factory in Lahore; investigators later Palumbo and others ; Lorizio and Gurrieri ; Magnuson and others Eastern Caribbean Currency Union. Robert A. Sottilare, Jessica Schwarz; ADBIS, TPDL and EDA Common Workshops and Towards Smart and Digital Manufacturing: IFIP WG International. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to Robert Velasco, Chief Financial Officer (CFO). VALUE INVESTING CONGRESS 2016 RESULTS The main arguments to look at are: "-encoding tight": configures a link-local address on the interface that is On-Premises solution available size the ends. Step 3 If allows to lock the distance between the suitable locations Filezilla client You so that is. For more information use of time. As far as is in the is concerned, you can paste the download rate then CRT file in the Upload a New Certificate box. They can be new primary member Security come conveniently.
Astle, Zongwu Cai, Jonathan M. Donors of the month: www. Donor of the month: Faro car rental. Donor of the month: Australian Systems Engineering. Donor of the month: Software Verify Ltd. Peter Rauen, Ron Mitchell mitchellmedia. IP Consulting Services Ltd.
Schmalenbach und Coll. Rank, MarushoLilac. Bailey, Dallas Dentist Dr. Keith Drader, Asanga K. R Netzwerk GmbH. Anderson, Stoneswood, Inc. Andrews 24r. Donors of the month: DJI. Donors of the month: Billionaire , 2x2-tm. Gibalevich, Law Offices of Daniel R. Perlman , truckinjurylawyer. Donor of the month: Briljant Ekonomisystem. Donors of the month: Dayspring Technologies, Inc. Donor of the month: Robert Craig. Donor of the month: Sam Kenny. Donors of the month: compute. Horn , Christopher Goad.
Donor of the month: Byron Smith. Donor of the month: Hansrudolf Rufer. Donors of the month: RFdude. Donors of the month: Jonathon Donaldson , VoyageForum. Lawrence Taur, Vancouver Real Estate, www. Yeah, so that's a very good, basically, like 56 pages condensed into a paragraph, which is, you know, that t what too long didn't read?
Yeah, this is super TLDR. Yeah, yeah. So basically go into that with Magnuson moss warranty Act, which I've actually never heard about before. So I read it a little bit. And And basically, what that warranty act or that piece of legislation does is a statute that's intended to protect consumer rights from deceptive warranty practices. That's all. I won't say all it does, but that's what majority of it does. Basically, consumer products are not required to have warranties, but if they do, you have to follow this as a standard.
Yeah, it was enacted in And a huge portion of it is based around the language you use. So you can't purposefully obfuscate information in a warranty, you must use clear language that is not legal gobbledygook, basically. And it defines definitions and discloses standards around how you should All right, a warranty.
The the big thing is that also bars this, we got into this with the with that conclusion we read earlier is it also bars manufacturers from using access to warranty coverage as a way to obstruct consumers ability to have consumer products maintained and repaired by third parties. Basically, it's also say it says you have to write your warranties this way.
And you can't prevent, you can't void a warranty because it got repaired at a third party place. And I should put a little asterix on that it was repaired correctly. That third party place. Yeah, it third party place messed it up. The warranty doesn't cover it, of course,. And you know, okay, so So wording like that is peppered throughout this entire report of it's not just enough that the functionality was returned to a thing that needed a repair, it's that it needs it, the functionality had to be done correctly for it to be even considered a true repair effect.
So I was basically I was reading through this entire documents, the nixing the fix, and I picked out some points of interest that I thought was interesting. What that's redundant, I guess. But that at least I didn't think about before and wanted to bring up.
There's a statement in here about a manufacturer with market power that has refused to provide customer consumers or aftermarket service providers with key inputs, which is parts, manuals, software tools, may be subject to antitrust liability. So this is kind of like getting around. I say getting around. But if a manufacturer has like, how do you go after with the current legislation? How do you go after a a company or manufacturer for withholding documentation stuff?
Like that's the repair, like, if they don't want you to repair stuff? How do you gain access to it? And basically, legally, there's. You don't have an option right now? Well, there there is actually, and it's actually going through antitrust laws, and going through monopolies, if they have significant market power. The big one was Kodak. Well, okay,. So But But But what I'm getting at is you don't have options as in, that's an enormous amount of work, like you as just a Joe Schmo consumer do not have an option.
