Also, the right to repair may mean different things: it can forbid exclusive contracts with spare parts suppliers, so that you could shop or repair elsewhere. Or it can regulate the price and availability. Or it can allow you to manufacture replacement parts on your own. The first option would be an equivalent of antitrust regulation in the vendor-specific ecosystem, and it seems pretty reasonable, because it will create a market where it did not yet exist. The second option will be economically destructive, because it would replace free market with planned economy. The last option may result in creating a black market of pirated parts, actually harming manufacturers which invested in R&D.
And to void previous contracts written that way.
That's actually what I think the title should of been. But that's my own opinion.
"Senate introduces bill to forbid farming contracts that limit right to repair"
I get that, it's just a titling thing. Even framing the discussion in that way is not only a more accurate description of what's happening (as you've elaborated) but it lands better (if you were looking at this as a libertarian type perspective).
Anyway, it's just a thing that irks me is all.
That's the thing about contracts and debt -- they let people who have the advantage today rob you for not just what's in your pocket today, but what will be in your pocket tomorrow.
As much as this law makes sense, the blanket right to form contracts between individuals/businesses/etc (when those contracts are not explicitly deemed abusive) is very important and I don't think we would be in a better place without it.
When somebody wants to buy a good, if the only way to do that is to accept a one-sided ToS that makes them give up there rights, that's just eroding freedom.
The problem is, it's not a choice anymore. John Deere isn't saying "hey, want to sign up for our repair program?"
It's saying "If you want a tractor we actually control what you can do with it forever. Too bad you need this tractor to work, tough luck we own you"
Why aren't they?
Being in the latter position is precarious, being in the former is printing free money.
That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold mine. Playing it the other way just ensures that bad ideas never get out competed. Honestly, it just takes less work to make something non user hostile. There has to be a perverse incentive somewhere.
Or a quick death spiral into bankruptcy in response to any disruption in business as usual.
This is a manufacturer of heavy industrial machinery, not a software startup, or a grocery store. You can't just turn down your burn rate by 1% in response to a 1% drop in demand, and you don't have a magical firehose of VC money that will smooth over any rough edges in your quest to improve the world by conquering the industrial machinery market, and driving all potential profits to near-zero with zero vendor lock-in.
Hell, the VCs will run away screaming when you get the 'zero vendor lock-in' part of your pitch.
>Hell, the VCs will run away screaming when you get the 'zero vendor lock-in' part of your pitch.
Well there's your problem, right there. Stop looking at yourself as a financial frigging instrument. You make effing machinery. Not hold people logistically hostage. This is why there is no trust in industry anymore. This is why the same bloody handful of people are sitting on top of everything. This is why people have about had it. Can't solve a damn problem without making half a dozen more. Make tractors. All standard parts. High quality.
But no... Can't do that. Gotta try to exploit the rubes. This is why everyone feels like the damn game is fixed. The same power hungry assholes are the ones all sitting on the damn capital.
Anyone wants to try to compete? Lock em out of capital access! Start organizing? Lobby!
People should be able to repair their belongings. We shouldn't need a law for each type of belonging.
Edit: Boring title and "text not available yet"