Be a part of Broken by Design: A Documentary on Right-to-Repair

[JohnDB]

?????

Edited and fixed

 

[torch]

A large part of the problem is the interpretation that firmware integral to the function of a product is subject to copyright rather than patent law. Copyright is supposed to protect an artistic work from cheap copies for a reasonable period. It was crafted at a time when a book or other artistic work might be in print for a few years (although great works could be in print for much longer), to ensure the artist would receive the full benefit of their work. Media giants have successfully lobbied governments to extend that protection by many decades.

Patent law is intended to balance the need for protection against the need for independent innovation -- ie: the benefit to the inventor vs benefit to society as a whole. There's a 20 year limit. By claiming that copyright subsists in the firmware that is integral to the function of a product created a loophole in patent law that destroys that balance.

Similarly while copyright specifically does not subsist in a manual that accompanies or is integral to the repair of a product, our society needs to recognize that software integral to the repair of a product should be treated similarly.

Once upon a time there used to be a wiring diagram taped to the inside of your TV cabinet or refrigerator to aid in the diagnosis and repair. Nowadays the chips on the motherboards of these products have the identifying marks sanded or lasered off and fuses are burnt to prevent repair and force consumers to toss the product when it fails. Manufacturers benefit and consumers suffer.

 

[tsp159]

Once upon a time there used to be a wiring diagram taped to the inside of your TV cabinet or refrigerator to aid in the diagnosis and repair. Nowadays the chips on the motherboards of these products have the identifying marks sanded or lasered off and fuses are burnt to prevent repair and force consumers to toss the product when it fails. Manufacturers benefit and consumers suffer.

This is the heart of the matter. I think R2R should be focused on the idea that the OEM can and should have some "product lifecycle" where they can hold proprietary design data captive while the products are under a reasonable warranty period with them being the provider of repair parts and data. However, when they decide to move on from those products and make them "end of life" they should be required to provide design schematics of suitable nature for appropriate repair and/or remanufacturing.

A good example - you sold me a reverse engineered hydraulic block that you produced for my B7100 which is arguably much better than the Kubota OEM part. It was a fairly simple part, but definitely not something easily obtained through the Orange mothership. There's a lot of stuff like that for the older tractors. I know why OEMs do not want to do that, because to them each fixed tractor is one less potential new sale.

An alternative idea that I've had is that after a certain period of time, the OEM must either public domain or provide upon request the design schematics so that someone could machine a new part or repair something. Naturally, it would be on their dime, on their time, with no warrantability or liability for future use. "Here's the recipe, but you're on your own if you make one" kind of thing. In our litigious society, it will have to be written into law that the OE manufacturer is absolved of liability for anyone making repairs or replacement parts from their public domain information.

 

[The Evil Twin]

You sure it's not planting them?

They do seem to grow like weeds in some areas.

 

[GeoHorn]

There’s a thing called Free Enterprise. You can make a product. That product will sell if it meets the needs and desires of the buying public. If it does not meet those needs…the public will discontinue buying it…. and the mfr’r and seller will fail to sell product.

There is no “R2R’ a chocolate bar. Once you eat it…it’s no longer something you’d wish to recycle.

The fact that simple machinery of a bygone era could be hammered or welded to return it to service … does not equate to the right of a consumer to the intellectual property of design of a product offered for sale.
But the obverse of that is …any product which does not meet the needs of the consumer will likely not enjoy long-term success in the marketplace…. Survival of the Fittest,

There are plenty of filters that fit my Kubota. The spin-on L16 or PH16 or S16 (Lee/Fram/Supertech brands) which fit my Fathers’ ‘64 Dodge and also fit my ‘83 Volvo and my “92 Jeep…. can also service my Kubota Diesel. That’s why I bought a Kubota.
But the stoopid canister filter my wife’s Toyota requires, although also available in Fram/Supertech/Mobil1 and other brands…is so UN-friendly to the end user (me)… I have to decide if I ever want to own another Toyota…or if I like Toyota SO MUCH that I’ll endure the hated filter-design.

There’s no need (nor precedence) in law to force JD to make their products easily repairable in the field. The marketplace will determine if the JD proprietary exclusivity is worthy of success or not. They’ll make it durable and repairable in a manner that pleases the consumer…. or they’ll end up selling a product that is single-use like a chocolate bar…. and the consumer can choose what to purchase.

 

[D2Cat]

They do seem to grow like weeds in some areas.

I took it to mean 6' under!!

 

[The Evil Twin]

I took it to mean 6' under!!

I didn't want to go so far as saying that
Just stop moving to my area and mucking things up.

 

[torch]

A good example - you sold me a reverse engineered hydraulic block that you produced for my B7100 which is arguably much better than the Kubota OEM part. It was a fairly simple part, but definitely not something easily obtained through the Orange mothership. There's a lot of stuff like that for the older tractors.

It wasn't reverse-engineered -- Kubota provided the dimensions right in the repair manual! (Well, ok, the enhancements to make it fit a wider variety of models was kind of a reverse-engineering.)

But you are spot-on about the availability. I would happily have purchased the product if it was available. Kubota chose to discontinue it. And between myself and Oldmanhokie, we have provided them to dozens of old tractor owners over the last year.

Maybe not of economic interest to Kubota, but a great benefit to society as a whole. And by "as a whole" I mean not only consumers, but also include the manufacturers of aftermarket backhoes, front end loaders, suppliers of hydraulic cylinders and spool valves, metal suppliers, etc.

 

[Lil Foot]

Just stop moving to my area and mucking things up.

Amen brother!