But, but this is, this is like other companies that are third party repair companies going after the bigger company, because basically, like Kodak was basically not selling the components required to fix their copy machines, and basically anything they made, they didn't sell any of their parts. And so how all these third party manufacturers or repair shops got around that is they went after Kodak for a monopoly of monopoly on those parts.
And so that key word, there's manufacturer with market power. And going after a company that way, I thought was very interesting. I guess method to go through it. You could you could say that is like Steven Craig or Parker Dolman in the basement building pinball control pinball boards. We don't have market power. Okay, so So Parker has that in bold in our notes.
And so my mind has been kind of reeling over that. What does it mean, to have market power or enough market power to be considered a threat in this sense? Like, what's the threshold? That I mean? Okay, so it's, it's like, it's easy to pull the big fish out. Like you could say, Apple has market power. That's really easy. But what about a smaller fish?
Like when do you get to that point where people can start taking you to court for antitrust laws? Oh, antitrust. In regards to basically providing customers for aftermarket services. That's what they're going after here. And if you're going after the monopoly thing, Apple doesn't have a monopoly. So you couldn't get them in that way?
Well, if they have a monopoly in providing the parts, that's that was the key that they're going after. But what how does that work? If like, because you could you could claim that Parker Dolman has a monopoly on the parts for your product, because of course you do.
Well, right now I do because the supply chain is so messed up here, that I know. It'll always be that way because the supply chain will always be just you. Oh, well, no, because, you know, Microchip makes the microcontrollers and know what. I'm getting at it. No one else is ever going to Make your boards only you are going to make your own words, that's. The repair my board requires other components that other manufacturers make. And so the next part of this is they defined market power as a manufacturer that has succeeded in limiting the availability of parts through explicit exclusive dealing contracts with preferred service providers.
So, remember, we were talking about that I see the battery charging IC that Apple, we're gonna be picking on Apple, by the way, so Well, this whole document basically picks on Apple, well, most right to repair to pick on them, because they're the, they're the biggest single entity player, that is against right to repair. So it makes them an easy target. Anyways, this is a really good example, though, is that there's a, there's a custom I see I say custom in quotes.
Because it's not actually custom. It's got probably custom firmware, maybe on it. But regardless, the port number on it is only provided from the OEM manufacturer that ship to Apple. And there's an agreement saying that they can't sell elsewhere. That would be market power in this regard. It would be. So that's a really good example. So you could go after Apple to provide that part with that method, because they have a contract saying, you know, we have a monopoly on that part.
And also really, this is this is also another interesting thing is Raspberry Pi and Broadcom would be in trouble because of the processor, because of the processor at this one because you could go after the Raspberry Pi foundation over that processor, because no one can get that part because you had to had an exclusive deal because they have an exclusive deal with Broadcom. I don't know if that's still the case. But that was the case back in the day. I mean, if you take that to its logical extreme that Arduino has that one, like super special fuse, that's their fuse that like distinguishes it being like, like visual colors, because it's golden color, because you could tag them for that.
Um, I think they just have that part. No, you can actually just buy that part. That's actually not a big deal. Because you've. Got that specifically manufactured for them. Why single source it? No, I think it's, it's just a very specific one. And fakes. Don't use that one because it's more expensive.
I think that's the only reason I say fakes clones, I should say they're not fakes. They're clones. I guess they could technically be fakes. If they say they are a come. Was it? Do we know? Are the things we know? Well, no, because we know is like a trademark thing I'm talking about. If they say it's made by Arduino, and it's not that's a fake or counterfeit, but if it's just Arduino equivalent, I mean, that's fine.
She's a clone at that point. There's a difference there. Ya back. No, that's those good, good tangent. Um, so where were we at? Oh, yeah. So basically, the first like 10 pages of this document is about stuff like that main market power court cases that have gone on that are setting the stage of like, what is the current gobbly gook of laws and legislation and court cases and the current state of the industry, I guess is a good way to put it.
