To me it’s weird to even think of repairing stuff you buy as a “right” - that’s a given. The issue is the nonexistent “right” of a seller to restrict what a customer does with a product after buying it. That’s as ridiculous as a shoe company trying to dictate where you can or can’t walk. It’s a no-brainer, and should never have to be argued in court or anywhere else.
When written out like this, it seems simple as - but the most simple version really isn’t what’s at stake. Companies make and trademark specialized tools for their goods, to prevent third parties from providing repairs. Warrantys are written to keep a company from being liable for repair/replacement if a customer attempts to repair a product themselves.
Pretty much every case in the right to repair movement is a challenge to a legally acceptable means of market capture, that just happens to create a stupendously shitty consumer environment.
To me it’s weird to even think of repairing stuff you buy as a “right” - that’s a given. The issue is the nonexistent “right” of a seller to restrict what a customer does with a product after buying it. That’s as ridiculous as a shoe company trying to dictate where you can or can’t walk. It’s a no-brainer, and should never have to be argued in court or anywhere else.
When written out like this, it seems simple as - but the most simple version really isn’t what’s at stake. Companies make and trademark specialized tools for their goods, to prevent third parties from providing repairs. Warrantys are written to keep a company from being liable for repair/replacement if a customer attempts to repair a product themselves.
Pretty much every case in the right to repair movement is a challenge to a legally acceptable means of market capture, that just happens to create a stupendously shitty consumer environment.