Thread: 'Right to repair'laws could force companies to make more information available to rep

Bit of a double edged sword....

how many people would wind up "repairing" emission control systems out of service to reduce operating costs and downtimes?

BUT for genuine repaired by a licensed repair person (and yes I'm one even though I dont run my own business) who was operating within the guidelines of the intended ethics of the ticket I'm for it.

there are some things I believe should have some restriction on them for safety reasons say the HP injector stuff where you can damage yourself or the engine if you get it wrong. In this instance the company holding the information back until you have filled out a EULA type document releasing the relevant companies from liability before they give you the information.

I'd be happy for there to be a small processing fee for this providing that fee ment you got the exact information you needed (including the workshop instructions on how to do the job you needed to do) for the model and spec of the equipment you were working on.

In spirit, once you pay for the equipment you should be able to repair it as you need to, If theres a potential safety issue then not giving you the information you need until you have been advised and signed off on the safety aspects is a reasonable compromise.

Withholding the information on "Intellectual property" grounds is not fair game, you paid for the property.

I guess there might be some differences depending on if the item was still under warranty or not.
American companies big on protecting intellectual property and I understand that, it's the big issue between the USA and China.
But there must be a lot of instances where it's not actually about intellectual property, it's just knowing what setting is necessary to fix something.
For example, if my phone died, there is no warranty and the repairer might just need to know which part to use to fix it.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I guess there might be some differences depending on if the item was still under warranty or not.
American companies big on protecting intellectual property and I understand that, it's the big issue between the USA and China.
But there must be a lot of instances where it's not actually about intellectual property, it's just knowing what setting is necessary to fix something.
For example, if my phone died, there is no warranty and the repairer might just need to know which part to use to fix it.

Fair game,

if its under warranty then it should be a company repair (unless its Not a fair wear issue)

If its out of warranty and it needs parts... then yes knowing what parts you need is fair game, including how to fit them and the settings you should use along with any safety requirements and other requirements (emissions be it smoke or any form of EM) how and who you chose to use that information (other than indiscriminately forwarding the info) should then be up to you.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I guess there might be some differences depending on if the item was still under warranty or not.
American companies big on protecting intellectual property and I understand that, it's the big issue between the USA and China.
But there must be a lot of instances where it's not actually about intellectual property, it's just knowing what setting is necessary to fix something.
For example, if my phone died, there is no warranty and the repairer might just need to know which part to use to fix it.

One of the issues is to do with the service manuals being kept electronically in the cars ECU's and is only accessible to the OEM. This by default forces the customer to use the OEM for servicing as part of the Warranty conditions is that the log book is filled out which other Mechanics can't do on these vehicles now. By law, the OEM's cannot compel the owners to use them for servicing here in Australia, any qualified Mechanic can do it and the Warranty is still valid - they just have to use parts 'suitable for application' so not even OEM filters, etc.

This electronic service book is seen as a way to bypass the laws which is why it is being frowned upon and these new laws being looked at. The USA are ahead of us here introducing a whole raft of right to repair laws, not just for vehicles but also for electronics, etc to stop Apple and others monopolizing parts and repairs from withholding parts and information from third party repairers.

Bring it on, like always, we're acting too slowly on this and not keeping up with the tech.

In my earthmoving equipment days my employer was the Oz distributor of a line of small loaders made in the USA. These were good gear and sold well even though a bit more expensive than the competition. The manufacturer did not publish a workshop manual. Their idea was the owner took the machine to a dealer or booked a dealer's field service. They told us that in most parts of the USA where there was a heavy machine population no dealer was further from a customer than 40 miles.

Here we supplied machines to state and local government, major fleets, and mining companies. All required multiple copies of operator's book, parts book, and workshop manual. One major mining company wanted seven copies of each. God alone knew why. The manufacturer eventually supplied a "technical package" which did cover most of the machine. This took quite a bit of negotiation to achieve. The yanks simply didn't understand why an owner would not use a dealer for service and repairs. We had machines in Cape York, Arnhem Land, Bedourie, Simpson Desert, and other outback areas so handy to a dealership. 1000 miles and two days travel to one of our workshops.