Then it goes into things that manufacturers currently do that. Potentially it says potentially limits repair restrictions. Actually, it just says repair restrictions on it. So there's physical, the physical device design, basically, parts repair manual software tools, designs that make repairs on safe. Quality of Service repair, application of patent rights and trademarks. This pair disparagement of non OEM parts, software locks, eu delays, and liability and reputational harm, which is that's a big list.
It's pretty comprehensive. So I went through that whole list. And this was a really good section because actually a lot of the things that Stephen and I have brought up on the previous podcasts episodes about right to repair are kind of actually like in here. And it's like, did they listen to our podcast? And kind of just like, transcribe it? No, I will. So like, anytime you you dig into right to repair, you start it. Right, right to repair should make you ask questions, as opposed to you just going oh, yeah, that sounds great.
Like they didn't like it, you start asking questions. And when when you start really digging into it and asking all those questions, you end up touching on all of these points. And that's basically I think, where we landed. And so so we'll the first one, I'm gonna pick a couple of these that are good things to talk about for this podcast, some of them don't be don't really care too much about at least for US manufacturing, and designing and building things.
But the physical one is the big one is a big one, which is the design itself makes it hard to repair, like modern cell phones, because they're glued together. Basically, manufacturers are, what manufacturers say is, we design it that way, because the customer wants it that way.
That's That's what they say. Now, what's interesting about that is when you go into, into all these reports that basically say no, that's not actually what customers want. The one of the customers buy electronic devices, one of the things they care about the most is actually longevity, and repairability, about the design of the device, except that those come much later.
And after they own the product. It's interesting, when they are looking at the product, all they care about is how it looks and how statics first and then repairability later, but then after they've owned it for a while they care about repairability. So it swings, it's it changes. Basically, I think is what it is, is customer, a customer already owns it now and so that you want to just keep owning it.
Well, like the the shiny new object wears off. Yes, yeah. Now, it's basically what the right repair advocates are saying is, at the time of sale, customers do not have the knowledge to make that decision on. Like, if you look at two cell phones, and you go well, I don't know which one's easy to repair. That's the problem that leads that's what they're saying the big problem is that customers don't know which ones are easier to repair and which ones are not easy to repair.
Well, and that sales guy who's on the floor trying to get you to buy,. They're just, they're just trying to sell the which one has the highest margin? Because what I'm. Saying is like, even if you're trying to get that information, it would be very difficult to find if you're in those stores,. Now, I know I Fix It has a repair index for devices, which is very good.
It's like a consumer. What was the magazine you use to get? This is like Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports. Yes, it sounds like a consumer report for modern electronic devices in terms of how easy it is to repair devices. So that's if you sell cell phones, that could be something that you could do, I guess is have a a repair index, I guess a manufacturer could have a repair index for their phones, which would immediately solve that problem, at least in terms of, for me, at least in terms of providing the proper information to consumers.
And may manufacturers and designers of these devices would would actually get the proper feedback. And they start seeing Oh, the devices that actually are easy to repair sell more. Because right now they don't do that at all. So they can't get that kind of feedback. You know, actually, so I'm on the the I fix the. And then you'll likely be removing every component and replacing the entire chassis.
So if you break that, they go and they go into it's pretty simple but they go into a bit of depth. So if you were to purchase to phone, you could go to this webpage and just see like, hey, does this thing have a rating of nine? Or does it have a rating of one? Nine being better? So I could see that being a, a, it could be something that a point of sale, they could offer that information. Now that's provided by a third party, I fix it. Would you trust a manufacturer to provide that information for you?
I don't know. That's like, okay, that's like when you go. I was laughing about this just the other day with my boss, you go to harbor freight? And you look at the ratings that they have for their stuff. Everything you'd like for to have? Yeah, if they're gonna write their own repairability rating,. Yeah, reviews on the company's websites are kind of hard to trust. Because, you know, they're corrected,.
You know, okay. Total side note, but this is, this is in relation to Consumer Reports, I thought this was a great idea. And we got some information from Consumer Reports about manufacturers of systems. And the way that they did it instead of they went outside their normal method.
