could use either and two sub clauses, but it doesn't need to be. "Possesses a valid and unexpired certification that demonstrates that the person has the technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment in accordance with widely accepted standards, such as a Wireless Industry Service Excellence Certification, an A+ certification from the Computing Technology Industry Association, a National Appliance Service Technician Certification or another certification that an original equipment manufacturer accepts as evidence that the person can perform safe, secure and reliable repairs to consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells."
passwordoops 3y ago
If that's the case then Apple must have been lobbying for show or misdirection
da_chicken 3y ago
> The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation. This is normal for legislation. The problem is that fairly often they end up with subsectioning so deep that you're running into the right margin -- I got about six levels deep -- so they simply don't do it. However, it's still standard to produce bills in PDF. It does get easier with practice, but I still find myself copying and pasting into a text editor to reformat it. It actually is a helpful exercise just to read the law. It's similar to reading a really long SQL query. Nobody formats them the way you prefer, so format them as you read and you'll force yourself to read the query with enough attention to understand it. It's simply the best way to read the things. > Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the “technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment” and that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they trust. That's true, but it also says: "An original equipment manufacturer shall make available to an owner or an independent repair provider on fair and reasonable terms any documentation, tool, part or other device or implement that the original equipment manufacturer makes available to an authorized service provider for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or updating consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells and that is sold or used in this state." The critical bit is that they have to supply owners, too. “Fair and reasonable terms” means: A) Makes documentation available at no charge [except cost to prep and print] B) Makes tools for diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or updating consumer electronic equipment available at no charge and without impeding access to the tools or the efficient and cost-effective use of the tools [except cost to prep and ship] C) Makes parts available directly or through an authorized service provider to independent repair providers or an owner at costs and on terms that are equivalent to the most favorable costs and terms at which the original equipment manufacturer offers the parts to an authorized service provider [with a bunch of limitations that try to ensure the OEM can't cheat]. Oh, and [there's limtations that authorized service providers have to be fair and reasonable to owners and independent repair providers, too]. AND, they can no longer use parts pairing to prevent third party replacement parts. So: 1. An owner has a right to documentation at cost 2. An owner has a right to tools at cost 3. An owner has a right to replacement parts 4. Replacement parts going forward (essentially) can't employ parts pairing. So, yeah the manufacturer doesn't have to have an authorized service provider, and doesn't have to support independent repair services. BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO OFFER DOC, TOOLS, AND PARTS. Oh, and if the OEM doesn't have any authorized service providers, then the OEM is the authorized service provider.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the “technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment” and that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they trust. What obligates Apple (or anyone) to trust ANY certification?
jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
> The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation. This is standard practice in the legal world because the nesting gets so deep if you indent you'd run out of page.
cbolton 3y ago
> The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation. Maybe I misunderstand (I can't get the page to load right now) but what kind of document indents subsections? Not any book or article that I remember...

Spivak 3y ago

It's the same for doing work on your house. If you're the owner you don't need to be licensed to do most repairs or renovations but to work on other people's houses you need certification. Not saying it's a good system, just that it's consistent.

idiotsecant 3y ago
No, this would be like if the city's electrical supply house got to choose what counted as an electrical qualification.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
The difference being is that electricians are certified by a real and reputable body and manufacturers don’t get to pick and choose. No doubt they will weaponise this ability
- samatman 3y ago
  No they won't. The disconnect between computer programming and law is a rich and perennial source of amusement here on Hacker News. What happens if the manufacturer decides to be unreasonable, by saying that no industry standard of certification is acceptable, or just the one organization they founded themselves, or that sort of thing, is that they get a sharply-worded letter from the Oregon DA. If they don't sort it out then legal action will be taken. So they're not going to do that in the first place, because everyone actually involved in this stuff already knows that. The law isn't compiled. Its function relies on a common understanding of context which is the major course of study in law school. If a CEO ordered a company to do the sort of thing you're proposing, it would be against the advice of council.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > What happens if the manufacturer decides to be unreasonable, by saying that no industry standard of certification is acceptable, or just the one organization they founded themselves, or that sort of thing, is that they get a sharply-worded letter from the Oregon DA That assumes that the Oregon DA isn't collecting a bunch of campaign funds, gifts, etc from Apple in which case the DA will do nothing and taking apple to court yourself will likely end in a loss since our legal system is often pay to win and apple can out-spend you. >If a CEO ordered a company to do the sort of thing you're proposing, it would be against the advice of council. CEOs often break the law because they (and their council) know the risks of getting caught are small and/or that if they are caught the worst punishment they'll face is a fine which won't come anywhere close to the amount of money they'll make by breaking the law. Generally, it's a good thing that laws are subject to interpretation by humans and not treated like code written for machines because we want flexibility, but without enough oversight and accountability that doesn't work out so well for us either.

