Design problem, you can modularize these things so they’re easy to repair, consider your average desktop PC. Indeed that’s what your ‘proprietary replacement parts’ are, backed up by DMCA (and world wide equivalents forced by US trade agreements) making reverse engineering them a felony. Problem is there’s no financial incentive compared to getting you to buy another one soon, nor is there competition on this front. Hmm, perhaps a (legal) regulation problem.
Modular is better for repair, but not cheapest to produce or space saving. So, people naturally choose the cheaper, more compact design.
The whole idea of copyright was to prevent people profiting from your design innovations. If the only purpose your design causes is preventing competition, then it should lose protection in my view.
So, for instance making printer ink incompatible with copy protection serves no benefit to the owner. So it should lose protection. There needs to be a balance to protect creatives, but in the rapidly changing age, the time and scope should be dramatically reduced. No technical innovations from 10 years ago need to be protected.
there’s a million better alternatives to the current shitass IP/patent/trademark system but until the US empire finally finishes falling none will come about
While I’m not optimistic, there does seem to be a movement away from protecting US IP since the trump tariffs broke the compact. Lots of media on here about people and companies and government seeking digital sovereignty/independence.
Design problem, you can modularize these things so they’re easy to repair, consider your average desktop PC. Indeed that’s what your ‘proprietary replacement parts’ are, backed up by DMCA (and world wide equivalents forced by US trade agreements) making reverse engineering them a felony. Problem is there’s no financial incentive compared to getting you to buy another one soon, nor is there competition on this front. Hmm, perhaps a (legal) regulation problem.
Modular is better for repair, but not cheapest to produce or space saving. So, people naturally choose the cheaper, more compact design.
The whole idea of copyright was to prevent people profiting from your design innovations. If the only purpose your design causes is preventing competition, then it should lose protection in my view.
So, for instance making printer ink incompatible with copy protection serves no benefit to the owner. So it should lose protection. There needs to be a balance to protect creatives, but in the rapidly changing age, the time and scope should be dramatically reduced. No technical innovations from 10 years ago need to be protected.
there’s a million better alternatives to the current shitass IP/patent/trademark system but until the US empire finally finishes falling none will come about
While I’m not optimistic, there does seem to be a movement away from protecting US IP since the trump tariffs broke the compact. Lots of media on here about people and companies and government seeking digital sovereignty/independence.
So it could chip away gradually.