> Depends on the details. If this is just about access to tools and parts, good. If it instead dictates that electronics makers are restricted in their choice of technical solutions, bad.
This sounds like you want to create an exemption just for Apple products, so that they don't have to ship standard connectors :-/
In any case, if you put this exemption in then any other "right" is moot: All the manufacturer has to do is make non-standard parts that can't be worked on by anyone else because the chosen technical solution has "trade secrets" in proprietary software that can't be disclosed.
> P.S. It upsets me how the industry has succeeded in redirecting the Right to Repair activism from domains where it is actually bitterly needed (like specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances) to consumer electronics.
Why? If the right to repair applies (and has any teeth in law), the specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances don't get exemptions from it.
This sounds like you want to create an exemption just for Apple products, so that they don't have to ship standard connectors :-/
In any case, if you put this exemption in then any other "right" is moot: All the manufacturer has to do is make non-standard parts that can't be worked on by anyone else because the chosen technical solution has "trade secrets" in proprietary software that can't be disclosed.
> P.S. It upsets me how the industry has succeeded in redirecting the Right to Repair activism from domains where it is actually bitterly needed (like specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances) to consumer electronics.
Why? If the right to repair applies (and has any teeth in law), the specialised equipment, agricultural machinery and home appliances don't get exemptions from it.