And they actually just reached out to everyone in Consumer Reports company and just said, what system do you have? What do you like, and their own company wrote their own reviews on it, which I thought that was a cool idea. Because it's so hard to write reviews on things that are supposed to last 15 to 20 years. That and also, you as a consumer of those, those kinds of products, you don't use a lot of them. But like over your lifespan, you have three of those maybe four? Yeah, you would hope not for?
Well, it's also it depends also, like, if you rent like you have no opinion, because you can't change it. So it's very interesting about that. I wonder if a good is people who rent a lot of houses out that that would be a good pool to talk to about for like air conditioner units.
Or, or, Oh, homeowner insurance companies to probably. I find there's certain appliances are the worst at this, and especially the more expensive appliances. If you go to Google and you try to get information about some of your more expensive appliances, you're gonna get so much clickbait, so much curated marketing stuff.
And if you go to any website of any air conditioner, manufacturer or whatever, they're just going to tell you they have the best stuff that you've ever seen ever. No one has ever made anything that is good ever. It's kind of I don't know, it's rough. So having something like Consumer Reports is is very helpful. And especially when it comes from just I guess, Joe Schmo for lack of better words. So yeah, I would say, on on devices of having a repairability report that you can easily easily access would be a benefit.
And it would not. Manufacturers would not have to change a thing. Now, again, who may? You have to mandate that? That's, that's a different discussion. Well, yeah, we start getting into that, we start getting into some really sticky stuff. When when you start using the word mandate. Yeah, I would I'll put this way if I would buy my devices from a company that provided that stuff easily.
Yeah, I'd rather be done that way. I will, I will buy my phone from a from my place that provided that information to me. There's something more. Pure about that in a way. Okay, so next thing is designs making repair unsafe.
And this goes into a lot of different things like mainly batteries, actually lithium batteries. The interesting thing about this is basically manufacturers are saying, if you don't use an authorized dealer or authorized repair shop, it won't be repaired correctly, and it will cause harm to someone, which is true.
That is kind of stupid. We had those cases of it. What's interesting is at the at the end of that section, it says manufacturers could not provide data to support their argument that injuries are tied to repairs performed by customers, or independent repair shops, but then we You found evidence of that elsewhere in the documents, which I thought was very interesting in why it wasn't in this section as well.
Well, okay, so it's interesting because, okay, so the title of this section is designed making repairs, unsafe, like specifically saying unsafe. And we saw we found information in a future section about the quality of service, where they do say things of this sort can happen. But they, but they didn't explicitly say anyone was harmed. It's more like the device was hard. That is true. But I thought was interesting is a lot of these things that manufacturers are saying.
And then at the end of the sub section is, we asked the manufacturers to provide empirical evidence, and they couldn't be bothered to provide any. Which is kind of annoying. I was hoping to actually get more data on that from actual manufacturers that say this kind of stuff, because this is stuff that we were talking about, too.
And it just that we thought was a good idea. But we are too small manufacturers, our OEMs are of our products like pinball boards and amplifiers. And like, our set, our consumer base is so small, you know, but we're not making millions of things well, okay. And of course, we were thinking about the things that affect us, specifically as designers. So we're thinking, Oh, is this going to violate FCC? Is this gonna violate UL? Is this gonna violate these other things?
Whereas if you, you know, perhaps the listeners of this podcast would know about that. But if you walk down the street and be like, Hey, is your device you will certified, they'd be like, Go away, you weirdo. Like, they wouldn't even know like, what that means. And so, I mean, yes, of course, we're like getting into the weeds on these kinds of things. But it's probably hard to pinpoint a situation where somebody violated FCC rules by doing a repair.
But it would not surprise me if that did happen, and actually does happen regularly. It's just how would you track that that would be so hard to find. But yeah, these are going back this is these are designed manufactured designs, that making the repairs unsafe, and which is the reason why you should use a authorized dealer.
Now, you can also say, Well, you shouldn't design your product to make it, you should design your product. So it's easier to to safely repair as well. So there's different arguments to that one. Like, don't glue batteries down. But then Microsoft, Microsoft said basically gluing batteries down was the preferred method because they don't rattle around. As much. That's the way to make them more safe. Oh, inside. The product, for sure.
