PART 1/2 (I have learned HN has a max comment length):
Please don't misunderstand. I would want something love something like right-to-repair for phones to succeed. I am trying to emphasise that, from an insiders perspective, good warranties are a MUCH better way to achieve most of the same goals.
(apologies in advance for being verbose)
(Please note, I am intentionally using the voice of "the cynical manufacturer", it will sound aggressive, but it is not meant to be aggressive to the poster. I am trying to show how you CANNOT give them even an INCH and right to repair legislation for something like a phone gives too many inches.)
To answer your points:
> "Everything required to replace or repair parts of the device should be fully, clearly and publicly documented, including all discrete part numbers, tools, jigs, etc. Any parts that are manufactured only by the device's manufacturer under patent protection or trade secret must be available for purchase."
No problem:
* Here is a part number: XXX-12345678-FF. It's for a part purchased from a 2nd tier supplier in Taiwan and it's one of a kind. It is now end of life btw so you can't actually purchase it.
By the letter of the law, I have met your requirement. Spirit of the law? Well maybe not. Either way, see you in court if you don't like it (and who's going to litigate? the consumer? the government?)
* Did you mean that it should still be purchasable? Well you didn't include that in your legislation but say you do somehow. Now I argue: Don't worry, there's grey market seller in Hong Kong who'll sell them to you for $100 each (original cost was $1 with MOQ 10,000 btw).
I have met your requirements.
Still not what you meant I assume?
Maybe we legislate:
"The manufacturer has to hold enough inventory to supply parts for repairs"
Sure ok. Who's paying for keeping this in inventory? Can I on-charge that to the buyer of said spare part? If not, well I guess the phone is going to cost more now because I need to recover that cost. (Bigger warehouses are not free. I also don't keep my own stock, my Contract Manufacturer (CM) in Taiwan does that for me and they'll be charging a fee).
Also you didn't specify how long I have to keep this for. I think 1 year + 1 day is fair. Don't like that? See you in court again.
Maybe you now you also legislate "for the reasonable expected life of the product". What's that? I think still it's 1 year + 1 day. See you in court again if you don't like it.
Fine! let's legislate: "... for at least 3 years".
Oh I'm sorry, there was an unforseen problem and we went through our inventory-for-repair much faster than expected. There's none left and nobody makes this part anymore. Nobody makes an equivalent either.
What now? I hope the customer is entitled to a refund, but (again) you don't have that in your right-to-repair legislation ...
Let's torture this even more: "if for unforseen circumstances manufacturer can no longer supply spare parts, customer will be entitled to a full refund" ...
This sounds awfully like "full repair/replacement warranty of 3 years" but the route you've taken is much more tortured.
> If jigs are required, they must at least fully describe the jig so that people can make their own, if required.
Sure thing. Setting aside the fact that jigs can also constitute trade secrets, here is your jig:
* Here is the CAD for the jig you need. We built it for 10k USD because of a bulk discount. Bespoke for you it will probably be 25k USD.
* You also need this air compressor to drive it 2k USD.
* You will need this PXI-e from National Instruments 10k USD.
* That PXI-e needs these two DAQ cards 5k USD each.
* I guess I need to supply the software for that too? For free? Again is that actually fair? What if it has trade secrets? But sure, let's say I have to give it to you for free...
* Well it's NI, you need a license to drive all this stuff and to use the modules we have. 5K USD per year.
So now Joe's Corner Mobile Phone repairs can happily repair your 300 USD phone. He just needs that jig which totals 57k USD BOM and 5K per year on going.
But I published it all, he can build it himself.
I have met your requirements.
Jigs shouldn't cost that much you say? Well they can and do (and even more). That's the reality. Are you going to ban them? Regulate them too? It's the equivalent of banning / regulating a compiler (ie absolutely absurd).
> You can use glue as long as it can be removed without damaging the device, and the type of glue is documented and available for purchase.
