5 ms·
Manufacturers can already legitimately say the additional price for 1 spare part for a $5 part is actually $250,000 dollars because the last mould has worn out…
by MichaelZuo 1y ago
Manufacturers can already legitimately say the additional price for 1 spare part for a $5 part is actually $250,000 dollars because the last mould has worn out…?
Typically nobody would actually go through with placing any orders beyond that point, unless they’re the pentagon.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoThey might want to talk to their legal departments before claiming such a thing if it isn't actually true. Lawsuits involve discovery.
- MichaelZuo 1y agoHow does this relate to my comment or any other comment in the chain? I don’t think anyone suggested manufacturers could get away with lying all the time.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bluGill 1y ago250k for a single mold if they don't have drawings of the final size of the last is reasonable - high but reasonable. Building molds is still a lot of trial and error that CAD cannot help with. Plus time for one off on an assemble line is not cheap since it is often half an hour of nobody in the factory working except the two people switching out the mold. once you have a mold you can make thousands and so the cost ammortizes out if you need that many. my company has looked into spending billions for a chip fad of obsolete processes just to get some no longer in prodction parts. So far not worth it.
- dcow 1y agoTough luck then. The point of the law is to make it easier for people to repair the things they rightfully own. Not kill business by requiring all companies to indefinitely manufacture parts for anything they’ve ever sold.
- MichaelZuo 1y agoSo then what does it change? Businesses previously and will continue to negate it in practice, sometimes for legitimate reasons and sometimes not. And most of the time nobody outside of a small group will know for sure.
- dcow 1y agoIt makes actively preventing repairs (including via software restriction, which happens today) illegal. It clarifies that it is the responsibility of the company providing the product to in good faith facilitate 3rd party repair of the product by providing parts and documentation fairly. This is sadly not the norm for electronics goods hence the whole movement in the first place.