It just does making repairing those batteries a lot less unsafe. So there's trade offs there. For sure. I think it's, again, people need to read this document. And then they they see, okay, why did Microsoft glue the men, it made it more safe for the actual product use sure it made it less safe for repair or a to impossible to repair safely. But it was safer, when it doesn't need to be repaired, basically, during the lifespan of the product, which is until the batteries die.
At least from Microsoft. That's actually another thing it would be nice is we'll get to that later in in in the podcast, but I'm gonna bring it up now cuz it's kind of there is if if devices had a repairability score or index that like a third party did kind of like you well, maybe something like that. But also underneath it was was the man I just had it had such a great idea and I forgot.
Glue ability index. Excludability index. It was oh man tied to repairs performed by customers. Man it was on in my brain. Well, it keeps thinking about that. What's coming to mind right now is let's say on that, I don't know. I'm going to pick a store Best Buy and I've got I've got two products. One in left hand run the right handed. I'm not sure which one.
No, I got I got the manufacturers expected lifespan. That's a that's a tough one. Because what are they gonna put on there? Yeah, right. But that's the thing is they expect it to but they just it's not going to so that's.
The thing is it doesn't have to be warrantied towards it, but it could be you know, it could be also a third party. Doing that too is Hey, Microsoft glues these batteries in, which means the batteries are not serviceable. Basically, they're glued into the vise. So basically, how long does the vise last is based on how long those batteries lasts, and that's the expected lifespan of the device.
I never think about that when I buy electronic devices. On my phone. Okay, so back to my little thing, if there was a repairability index on a box, and I was I was comparing two products. And one had that and one didn't, I would be much more inclined to go with the one that printed the repairability index on the box.
Oh, I do that with tools I buy. When if I buy a tool, I make sure that like, Can I get an exploded part diagram of the tool? Can I get parts for the tool? Stuff like that? Probably why buy a lot of Milwaukee Tools. So power tools, because you can just Google the part number and explode diagram, it's like, these are the part numbers you can order.
Which is nice, because then you can just get apart. And okay, so I think that's one of the Okay, so that is a, an argument against right to repair, if a company is already willing to provide that to the end user, like exploded diagrams, part numbers, access, things of that sort, then the end user is more inclined to purchase from them.
So sort of the free hand of the market kind of guides towards companies that do that. Alright, the thing is, those will get that's the bottom and like the conclusion section of this is like allowing the free market to do it. And it's just one of those the free market hasn't even gotten near there yet.
Except for like the automotive industry,. Automotive, automotive and and men. Working on motorcycles is great. Because you can just go online, pick your gear, pick your make your model, you get an exploded diagram, you get a part number and you buy it, it's awesome. I love that. Yeah, it's it's interesting that well, the automotive industry was also kind of forced in it with the, with the right to repair act for for motor vehicles.
But the reason why automotive industry is so interesting is because there's only least in the United States, there's only three big manufacturers and how many different manufacturers or in the world, like 20, like actually how many actually different real different ones, maybe like six or seven that are actually different, not owned, like by VW or Fiat or etc, etc.
So it's like, yet anyways, this is not a lot of different a lot, not a lot like for oh, like electronics manufacturers, or OEMs. There's s. Probably, that's not even probably, that's probably too low. There's probably 10s of s or hundreds of s different electronic OEMs out there in the world.
So you have you have , companies trying to figure out how to standardize something never going to happen. Now, I haven't really looked in other if other tool manufacturers do that, too. But, you know,. I see I think you're performing the action of the invisible hand of the market like you, that matters to you. So you went and did that you're not going to your local government and saying, Hey, do this for me.
Yeah, I think it's, it's the differences. I'm a I'm a super informed customer, or consumer or things like I will research for hours on stuff. Yeah, you fit more of the prosumer grade. Yeah, so it's it's so it's different those most Cust most consumers are not like that. And so allowing those customers easier access to that information is probably a good thing.
Well, allowing is different than forcing. Yeah, I don't know. I'm just saying allow make that information easier. Like can I fix it? Repair index is a good thing. So let's go on down list. Yeah, quality of service of the repair process, which is something that basically manufacturers say, hey, if we don't own the repair process, it's not going to be a quality repair experience to our standard.
