The Right to Repair Continues

[Drak3]

13 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

that's not really the main issue, like we all know those void warranty if removed stickers are BS but it's that they purposely are making it harder to repair and find parts need to do it

Sounds like a personal problem at that point, that you bought the wrong product when there are viable alternatives that are repairable.

[bobhays]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Doesn't give someone the right to force another entity against their will, if their will does not actively harm.

Not supplying parts is well within a manufacturer's rights. Anyone who demands otherwise can go fuck themselves, and scavenge parts elsewhere.

The type of markup would be rediculous to make it profitable, for niche parts like a laptop mainboard. There might be minimal profit over the long term, but that's rather hopeful. Unless they manufacture to order, in which case, enjoy your wait as they fab you a replacement.

Most companies already supply parts on product lines if it doesn't immediately start gobbling profit, but they only sell to those that are known to be capabke of the repairs and won't attempt to counterfeit devices.

This implies rather they don't already make those parts. I understand that there are so many models out there that they can't make new parts for each model every time someone asks for it. I'm just saying they should have like a 1 year period where spare parts are kept in stock. This doesn't require much effort on the manufacturers part and can be a huge boon to repair shops and consumers. 

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

States should not have this right

The United States of America was founded on the premise that the States and the people have the power and authority, except those granted unto the federal government (which is far less than they would have everyone believe).

57 minutes ago, elkenrod said:

You're correct.  They in fact can not enforce any bills that may pass.

54 minutes ago, elkenrod said:

It would have to be the U.S. federal government.  States can really do anything here.

 

See above.  The States actually are the ones with all the power, not the feds.  The worst thing to happen for States rights, was when Senators were no longer appointed by States, but elected by popular vote.

 

What the States cannot do, is take away a Constitutionally protected right.  This does not fall under that category.  Companies like Apple could choose not to do business in those States afterwards, and they could even challenge the law in court, but there is no law stopping these bills from passing.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Jito463 said:

The States actually are the ones with all the power, not the feds.

Federal law overrides State law. 

 

We kinda had a whole civil war over this. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

The worst thing to happen for States rights, was when Senators were no longer appointed by States, but elected by popular vote.

And what? 

 

You do know what Senators are supposed to do right? How can a Senator represent his state if his state did not elect him into office? 

 

I think you need a refresher in United States History my friend. 

[Jito463]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Federal law overrides State law. 

 

We kinda had a whole civil war over this. 

Actually, that's a misconception, and - while I am glad the US did not split - in many ways, Lincoln overstepped his bounds with that decision.  The federal government can only act on the powers it was given.  While sometimes that means federal law will override state law, that is not a blanket statement, and there are many instances where federal laws were struck down (or should have been) because they overreached.  However, now we're getting farther off topic.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

And what? 

 

You do know what Senators are supposed to do right? How can a Senator represent his state if his state did not elect him into office? 

 

I think you need a refresher in United States History my friend. 

The House represents the people, which is why they're elected.  Senators represent the States, which is why they were appointed.  By having them elected - rather than appointed - there is virtually no difference between the House and the Senate, and it diminishes the power of the States.  I know my history.

[DrMacintosh]

7 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

there are many instances where federal laws were struck down (or should have been) because they overreached. 

Regardless, the Federal Government has control over the states. The Federal Government has the Military, whatever it says, goes.

 

If a Federal Law is deemed unconstitutional it can be struct down, but the Federal Government does have all the power. 

 

Federal Law that is within the bounds of the Constitution > State Law of any kind.

 

Its a fact, not a misconception.  

[Jito463]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Regardless, the Federal Government has control over the states. The Federal Government has the Military, whatever it says, goes.

 

If a Federal Law is deemed unconstitutional it can be struct down, but the Federal Government does have all the power. 

 

Federal Law that is within the bounds of the Constitution > State Law of any kind.

 

Its a fact, not a misconception.  

*sigh*

And this is why we can't have nice things.  Too many people with misconceptions that they "feel" are right and they "feel" are facts.  Let me give you the same advice you gave me, I suggest you hone up on your US history.  And on that note, we've more than derailed this topic, so I will bow out before the mods show up and decide to intervene.

[DrMacintosh]

10 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

*sigh*

And this is why we can't have nice things.  Too many people with misconceptions that they "feel" are right and they "feel" are facts.  Let me give you the same advice you gave me, I suggest you hone up on your US history.  And on that note, we've more than derailed this topic, so I will bow out before the mods show up and decide to intervene.

You could pm me and talk about it and defend your statement. I only have an entire history of a nation to defend my view. 

[elkenrod]

23 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

The United States of America was founded on the premise that the States and the people have the power and authority, except those granted unto the federal government (which is far less than they would have everyone believe).

 

See above.  The States actually are the ones with all the power, not the feds.  The worst thing to happen for States rights, was when Senators were no longer appointed by States, but elected by popular vote.

 

What the States cannot do, is take away a Constitutionally protected right.  This does not fall under that category.  Companies like Apple could choose not to do business in those States afterwards, and they could even challenge the law in court, but there is no law stopping these bills from passing.

You are correct.  Individual states could pass a "right to repair law". But it doesn't actually work, unless all 50 pass it individually (unlikely), or the federal government does.  For exactly the  example you used with Apple.