throw10920 3y ago

> Without these certifications, you are not an independent repair provider and manufacturers can refuse to allow you to do anything. If this is true, it doesn't seem like it's actually "right to repair" at all.

delfinom 3y ago
Yep this law is just a giant handout to the industry. I wouldn't be surprised if they use this law to now sue "uncertified" repair shops.
- ZanyProgrammer 3y ago
  Yes, it's such a giant handout that Apple came out against it.
  - throw10920 3y ago
    The implicit claim being made in this sarcastic comment is that it's not possible for a law to be detrimental to one company while unfairly favoring another. Which, of course, is obviously false when you think about it.
    - digging 3y ago
      Which major tech companies would it be good for while being bad for Apple? Keeping in mind that the owner of a device is also allowed to repair without certification.
      - throw10920 3y ago
        Where did I say "major"?
        afavour 3y ago
        The OP said "a giant handout to the industry". If you're trying to make a point that excludes all the major players in the tech industry then by all means go ahead but it isn't the conversation you joined.

WesternWind 3y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you are parsing that correctly according to legal canons of construction. Generally all language in a law must be considered relevant, and or implies a disjunctive list. Finally permissive language like such as grant discretion. https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION.pdf https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring... So the language says "...in accordance with widely accepted standards, such as..." and lists stuff like A+ and WISE certs. The per the OEM standards is probably best undrstood as modifying the or another certification, so I think the language you are referring to is allowing an additional certification that the OEM considers valid. It's unclear whether that means it counts as a widely accepted standard, or is allowed even if it's not a widely accepted standard, but pretty sure it's understood as modifying the last antecedent, rather than the clause as a whole in a way that eliminates the widely accepted standard portion.. It would require ignoring the widely accepted standard language and several other departures from the canons of construction to reasonably have the interpretation you use. The language could be cleaner like they could use either and two sub clauses, but it doesn't need to be. "Possesses a valid and unexpired certification that demonstrates that the person has the technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment in accordance with widely accepted standards, such as a Wireless Industry Service Excellence Certification, an A+ certification from the Computing Technology Industry Association, a National Appliance Service Technician Certification or another certification that an original equipment manufacturer accepts as evidence that the person can perform safe, secure and reliable repairs to consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells."

passwordoops 3y ago

If that's the case then Apple must have been lobbying for show or misdirection

da_chicken 3y ago

> The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation. This is normal for legislation. The problem is that fairly often they end up with subsectioning so deep that you're running into the right margin -- I got about six levels deep -- so they simply don't do it. However, it's still standard to produce bills in PDF. It does get easier with practice, but I still find myself copying and pasting into a text editor to reformat it. It actually is a helpful exercise just to read the law. It's similar to reading a really long SQL query. Nobody formats them the way you prefer, so format them as you read and you'll force yourself to read the query with enough attention to understand it. It's simply the best way to read the things. > Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the “technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment” and that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they trust. That's true, but it also says: "An original equipment manufacturer shall make available to an owner or an independent repair provider on fair and reasonable terms any documentation, tool, part or other device or implement that the original equipment manufacturer makes available to an authorized service provider for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or updating consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells and that is sold or used in this state." The critical bit is that they have to supply owners, too. “Fair and reasonable terms” means: A) Makes documentation available at no charge [except cost to prep and print] B) Makes tools for diagnosing, maintaining, repairing or updating consumer electronic equipment available at no charge and without impeding access to the tools or the efficient and cost-effective use of the tools [except cost to prep and ship] C) Makes parts available directly or through an authorized service provider to independent repair providers or an owner at costs and on terms that are equivalent to the most favorable costs and terms at which the original equipment manufacturer offers the parts to an authorized service provider [with a bunch of limitations that try to ensure the OEM can't cheat]. Oh, and [there's limtations that authorized service providers have to be fair and reasonable to owners and independent repair providers, too]. AND, they can no longer use parts pairing to prevent third party replacement parts. So: 1. An owner has a right to documentation at cost 2. An owner has a right to tools at cost 3. An owner has a right to replacement parts 4. Replacement parts going forward (essentially) can't employ parts pairing. So, yeah the manufacturer doesn't have to have an authorized service provider, and doesn't have to support independent repair services. BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO OFFER DOC, TOOLS, AND PARTS. Oh, and if the OEM doesn't have any authorized service providers, then the OEM is the authorized service provider.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the “technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment” and that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they trust. What obligates Apple (or anyone) to trust ANY certification?

jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago

> The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation. This is standard practice in the legal world because the nesting gets so deep if you indent you'd run out of page.

cbolton 3y ago

> The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation. Maybe I misunderstand (I can't get the page to load right now) but what kind of document indents subsections? Not any book or article that I remember...