In the end it was far easier to just switch over to a Thinkpad.
I do support right to repair for the record. I just think this isn鈥檛 a great example of how the right to repair would have actually helped someone
Right to repair essentially boils down to the product needs to be repairable in a reproducible way. It doesn鈥檛 state how that repair needs to be done or what exactly that means.
The big one is for repair 饾櫆饾櫔饾櫈饾櫃饾櫄饾櫒 饾櫀饾櫍饾櫃 饾櫈饾櫍饾櫒饾櫓饾櫑饾櫔饾櫂饾櫓饾櫈饾櫎饾櫍饾櫒 and 饾櫀饾櫕饾櫀饾櫈饾櫋饾櫀饾櫁饾櫈饾櫋饾櫈饾櫓饾櫘 饾櫎饾櫅 饾櫑饾櫄饾櫏饾櫀饾櫈饾櫑 饾櫏饾櫀饾櫑饾櫓饾櫒 is what is most important. So that a repair shop or savvy consumer could indeed do their repairs without push back from the manufacturer. It also means the specifications for those repairs and parts would be open(ish)
Having to openly document repair procedure and have open part availability is what I think wrongly companies are attempting to protect. Because third parties could manufacturer spec compliant parts that wouldn't void the overall warranty of a product
I think redesign is a non significant factor
EDIT: I just want to note that in the right to repair debate product lifecycle planned obelesance is actually a legitimate argument for right to repair. I don't think devices are built to live longer then a product generations lifecycle (for instance, an iPhone has a typical generation lifecycle of 3-5 years I believe)
Right to repair would reverse that trend at least somewhat
However I am hardly an expert on this. I can speak to the surface though (we use them at work) and most definitely is covered
If you need tools or instructions then the parts aren't really consumables.