4 ms·

It doesn't seem like this is really related to a "right to repair". Even if no RtR legislation was passed, it would still be in the military's interest to requ

It doesn't seem like this is really related to a "right to repair". Even if no RtR legislation was passed, it would still be in the military's interest to require user serviceability for everything they purchase. They are a large enough consumer that they could make this requirement and the market would work to accommodate them.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
prasadjoglekar 1y ago
Yeah, the title is nonsense. The military is sufficiently large as a buyer to demand RtR in every contract. Perhaps they just don't want to fight for those clauses.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  This would make it a requirement, right now it's not (for all procurements, at least; tech data is expected in large systems acquisitions like a new jet fighter but that's very different than buying a generator). This also brings down the weight of the law, in contrast to a "My commander said so" which can change from one unit to another or even over time.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  Or perhaps them not fighting for those clauses is a part of the culture of how the US government - or, more specifically, brass in the Pentagon - deals with defense contractors.
- jameshart 1y ago
  Military-industrial-complex: So, do you wanna buy some widgets? Lt. Milo Minderbender: well the Army can sure always use more widgets! We’ll need to lock in a contract for spare parts too, so you have to agree to supply spares at a reasonable cost. MIC: how about instead you take this extended service contract where you pay us to do any necessary repairs? MM: well that doesn’t seem like a great deal - we’d be on the hook for arbitrary costs forever and you’d have no incentive to make widgets that work. MIC: we really don’t want to agree to a fixed parts cost schedule. That would annoy our shareholders. MM: well, we are the US Army, so you can take it or leave it. Who else are you going to sell widgets to? MIC: ah, but Milo - we can call you Milo, right? - have you considered that you’re coming up on the end of your service? MM: Not for a few years… MIC: Sure, but I mean, when you get out… it’d be nice if there was a job at a military widget contractor waiting for you…
  - bell-cot 1y ago
    If anyone doubts the reality of such things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun
    - ghurtado 1y ago
      Honestly, that sounds like a more benign version of what I picture, which has the military not even giving enough of a shit to ask the questions in the first place.
dfxm12 1y ago
Hey, I agree, but if this is what it takes to get it into the regular lexicon, or to get a foot in the door in Washington, then OK.
s_dev 1y ago
> they could make this requirement and the market would work to accommodate them. US millitary is truly a monopsony.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

prasadjoglekar 1y ago

Yeah, the title is nonsense. The military is sufficiently large as a buyer to demand RtR in every contract. Perhaps they just don't want to fight for those clauses.

Jtsummers 1y ago
This would make it a requirement, right now it's not (for all procurements, at least; tech data is expected in large systems acquisitions like a new jet fighter but that's very different than buying a generator). This also brings down the weight of the law, in contrast to a "My commander said so" which can change from one unit to another or even over time.
lenerdenator 1y ago
Or perhaps them not fighting for those clauses is a part of the culture of how the US government - or, more specifically, brass in the Pentagon - deals with defense contractors.
jameshart 1y ago
Military-industrial-complex: So, do you wanna buy some widgets? Lt. Milo Minderbender: well the Army can sure always use more widgets! We’ll need to lock in a contract for spare parts too, so you have to agree to supply spares at a reasonable cost. MIC: how about instead you take this extended service contract where you pay us to do any necessary repairs? MM: well that doesn’t seem like a great deal - we’d be on the hook for arbitrary costs forever and you’d have no incentive to make widgets that work. MIC: we really don’t want to agree to a fixed parts cost schedule. That would annoy our shareholders. MM: well, we are the US Army, so you can take it or leave it. Who else are you going to sell widgets to? MIC: ah, but Milo - we can call you Milo, right? - have you considered that you’re coming up on the end of your service? MM: Not for a few years… MIC: Sure, but I mean, when you get out… it’d be nice if there was a job at a military widget contractor waiting for you…
- bell-cot 1y ago
  If anyone doubts the reality of such things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun
  - ghurtado 1y ago
    Honestly, that sounds like a more benign version of what I picture, which has the military not even giving enough of a shit to ask the questions in the first place.

dfxm12 1y ago

Hey, I agree, but if this is what it takes to get it into the regular lexicon, or to get a foot in the door in Washington, then OK.

s_dev 1y ago

> they could make this requirement and the market would work to accommodate them. US millitary is truly a monopsony.