4 ms·
But is a compelling reason to have solid right to repair laws.
by rkhassen9 2y ago
But is a compelling reason to have solid right to repair laws.
- financetechbro 2y agoOne could imagine a solid industry of 3rd party parts providers if devices are built under a right to repair framework
- yellers 2y agoOnce again, that thing falls under FDA regulations. You’re telling us about a world with 3rd party mix and match components, all FDA approved in any and all combinations on 5 year plus old devices?
- justinclift 2y ago> under FDA regulations. That's just (!) under current FDA regulations though yeah? It's not like they're forever unchangeable.
- bastawhiz 2y agoI'm supportive of the right to repair in every sense, but even the strongest right to repair laws would not have helped improve the outcome in this case.
- justinclift 2y agoThe strongest right to repair law would probably require detailed schematics, BOMs, and (sufficiently detailed) manufacturing steps being available for all the parts. That would enable people to organise getting replacements manufactured themselves. :)
- dartos 2y agoHonestly, this world be great lol. The cost and complexity of manufacturing would maintain a moat for the companies. At the very least, they could license the schematic to customers.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIs there any evidence that was the bottleneck?
- justinclift 2y agoBit early to be looking for bottlenecks... ;)
- bastawhiz 2y agoI love that future, but that's not right to repair. It's simply not what that means. You can want open source manufacturing, and you can want that legally mandated, but not having manufacturing steps doesn't take away your right to repair something you own.