This message is in MIME format.
Adrian, et alia:
Rare it is that I post to this list, but I feel that the comments
posted here within impel me to speak up.
It is instructive that the very same argument was applied to those
that felt the entire open source movement would destroy and wipe out
software companies. Yet, companies like RedHat who sell ZERO closed
source software were able to be purchased by IBM for $34B dollars,
SuSE changed hands several times, and all were profitable companies.
Moreover, whence a product stands to be a superlative product as do
Macs, iPhones, Androids, they are able to be sold successfully
(Android OS is entirely open source).
Making service manuals and schematics available to customers so they
can repair their own products or hire someone other than authorized
dealers to do so is surely a good thing for the market. In fact, the
entire PC industry is based on openly available reference
specifications from Intel on how to build a "PC", and this has not cut
into Dell's, Lenovo's, or anyone else's profits.
Very Respectfully,
Stuart
Quoting: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <
glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
On 6/10/21 2:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
The report and its recommendations may provide a means
to pierce the veil of closed platforms, like closed-sourced firmware.
It seems unlikely to me that we will ever see a "Right to Repair" for
software, firmware or gateware.
So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software companies but not the IP of hardware companies?
What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual property.
Why should any company take the risk of investment for new hardware developments
when they have to fear that every other company in the world will
get free access
to their blue prints?
The claim that hardware companies intentionally make it hard to
repair consumer
products is a conspiracy theory. In reality, a consumer product is
primarily optimized
for production costs which implies cheap capacitors or cases that
are glued together.
Lots of consumers seem to forget that a product sold into the market
not only must
cover the material costs but also the costs of engineering,
marketing, customer
support, customs, compliance tests and so on. And in the end, you
still want there
to be a small profit left which is what makes the whole business
model viable in
the first place.
If law initiatives also now want to take away the exclusive rights
of hardware designers
over their blueprints and hence the market advantage over
competitors that they took an
investment risk for, companies will lose the incentive to design and
develop new
products.
Companies aren't charities so in the end they must protect their
investments and have to
make profits to survive.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de `-
GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Very Respectfully,
Stuart Blake Tener, BScCS, N3GWG (Extra), MROP
Computer Scientist / FCC Licensed Radio Operator
Las Vegas, NV / Philadelphia, PA
(310) 358-0202 Mobile Phone
(215) 338-6005 Google Voice
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body style="font-family:Arial;font-size:14px"><p>
Adrian, et alia:<br>
<br>
Rare it is that I post to this list, but I feel that the comments posted here within impel me to speak up.<br>
<br>
It is instructive that the very same argument was applied to those that felt the entire open source movement would destroy and wipe out software companies. Yet, companies like RedHat who sell ZERO closed source software were able to be purchased by IBM
for $34B dollars, SuSE changed hands several times, and all were profitable companies. Moreover, whence a product stands to be a superlative product as do Macs, iPhones, Androids, they are able to be sold successfully (Android OS is entirely open source).
<br>
Making service manuals and schematics available to customers so they can repair their own products or hire someone other than authorized dealers to do so is surely a good thing for the market. In fact, the entire PC industry is based on openly available
reference specifications from Intel on how to build a "PC", and this has not cut into Dell's, Lenovo's, or anyone else's profits.<br>
<br>
<br>
Very Respectfully,<br>
<br>
Stuart<br>
<br>
<br>
Quoting: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <<a href="mailto:
glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de">
glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de</a>></p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid blue;margin-left:2px;padding-left:12px;" type="cite">
On 6/10/21 2:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid blue;margin-left:2px;padding-left:12px;" type="cite">
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid blue;margin-left:2px;padding-left:12px;" type="cite">
The report and its recommendations may provide a means<br>
to pierce the veil of closed platforms, like closed-sourced firmware.</blockquote>
It seems unlikely to me that we will ever see a "Right to Repair" for<br>
software, firmware or gateware.</blockquote>
So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software companies<br>
but not the IP of hardware companies?<br>
<br>
What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an<br>
initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual<br>
property.<br>
<br>
Why should any company take the risk of investment for new hardware developments<br>
when they have to fear that every other company in the world will get free access<br>
to their blue prints?<br>
<br>
The claim that hardware companies intentionally make it hard to repair consumer<br>
products is a conspiracy theory. In reality, a consumer product is primarily optimized<br>
for production costs which implies cheap capacitors or cases that are glued together.<br>
<br>
Lots of consumers seem to forget that a product sold into the market not only must<br>
cover the material costs but also the costs of engineering, marketing, customer<br>
support, customs, compliance tests and so on. And in the end, you still want there<br>
to be a small profit left which is what makes the whole business model viable in<br>
the first place.<br>
<br>
If law initiatives also now want to take away the exclusive rights of hardware designers<br>
over their blueprints and hence the market advantage over competitors that they took an<br>
investment risk for, companies will lose the incentive to design and develop new<br>
products.<br>
<br>
Companies aren't charities so in the end they must protect their investments and have to<br>
make profits to survive.<br>
<br>
Adrian<br>
<br>
--<br>
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz<br>
: :' : Debian Developer - <a href="mailto:
glaubitz@debian.org">
glaubitz@debian.org</a><br>
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - <a href="mailto:
glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de">
glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de</a> `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913</blockquote>
<div>
Very Respectfully,<br>
<br>
Stuart Blake Tener, BScCS, N3GWG (Extra), MROP<br>
Computer Scientist / FCC Licensed Radio Operator<br>
<br>
Las Vegas, NV / Philadelphia, PA<br>
<br>
(310) 358-0202 Mobile Phone<br>
(215) 338-6005 Google Voice</div></body></html>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)