 

Imagine Apple just decides to not sell its products in 12 states?  Ok those states get their "right to repair". But they stand to lose millions in business.  That isn't how it works.  Those states need the federal government to step in for the sake of a level playing fields.  Basically the impetus for the Interstate Commerce Act with the railroads.

 

 

[Jito463]

17 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

You could pm me and talk about it and defend your statement. I only have an entire history of a nation to defend my view. 

Done.

8 minutes ago, elkenrod said:

You are correct.  Individual states could pass a "right to repair law". But it doesn't actually work, unless all 50 pass it individually (unlikely), or the federal government does.  For exactly the  example you used with Apple.

 

Imagine Apple just decides to not sell its products in 12 states?  Ok those states get their "right to repair". But they stand to lose millions in business.  That isn't how it works.  Those states need the federal government to step in for the sake of a level playing fields.  Basically the impetus for the Interstate Commerce Act with the railroads.

 

 

Apple would stand to lose a lot more than those states would.  And as for a "level playing field", there is no such thing, nor can there ever be.  The best that can be achieved is an equal opportunity, but there is no way to make the "field" equal for everyone.  It's an impossible task.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Done.

Apple would stand to lose a lot more than those states would.  And as for a "level playing field", there is no such thing, nor can there ever be.  The best that can be achieved is an equal opportunity, but there is no way to make the "field" equal for everyone.  It's an impossible task.

Not really, Apple can get that business back elsewhere, states can't. 

[Jito463]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Not really, Apple can get that business back elsewhere, states can't. 

Perhaps, perhaps not.  Only time will tell.

[elkenrod]

Just now, Jito463 said:

Done.

Apple would stand to lose a lot more than those states would.  And as for a "level playing field", there is no such thing, nor can there ever be.  The best that can be achieved is an equal opportunity, but there is no way to make the "field" equal for everyone.  It's an impossible task.

We can only speculate as to how much money Apple would lose.  Just as we can only speculate as to how much it would cost them to make their product "repairable".

 

More importantly, you are correct that there can't be an "equal" playing field for everyone.  This is why the congress and the Supreme Court use words like "reasonable" when talking about fees and taxation so much.

 

for the record, I'm sort of indifferent on "right to repair."  But I feel it only works if the federal government somehow were to mandate it.

[Bcat00]

ZZZZ, there's already enough law around for this. Issue is enforcing it and the manufacturers knows it.

 

Nobody will bring a company to court over a couple hundred dollar product, in fact most people wouldn't even go to court for a thousand dollar graphics card, i know i wouldn't waste that kind of time.

[cesrai]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

You could pm me and talk about it and defend your statement. I only have an entire history of a nation to defend my view. 

Include me in your PM please

[79wjd]

7 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Federal law overrides State law. 

 

We kinda had a whole civil war over this. 

Isn't marijuana illegal according to federal law but legal in states that passed state laws legalizing its use?

[DrMacintosh]

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Isn't marijuana illegal according to federal law but legal in states that passed state laws legalizing its use?

Yes, so at any time the feds could come into California, Oregon, etc. and arrest. 

 

The State law does not overrule Federal Law.  

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Isn't marijuana illegal according to federal law but legal in states that passed state laws legalizing its use?

Yes, the beauty of federal law and state law having balance, is that the marijuana law can be legally broken in the states that are fucking shit to live in. I'm sure there are other examples of when a federal law suits many states, but not all states, so some states have countering laws.

 

5 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yes, so at any time the feds could come into California, Oregon, etc. and arrest. 

No, they can't. Certain federal laws can override state law, but this ain't one of them.

[PlayStation 2]

Which side do I dick ride today?

We can play this two ways: we can say that companies should be forced to sell parts even if they don't want to for their electronics or that they have the right to restrict it based on patents and other legal shit.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

No, they can't. Certain federal laws can override state law, but this ain't one of them.

If the current administration decides to crack down on it, yes they can. 

 

The only reason they dont is because there are bigger issues to worry about. 

 

 

 

[Drak3]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

If the current administration decides to crack down on it, yes they can. 

 

 

 

 

No, they can't.

The federal government and state governments balance power.

This is one issue where state govt. trumps federal govt.

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, they can't.

The federal government and state governments balance power.

This is one issue where state govt. trumps federal govt.

 

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

[Fetzie]

10 hours ago, kirashi said:

The problem with this is software that would prevent one from making a hardware repair. While I fully prefer open-source software purely from a security standpoint, I do understand why developers continue to write closed source software from a monetary standpoint. It's a business model, and keeping their software closed keeps them in business.

 

However, if I want to replace the WiFi card in my laptop for whatever reason, but the new one is not on the whitelist of "compatible cards" that was burned into the motherboard at the factory, I can't even make said replacement / repair. This kind of software lockout is unacceptable if we're to move forward with laws to help consumers repair their own devices, since it would effectively prevent you from making certain hardware repairs even if you legitimately bought the parts from the manufacturer. Just something to consider.

Something else to consider is that the manufacturer will design the software for specific expansion cards and peripherals. If you use an out of spec part then it is your problem if it doesn't work and I would totally understand the manufacturer if they turned around and said that they can only help you if the parts are the ones they certified as working.

 

We manufacturer telephone systems at work. If a customer puts a nonsupported ISDN or analogue expansion card in the system then it can lead to all kinds of problems. I don't see why we should have to fix those problems when we have a list of compatible cards.