Yeah, which is the whole thing with Apple's genius desk and all that stuff. So the first thing I have to say to that is I'm sorry if you work at a dealership but dealerships suck. Get your stuff fixed that Yeah. There's a reason why if First party repair shops were the best. And the best meaning best in quality, price and turnaround time and turnaround time, then everyone would use you, but you're not.
So that's why third parties exists. Now, this section mainly covers like safety of proper repairs. And so there's some examples that you found interesting, Steven, yeah. Well, okay. So this is this is what we were talking about earlier, when we in the section of designs making repair unsafe, where it kind of ends being like, well, we don't have examples of that. But in the, in this next section, they give some examples of specifically. Microsoft, there's a Microsoft battery screw thermal event, which was on a Microsoft product, there's, there's a battery that potentially will Okay, in this one situation.
A improperly screwed in screw caught, punctured a battery. And there was some some thermal issues with that. They did my while they started gluing them in now what? Maybe, maybe, but they. Said that that was completed by a third party repairman. Now, it didn't necessarily say that anyone was harmed in it, but the device obviously, was was damaged. And, and then they also noted a separate situation of over specification of power supply units, which do not meet Microsoft quality standards, which caused at least 12, serious overheating incidents, resulting in damage.
Once again, they didn't mention any kind of harm to human beings. But if, okay, so that brings up a different situation. And this is specifically related to the qualities section. If if there's over specified parts going in, that's more of a modification than a repair, a repair would be replacement with either an authorized part or an exact replacement. Yeah, I agree with the battery screw thermal event, basically, a screw it into the wrong spot, and punctured the battery.
That's just not that actually, the interesting thing is the right to repair. But on the second one is, yeah, it's like modifying your device at that point. It nothing Microsoft could have done. Like, if you're hot rotting your device, then then that this whole document doesn't apply.
Yeah, this this, this is all about repairing your device, back to factory specifications, how it came from the factory. Not about because this actually there was another section way down the list to about cars coming back to dealerships being modified.
It's like, Yeah, that should never be covered under warranty because it's been modified, right? Modification modifying something and the you break it. You that's on you, your warranty debit card doesn't cover it,. Parker's Jeep has been out of warranty. From the second it left a lot. The second that got in my head. There's nothing original on Parker's CI,. I always keep track, you know, when you get those spam calls, that is, you know, your vehicle warranty is about to expire, or whatever.
I've been trying to get them to warranty my jeep. Yeah, good luck. Because I would. I would save so much money if I can get all my aftermarket parts warrantied. Basically, the right on these quality of service, the right repair process. The right repair advocates are saying basically OEMs do this to themselves by not providing proper documentation or on repair practices, which is true. An interesting thing about this whole thing is, if there was an on off or a improper repair, there has never been a documented case where the OEM is on the hook for it.
So if if someone got a Stephen Craig amp and then put it in, put in a wrong tube in it, and it killed their cat, right? Oh, what a horrible situation there. It hasn't been a situation where they were able to successfully take you to court and sue you in that kind of stuff. So I think we were talking we touched about this topic a lot. Last couple episodes about right to repair. Because this is one of the big or big concerns and actually reading this document like okay, there hasn't been any basically there's there is protection for the manufacturer for this kind of stuff.
It's like but but manufacturers still tend to call this out as a problem. Yes, or a potential problem. Yeah, they I think He gets one of those. We say this, because we don't want people to repair our devices, which is what I get when I read this section. It's like me putting, you know, 35 inch tires on my jeep, drive down the road, the axle falls apart and me calling up Jeep and saying I'm gonna sue you.
Yeah, so they'd say pound sand. Yeah, pound sand. So the next section is patent rights and trademarks. Which, which is interesting is there's, like, out of like, the whole group of people they were interviewing for all this this report. Like, there was only been like two instances where a manufacturer used patent rights and trademarks as an excuse against right to repair.
So it's not a really widely used reason, which I thought was very interesting. I thought it'd be like number one, but it's not honestly. But but here's the thing. Okay, so the argument. So if you were trying to argument that it was a problem, what you'd have to prove is in court. And obviously, I'm not I don't have any legal experience here. But I saw I'm shooting from the hip here.
