EU Prepares 'Right To Repair' Legislation To Fight Short Product Lifespans (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The EU is preparing legislation that would legalize a customer's "right to repair," and would force vendors to design products for longer life and easier maintenance, in an effort to combat electronic waste and abusive practices like manufacturers legally preventing users from repairing their devices. The legislation is in its earlier stages of public discussion, but it already has the backing of several EU Members of Parliament, along with support from organizations like Greenpeace.

Currently, in the US only eleven states have similar laws, and they have been adopted after years of public discussions, and only for certain markets, and not for all types of products. It is unclear what leverage the EU will use to force manufacturers to produce longer lasting products, as this would mean lesser profits for big businesses, who often used tactics such as software DRMs, warranty contract lock-ins, and soldering components together, just to avoid users repairing products on their own.

Comments

Re:Damming the flood/whack a mole

[Gravis Zero]

I cannot help but wonder - since the whole planet agrees on the basic principles of free market capitalism...

You have made a very incorrect assumption.

Re:Wonderful

[thegarbz]

Oh please, melodrama much?

For once the EU actually does something to the benefit of the average Joe, but rest assured you find some dimwit to complain about it.

To be fair you would kind of expect "Vinegar Joe" to complain when Average Joe is the one who gets the benefit.

How it worked for longer warrenty

[houghi]

When I worked at a major electronic company in Belgium, the warranty period went from 1 to 2 years. We also sold extended warranties and that made a nice sum. When we went from 1 to 2 years, that would mean the following:
1) More repairs done during the warranty period
2) Less sales in warranties as people will think 2 years might be enough.
So I asked the CEO if this was a burden and he said no. The reason as that we knew exactly how much it would cost and the price was adapted accordingly (I believe an increase of 1% or less).

So what will happen is that the prices will slightly go up, so the companies will need to make up in loss for a tiny bit. Not even enough to really notice. If this means I get a better product that can be used for longer, I have no problem that the government "forces" me to pay a bit more.

It is a bit like paying extra for a red triangle in your car. It is a small extra cost required by law to have, but in the end it is better, even if I (hopefully) never need to use it.

Re:Not Lean

[DNS-and-BIND]

I've worked with your "lean practices" before. It's not lean, it's cutting to the bone. You wouldn't believe the shit I've seen them go through to save a penny. Add to that the aggressive "F U consumer" attitude. Deliberately making things non-repairable so they the consumer MUST buy a replacement. ZOMG added thickness for screws! What ever shall we do? Everything MUST be as thin as paper because...I don't know why really.

Oh, so devices will cost a few cents more so that we can repair them? Gosh, what a tragedy. Keep our landfills full of toxic e-waste so your lives can be more convenient. F off, polluter.

Re:Damming the flood/whack a mole

[TheRaven64]

In the real world, spectrum would be property and interference would be trespassing, as was being developed in the courts before the government laid claim on the entire spectrum.

Without a government-enforced license, how do you treat spectrum as property? I own all electromagnetic radiation that passes through my land (with no limit on altitude?) and can block anything that I want? How would you ever create a mobile network if that were the case?