I already addressed this in my earlier comment. The easily removable glue is crap. But sure here is the glue part number: GLU-123678-JJ Mfg: GOOD-GLUE-GUYS
Btw it's made using a trade secret formula from GOOD-GLUE-GUYS. Do I have to keep it in inventory as well. Or are you going to make GOOD-GLUE-GUYs (who is based outside the US) publish their trade secret formula? We just have the same issue as above. Do I also need to supply to you the special oven for it? Or is the part number enough? (btw that oven weighs 1 ton and is 500k USD, but you got the part number).
> Mandating a level of skill is not necessary. If a repair requires high skill, like desoldering, they can find someone to do that repair, or sell the device to someone willing to do that repair before purchasing a new device. The level of skill required to repair a device will become known, although I'm also not opposed to requiring that be declared up front.
If you don't mandate skill requirements, then a manufacturer will just happily NOT make ANY adjustments to make a thing "more-repairable" whatever that means. Example that meets your legislative requirements:
You need to swap the CPU it's a 0.1mm pitch 2048 ball BGA. Here's the part number. Please note: this is a stacked design where the RAM chip (also 2048 balls) is soldered ON TOP of the physical CPU. The practical reality is that few humans on Earth, with very expensive equipment can do this. Joe's Corner Mobile Repairs is not one of them. The reality in manufacturing is that this faulty board would be binned because cost+time+risk means it's not worth it.
If it was mega expensive then a fix maybe attempted, either using a very highly skilled technician and an xray afterwards to verify OR the tech removes the part and you run it through the 1-10million USD SMT line with a special program and IF you are very confident in your process engineering you might decide you don't need to xray it.
All that said, I have met your requirements as stated in your proposed legislation, but it is of no practical use to you.
Perhaps we just swap the whole motherboard? Well you didn't legislate that. Say you do somehow (skill requirements perhaps?), now it's 50% of the cost of a new device because the reality is that that's where most of the cost is. Put on top of that labour at a FAIR price to Joe in his corner repair store in the US and it's just not worth it now. A consumer will just buy a new device (without being compensated by the manufacturer).
Please don't misunderstand. I would want something love something like right-to-repair for phones to succeed. I am trying to emphasise that, from an insiders perspective, good warranties are a MUCH better way to achieve most of the same goals.
(apologies in advance for being verbose)
(Please note, I am intentionally using the voice of "the cynical manufacturer", it will sound aggressive, but it is not meant to be aggressive to the poster. I am trying to show how you CANNOT give them even an INCH and right to repair legislation for something like a phone gives too many inches.)
To answer your points:
> "Everything required to replace or repair parts of the device should be fully, clearly and publicly documented, including all discrete part numbers, tools, jigs, etc. Any parts that are manufactured only by the device's manufacturer under patent protection or trade secret must be available for purchase."
No problem:
* Here is a part number: XXX-12345678-FF. It's for a part purchased from a 2nd tier supplier in Taiwan and it's one of a kind. It is now end of life btw so you can't actually purchase it. By the letter of the law, I have met your requirement. Spirit of the law? Well maybe not. Either way, see you in court if you don't like it (and who's going to litigate? the consumer? the government?)
* Did you mean that it should still be purchasable? Well you didn't include that in your legislation but say you do somehow. Now I argue: Don't worry, there's grey market seller in Hong Kong who'll sell them to you for $100 each (original cost was $1 with MOQ 10,000 btw). I have met your requirements.
Still not what you meant I assume? Maybe we legislate: "The manufacturer has to hold enough inventory to supply parts for repairs" Sure ok. Who's paying for keeping this in inventory? Can I on-charge that to the buyer of said spare part? If not, well I guess the phone is going to cost more now because I need to recover that cost. (Bigger warehouses are not free. I also don't keep my own stock, my Contract Manufacturer (CM) in Taiwan does that for me and they'll be charging a fee). Also you didn't specify how long I have to keep this for. I think 1 year + 1 day is fair. Don't like that? See you in court again.