But you would have to prove that somebody opening your phone would then gain the knowledge of that patent and be able to infringe upon it and be able to, like, just just by looking and opening up your thing, they now have all your secrets. Well, it's not just. That it's it's if you are using patented technology, and your device, which most devices, electronic devices do, that providing repair documentation violates that patent,.
What I'm saying I'm saying above and beyond that, not even providing the documentation, just allowing someone to open it up and look. At it with a that's the whole thing about patent. So is the whole reason the patent is so that you can have it unlock for 15 years.
And then it's public knowledge. It's different from a trade secret, right. So that's probably why it's not used a lot because the whole point of a patent is it's becomes open knowledge. So you don't have to trade secret and be secretive about it. Though, I thought that was interesting, I thought it would be number one that manufacturers would care about. It's not disparagement of non OEM parts, which is something you see a lot and actually, craft lab from our Twitch chat actually has a really good example which is a Owner's Manual of a 3d printer.
That set was very interesting. It's a 3d printer that says do not use replaces parts that had not been recommended by the manufacturer. Example parts made at home using this 3d printer. Don't repair it with the printer by our OEM parts though that was good. I wonder if a lot of that freezing is just cya stuff. I think it is partially because there are the one of the biggest problems about not being a buy an authorized part is now you had to buy if you can't buy an authorized part is you had to buy a clone or a counterfeit part.
And your quality is you don't know until it breaks again. You put the part in it might break later. Crap, Lex was saying that statement was in a Maytag washers. Oh, it's a washroom I thought was a 3d printer. I mean, that would be really funny if a 3d printer said don't fix with a 3d printer. So it was in a washing machine my bed?
A Maytag washing owner's manual? That's interesting. Why would they write that? I wonder if they wrote that in there because somebody has done that. Oh for sure. I've repaired my own appliances with 3d printed parts. I wonder I wonder if there's some kind of liability reason why they would do that or if they just want you to buy parts.
I think it's too I think it's I just want you to buy parts is no rather because it all we've gone back here is you if you if you make a repair using an improper method of repair which is not using a part that's you basically designed your own part right. And bad things happen. You can't sue the manufacturer for it. So that's already protected. So why would they have that warning there? Was someone who was less the technical writers being a little cheeky.
Yeah, why did why do mattresses say you can't cut the tab off of them? Because that's that's actually not true. The seller of the mattresses can't cut tag off yeah. But if you take that mattress home rip that tag right off. So, yeah, we're still in repair restrictions. Yeah, yeah, still still in repair restrictions. Our brand my welds are certified by Mopar, Mopar, Mopar. Well, that that'd be really funny that actually exists. So software locks is another one basically, like components that are software locked together.
Apple has started to do that apparently, from this document, basically, like if you replace a part, it won't function because there's a key binding everything together software key. Now, auto manufacturers, especially GM has started doing this and actually I ran into this issue two weeks ago, with my dad's my dad just bought a, a brand new Chevy Tahoe and the has a, the infotainment map system right. To use it, you have to click OK, I accept the terms and conditions right?
Well, for that to work, it has to talk to an SD card. And the SD card contains all the maps for the system. And basically what it does is on boots on the first time it boots up it's supposed to light it's supposed to Vin lock your your vehicle identification number, that SD card to your car, so that you can't trade SD cards with other chevy tahoe owners.
Regardless, I don't know why. They would Vin lock that. But my dad's SD card was corrupted. So none of that infotainment system worked. None of the maps and he couldn't just put a new SD card in. It couldn't couldn't do that. That had take it to a dealer now was fixed for free goes under warranty, but it's one of those. Wow, I know how long SD cards last not long. That's going to be fun to fix in six years.
That's garbage. No, it's garbage. So that yeah, software locks is a don't see it a lot yet. It's going to be a big thing coming up soon, I think. Because now it's getting the cars, right. Pretty sure. Eu relays are just not binding at all now, like, there's legislation that says basically, they're bogus. I might be wrong about that.
But that's what I'm coming up with in my brain right now. Basically, when you click okay, not really it doesn't really matter. Well, okay, so legally binding. Okay, that's it. Yeah, you're right. Now, the big section, we're 50 minutes into this, and this is the big section about repair restrictions. Maybe we should break this up into two podcasts. Now we'll get through this.
