link to original reddit post by /u/EuphoricPenguin22
What you are about to read is a version of a paper I wrote as the final essay in my Computer Ethics course. My goal is to argue that added legislation isn't the solution to a problem that starts with legislation (IP law). While I bring up active competition in several areas, I'm sure you can name sectors where proper competition is inadequate. I would counter that elimination of IP law and relaxing of prohibitive legislation would lower the barrier of entry significantly for new competition to enter the marketplace. With that said, I still believe this paper is a decent counterargument to the common statist themes I've seen running amuck in "right to repair" circles.
The Right to Repair Self-Contradiction: Why It Isn’t the Silver Bullet Solution to Planned Obsolescence
"Right to repair" is a movement that has, in recent years, come to the forefront of the debate on regulation in the tech sector. According to Rosa-Aquino (2020), the "right to repair" movement’s goal is to “ . . . require companies to make their parts, tools, and information available to consumers . . . .” Essentially, the goal of right to repair is to impose regulation that will force companies to provide resources aimed at making repair easier for the general public. Phrased this way and "right to repair" starts to seem like something pure in intention and effect. It is, however, not the whole truth.
“ . . . for a given level of compliance cost, a regulation that imposes higher fixed costs has a greater adverse impact on small firms, in both the short-run and the long-run.” (Dole, 2001, p. 8) In a similar fashion to what Dole is writing about, "right to repair" will also have a more considerable impact on small manufacturers. Like Apple or Samsung, large companies have little problem compensating for the increased cost involved with ensuring compliance with the law. Sure, they do not appreciate that they are required to help consumers against their will, but they take it in stride, knowing they are as compliant as humanly possible with the legislation. This is referred to as the “short-run” in economics, which essentially refers to costs in the short term. For a small business that may not have the legal resources of a large company, the time it takes to ensure compliance is a significant hit to their income. This is also reflected in the “long-run,” as small businesses will have to continually ensure they remain compliant if there are any revisions to the law. On top of this, they will have to take time to publish schematics, write documentation, create storefronts for parts, and so forth. A large company will have to deal with the same issues, but the economics of scale provide a significant advantage. This is not even all of the issues that arise with added legislation.
Voluntaryism is, in some contexts, the principle that an entity should be free of interference in carrying out its intent. In an economic sense, this is in line with the laissez-faire school of thought. For the consumer in an unregulated marketplace, this means the freedom to factor in the positive and negative aspects of a purchase and arrive at a decision. For a business in this same marketplace, this means the ability to make decisions in its own best interest. Since businesses are subject entirely to what the consumer decides, serving a customer well serves the business well. One might ask, “Why does it seem like businesses are acting in a way that is damaging to the consumer?” The simple question to this answer is that the average consumer does not see repairability as a concern. The more extensive answer is that consumers frequently value functionality and aesthetics for a given price more than they do much else. It is tempting to think that only large companies produce tech products, but this is not the case.
There is an entire market of smaller companies that cater to individuals who are willing to sacrifice functionality for repairability. Companies like System76 for laptops and desktops or Fairphone for smartphones are making products available in the present that are repairable. Making products harder to repair might make sense for large companies who ride on their laurels, but small companies know that a brand image of trust and honesty is a surefire way to build a dedicated customer base. There is hardly a lack of competition in the repairability department. Proponents of "right to repair" hate that repairable devices require a slight compromise in functionality that falls on the consumer. As the adage says, “You can't have your cake and eat it too.”
As mentioned previously, companies act in their own best interest. Everything they produce is produced with the intent of maximizing profit. Of course, producing products that consumers will actually purchase is another question. According to Kenton (2019), planned obsolescence is “ . . . a strategy of deliberately ensuring that the current version of a given product will become out of date or useless within a known period.” This is, unsurprisingly, a legitimate concern. Many products have been weakened in ways that make them in need of replacement. However, consumers still bought them regardless. People found that they valued the convenience and availability of the product over any reduction in durability. For the dedicated few who find it annoying, products exist to cater to their specific needs. This is another reason why the "right to repair" movement fails to properly acknowledge how the free market works: competition is alive and well in these sectors. Most of what we consider monopolies in modern culture would not have indeed been the monopolies they were if the free market was less regulated (in regards to intellectual property).
In conclusion, the idea of "right to repair" is a noble one, albeit with a questionable solution. Adding more regulation to solve a problem that only the government has made worse is a deplorable idea. If we want to solve the problems of planned obsolescence, we first should consider the damage that added legislation would cause. It is paramount that we as a people consider the consequences of the smallest bill. Enacting one more law, even something as "simple" as "right to repair", might not be so simple at all.
References:
Dole, D. (2001). (working paper). Measuring the Impact of Regulation on Small Firms (pp. 8–8). Washington, DC: EPA.
Kenton, W. (2019, June 4). Inside Planned Obsolescence. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/planned_obsolescence.asp.
Rosa-Aquino, P. (2020, October 23). Fix, or TOSS? The 'Right to Repair' Movement Gains Ground. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/climate/right-to-repair.html.