Maybe you now you also legislate "for the reasonable expected life of the product". What's that? I think still it's 1 year + 1 day. See you in court again if you don't like it.
Fine! let's legislate: "... for at least 3 years". Oh I'm sorry, there was an unforseen problem and we went through our inventory-for-repair much faster than expected. There's none left and nobody makes this part anymore. Nobody makes an equivalent either. What now? I hope the customer is entitled to a refund, but (again) you don't have that in your right-to-repair legislation ...
Let's torture this even more: "if for unforseen circumstances manufacturer can no longer supply spare parts, customer will be entitled to a full refund" ...
This sounds awfully like "full repair/replacement warranty of 3 years" but the route you've taken is much more tortured.
> If jigs are required, they must at least fully describe the jig so that people can make their own, if required. Sure thing. Setting aside the fact that jigs can also constitute trade secrets, here is your jig:
* Here is the CAD for the jig you need. We built it for 10k USD because of a bulk discount. Bespoke for you it will probably be 25k USD.
* You also need this air compressor to drive it 2k USD.
* You will need this PXI-e from National Instruments 10k USD.
* That PXI-e needs these two DAQ cards 5k USD each.
* I guess I need to supply the software for that too? For free? Again is that actually fair? What if it has trade secrets? But sure, let's say I have to give it to you for free...
* Well it's NI, you need a license to drive all this stuff and to use the modules we have. 5K USD per year.
So now Joe's Corner Mobile Phone repairs can happily repair your 300 USD phone. He just needs that jig which totals 57k USD BOM and 5K per year on going. But I published it all, he can build it himself. I have met your requirements.
Jigs shouldn't cost that much you say? Well they can and do (and even more). That's the reality. Are you going to ban them? Regulate them too? It's the equivalent of banning / regulating a compiler (ie absolutely absurd).
> You can use glue as long as it can be removed without damaging the device, and the type of glue is documented and available for purchase. I already addressed this in my earlier comment. The easily removable glue is crap. But sure here is the glue part number: GLU-123678-JJ Mfg: GOOD-GLUE-GUYS Btw it's made using a trade secret formula from GOOD-GLUE-GUYS. Do I have to keep it in inventory as well. Or are you going to make GOOD-GLUE-GUYs (who is based outside the US) publish their trade secret formula? We just have the same issue as above. Do I also need to supply to you the special oven for it? Or is the part number enough? (btw that oven weighs 1 ton and is 500k USD, but you got the part number).
> Mandating a level of skill is not necessary. If a repair requires high skill, like desoldering, they can find someone to do that repair, or sell the device to someone willing to do that repair before purchasing a new device. The level of skill required to repair a device will become known, although I'm also not opposed to requiring that be declared up front. If you don't mandate skill requirements, then a manufacturer will just happily NOT make ANY adjustments to make a thing "more-repairable" whatever that means. Example that meets your legislative requirements:
You need to swap the CPU it's a 0.1mm pitch 2048 ball BGA. Here's the part number. Please note: this is a stacked design where the RAM chip (also 2048 balls) is soldered ON TOP of the physical CPU. The practical reality is that few humans on Earth, with very expensive equipment can do this. Joe's Corner Mobile Repairs is not one of them. The reality in manufacturing is that this faulty board would be binned because cost+time+risk means it's not worth it. If it was mega expensive then a fix maybe attempted, either using a very highly skilled technician and an xray afterwards to verify OR the tech removes the part and you run it through the 1-10million USD SMT line with a special program and IF you are very confident in your process engineering you might decide you don't need to xray it. All that said, I have met your requirements as stated in your proposed legislation, but it is of no practical use to you. Perhaps we just swap the whole motherboard? Well you didn't legislate that. Say you do somehow (skill requirements perhaps?), now it's 50% of the cost of a new device because the reality is that that's where most of the cost is. Put on top of that labour at a FAIR price to Joe in his corner repair store in the US and it's just not worth it now. A consumer will just buy a new device (without being compensated by the manufacturer).
Edits: Formatting