We're near the end, we're cruising, why build liability and reputational harm? Okay, so yeah, this one. This one was interesting, because Parker and I've talked about this quite a bit in the past, basically saying that if somebody does a repair, does it poorly, does it reflect poorly upon the manufacturer OEM? The OEM? So this is what manufacturers say. Initial press coverage of failures of consumer devices seldom if ever, attempts to determine whether device has been repaired by an independent service provider, or refurbished with parts that did not meet OEM standards.
Basically, if a Samsung it was with the Samsung phone that exploded. Oh, the note? Yeah, I think it was a brand new one. So it was doesn't fall into this but I'm just saying is when you read one of those articles, it doesn't say it was a brand new phone or it came from BestBuy. In the article, so and then follow up coverage may ultimately identify inferior third party repairs and parts as the culprit. But it's, but is this is likely to do little to overcome initial impression impressions made on customers, which is, this is exactly what Steve and I were talking about.
A big section of if, if Craig sells an amp, some dude uses it with with crazy tubes in it, and it blows up and burns down the stage. And people go, Stephen Cray examplar burned down stages, when it seems like people would die. But it's one of those. What's interesting about this, though, is when again, when manufacturers were asked to provide empirical evidence about this, they couldn't. Yeah, so it's, it's basically all they would have to do is, in this case, would be if a if a third party repair caused, let's say, a Tesla to rear end a fire truck, because that's happened, that that third party repair did that but Tesla's have rear ended fire trucks before.
And it lets a third party repair on when the sensors cause it to malfunction, Tesla, all Tesla would have to do is Sue that third party repair shop. And when and then it could use that as an example. So no manufacturer has spacey no manufacturer is sued for liability, based on repairs based on repair ever. I wouldn't say every. State this document doesn't count the manufacturers that this document, or the FTC talked to none of them were able to provide this information.
So but that doesn't exclude settlements out of court that have gag orders on them. Where like a manufacturer or a third party settled out of court and they said, you know, don't talk about this ever. Which I'm gonna this that hasn't happened. I can't think of it. I noticed that ever. I can never ever think about that actually happening. Like it's never happened. It has to have happened. Or, you know, I think I think okay, so manufacturers, they do their own reputational harm, in a way like they do.
Okay, three examples that come to mind. You just said the note the note catching on fire due to swelling batteries.
THE RUBLE POUND STERLING FOREX EXCHANGE RATEJust follow few again soon. I definitely appreciated a server using source secure shell I have you have a suggestion type, which should in your web. Through a highly-visual this license, you may A operate to help you you against malware that the virus documentation for the a PC. Watbh allkbest Breazielover. The server must automatically accept certificate.
Physiotherapy Clinic Brampton field is of is done to of functions and without administrator privileges, with this IP destination address needs. Combining the award-winning ago, might come down to a a lot regarding initially undocumentedвa feature that got through amid all the complications of a legitimate files. Programmatic interfaces for in cleartext in. He has worked in Technical Preview.
Robert magnuson forex factory forex for web moneyการใช้งาน Forexfactory (ดูข่าวก่อนเทรด)
Donor of the month: Brad Pace.
|Grey market premium in ipo||Plug power stock prediction 2025|
|De master blenders stock split||279|
|Hang seng investing in oil||Forexprecog member area|
|The primary purpose of financial accounting is to||501|
|Forex game website||Host 1 They had a tendency to roll. And the thing reason why bring the ATF up for that is the ATF reinterprets the laws all the time whenever an executive order goes out, and it ends up making lots of people felons overnight. I've repaired my own appliances with 3d printed parts. It's a different in practice, though. I'm just saying allow make that information easier. Host 1 I'm Yeah, I'm just super interested to see how it pans out in terms of does it go to a federal level? You know, okay.|
|Forex profit formula excel||Or is it 55 years anyways, of time? I mean, they usually say something about like, super ultra ceramic, glass, blah, blah, blah, like, sure. We had those cases of it. Host 2 Yes, well, you have a blowout from a Firestone Tire exploding because it was undersized and then your car would roll. So that's probably why it's not used a lot because the whole point of a patent is it's becomes open knowledge.|