Re: "Right to Repair" vs FRUs

On 10/2/24 19:02, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 07:54:47 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
 

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:43:30 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
>

Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
than that available to their depots?
>
I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
likely never have to make the "particular component"
available to customers?
>
Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
at any level finer than the documented FRUs...

>
It would be cool to be able to buy all of those custom chips.
Especially if one wants to build and sell cheap knockoff products.

 It won't benefit boat-anchor devotees like myself, whatever happens.
Expecting Tek or HP to supply a custom chip for something they sold
30, 40 or more years ago? Not likely at all.

30+ years is a lot expect, but for example,  EU requires that car manufacturers have spare parts and provide technical service for at least 10 years