Slashdot Mirror

No, what should have applied here was the Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act of 2009 http://righttorepair.org/about/default.aspx, but after several years of fighting the bill the automakers finally killed it last year by agreeing to allow independent repair shops access to the necessary information http://www.autonews.com/article/20140125/RETAIL05/301279936/automakers-agree-to-right-to-repair-deal.

This deal allowed them to continue to withhold the information from car owners and shade tree mechanics, since they can (and do) put up process hoops to make repair shops prove they are a commercial enterprise.

I'm with you, but with a narrower interpretation- document the internal integration interfaces, to enable Independent repair of buggy parts. It's like automobile manufacturers being forced to cooperate with aftermarket car part manufacturers (see http://www.righttorepair.org/a... ), especially when the automobile manufacturer stops making the part in question.

Another industry that sharply brings out the need for this is printers -- especially those with microchips that stop third-part ink and toner cartridges working in the printer. What happens when the printer manufactures stops making cartridges for some printer? (reasons could include going out of business).

Remember, a manufacturer, unless obligated by law, does not have to provide anything post-sale unless they've stated that they will.

Would like to watch when car manufacturers (all at the same time, sure) will start to follow NIKON'S policy.

CC.

They already kind of are. You can get more details here, at the Right to Repair coalition:
http://www.righttorepair.org/

Basically, various companies have realized that they can charge dealers exorbitant fees for diagnostic equipment if they make said diagnostics proprietary trade secrets, and then the dealers will have to funnel the costs to the consumer -- which is fine, because the dealers are the only place in town to get the cars repaired at. It's gotten so bad that I've even seen proprietary light bulbs for some vehicles.

"How about my car? My car now has a fancy computer that needs a special adapter and software to interface, is that a walled garden?"

Your car matters when you pay to have it repaired, though "computers" are a plus in general. However not all auto computer functions are required to be disclosed, so a generic code reader won't always solve your problem.

Auto makers would love to "wall off" independent mechanics as well as DIYers:

http://www.righttorepair.org/main/Default.aspx

IAAM. (I Am A Mechanic.)

Is how these updates will be applied:

1) Automatically via some wireless service. Bad idea. I'd hate to even go there.
2) In authorized service centers. This is scary because, the auto manufacturer will be able to warn us from going to non-authorized dealers, saying it's a security issue on top of a quality issue. We've already ran into these kinds of issues. It's come up before here on Slashdot.

Not to be confused with the RightToRepair campaign subject:
http://www.r2rc.eu/
http://www.righttorepair.org/

Understood. Although I believe that this business practice is unethical and possibly illegal. Their plan effectively locks out any competition in Xbox 360 hardware and software. Microsoft has already been fined for similar licensing practices.

So you don't agree with their plan... you could get something else..

I see what you're saying. In a free market we can choose not to buy the system that locks you into buying the vendor's own after-market items and go for the slightly more expensive system without the vendor lock-in. In reality, most will buy the cheaper system without realizing that they have been locked into buying the more expensive add-ons from the same vendor. Competing companies will be forced to lower their prices to stay competitive. But without the extra add-on revenue, they will eventually go under. So in the end, you don't have a choice.

Imagine if car manufacturers tried to pull this same stunt. You buy a Ford because it is the cheapest. But, Ford has designed their car so that it doesn't start unless it is using Ford-licensed tires, which sell for a lot more than competing tires. There is already proposed legislation to stop this type of business practice in the automobile industry. I think that the software industry should be held to the same standards.

There isn't anyone "in cyberspace" -- unless AI has gotten really, really good overnight.

Everyone "in cyberspace" is a real, physical person in an actual country governed by specific laws. The same is true for the websites and services they use. Ultimately they are hosted on physical machines in specific countries, owned by real people and again, subject to the laws of the country(ies) they belong to.

I realize that this isn't central to the argument, but it bugs me every time I see it.

Oh and the whole car analogy argument:

With modern cars you often can't work on the car without the ability to talk to the
car's computer which often has an undocumented interface. The dealer has the tools and correct codes, but you might not.

http://www.righttorepair.org/

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items /3212

They don't need to weld the hood shut.

This is late, but let me push the Right to Repair movement.