Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Technology Your Rights Online

Appliance and Tractor Companies Lobby Against Giving the Military the Right to Repair (404media.co) 142

Device manufacturers across multiple industries are lobbying against proposed legislation that would require military contractors to provide the U.S. military with easier access to repair materials and information, according to a document obtained by 404 Media.

The legislation, Section 828 of the Defense Reauthorization Act, aims to address the military's current inability to repair equipment ranging from fighter jets to Navy battleships without relying on contractors. Sen. Elizabeth Warren highlighted the issue in a May hearing, citing examples of how repair restrictions lead to increased costs and operational delays for the Department of Defense.

The lobbying effort extends beyond military contractors to include organizations representing industries such as irrigation equipment, motorcycles, tractors, plumbing, medical devices, and consumer technology. In a letter to lawmakers, these groups argue that the legislation would impose significant burdens on contractors and undermine existing technical data rights statutes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Appliance and Tractor Companies Lobby Against Giving the Military the Right to Repair

Comments Filter:
  • by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @10:20AM (#64743376)

    It used to be the Military-Industrial Complex; but through failing to jerk corporations' leashes hard enough to bring them to heel, the government has allowed it to become the Industrial-Military Complex.

    By this point, anybody who doesn't believe that we live in a corporatocracy has seriously doubled down on double-think.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @11:45AM (#64743794)

        A common technique is to low-bid the equipment and then require an overpriced add-on.

        When I was in the military, we had night vision goggles that required weird 4-volt batteries that wore out in a few hours, cost $30 each, and were only available from the OEM.

        • Yep, 100%, same when I was a soldier, we had so much bumfuck stupid shit like that it made me a very frustrated grunt.
      • by gtall ( 79522 )

        That's because Reagan wanted it that way, and the R's in Congress fell right into line. R's are always against "wasteful" Fed. spending. What they are really saying is you must pay to play and then we'll declare "your" spending not wasteful.

        • by caseih ( 160668 )

          Yeah the republicans' position on spending has always been hypocritical at best. Just this week their presidential candidate announced he was going to create a space national guard. I'm not sure what he thinks this space national guard would do, but you can bet the R's are all jumping to line up behind him on this. Never mind that establishing any branch like this requires budget money. The mind boggles. Going back through the last few decades, the Rs have dramatically increased government spending and

      • it's not the military, congress makes the rules the militaryis following regarding acquisitions. Thats why an Airbus air tanker that was better than the Boeing air tanker was NOT selected, because Congress said so (to ensure further ocntracts to Boeing, even though the site where Boeing is building the new tankers is in MEXICO
    • by Seven Spirals ( 4924941 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @10:42AM (#64743474)
      This one has an easy fix, though. Simply require all government suppliers to expressly support Right to Repair in word and deed and don't buy from one's that don't. They can still lobby and oppose the laws, they just cannot sell a anything to Uncle Sam if they do. That means the day after you hire some dirtbag on K-street, you lose your contracts. That ought to get their attention real fast.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Spot on. Don't allow ANY public agency from buying any of their products. That includes all state and local agencies, including school systems.
      • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @11:57AM (#64743842)

        Simply require all government suppliers to expressly support Right to Repair

        Oh, my sweet summer child, nothing is "simple" about that.

        There are thousands of pages of laws and regulations covering government procurement. Any bureaucratic decision or executive order threatening shareholder value will be in court as soon as the ink dries on the complaint.

        A typical MIC lobbyist has been around for twenty years or more.

        A typical military procurement officer is rotated out every two years and promoted based on projects completed. If the officer kills a project due to cost overruns or shoddy manufacturing, that's considered a failure.

        • Any bureaucratic decision or executive order threatening shareholder value will be in court as soon as the ink dries on the complaint.

          And the lobbyist on charges of "obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception" and high treason.

          Being a lobbyist is surely evidence of attempting to undermine democracy at the very least.

        • Welp, guess we should give up then. We are screwed. Let's just give all our money to the MIC since they have us over a barrel.
          • by ufgrat ( 6245202 )

            Typical extremist. Your "simple" idea was panned due to reality, so you decide the right thing to do is take your toys and go home, because you're incapable of finding a middle ground.

            Unfortunately, you represent about 80% of politics in the US right now-- us or them, no middle ground, no room for compromise.

            You need to be sneakier-- Allow the defense contractors to maintain their lucrative repair franchise, but they get audited on an annual basis, with severe penalties for overcharging, and "correct charg

        • > If the officer kills a project due to cost overruns or shoddy manufacturing, that's considered a failure

          I guess that doesn't apply to defense secretaries [latimes.com].
        • Sooooo many people don't understand your simple and correct statement.
      • This one has an easy fix, though. Simply require all government suppliers to expressly support Right to Repair in word and

        A law telling government contractors what they are and are not allowed to say wouldn't stand up in court.

        • Actually, it could be written into acquisitions law. It would stand up in court, just so long as no unfair advantages are made, and all contractors are held to the same standards.
          • A law telling government contractors what they are and are not allowed to say wouldn't stand up in court.

            Actually, it could be written into acquisitions law. It would stand up in court

            I doubt it would. That would be a law abridging freedom of speech, explicitly in violation of the constitution.

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              There are a lot of laws that Congress has passed abridging business's freedom of speech which the courts have been fine with. From what they have to report to what they're allowed to say in an ad. Used to be how movies and such were censored, call it a business rather then art and ban whatever the censor doesn't like.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @03:13PM (#64744548) Homepage Journal

        Anything the military can't repair in the field isn't fit for purpose.

      • Yep, makes perfect sense. Now sell that to your congressweasel and have them write the law so the military can do exactly that.
    • by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @11:01AM (#64743582)

      It used to be the Military-Industrial Complex; but through failing to jerk corporations' leashes hard enough to bring them to heel, the government has allowed it to become the Industrial-Military Complex.

      By this point, anybody who doesn't believe that we live in a corporatocracy has seriously doubled down on double-think.

      Yah, the obsession some people have with the Military-Industrial Complex is amusing. I know they Military-Industrial Complex is corrupt but Lockheed Martin's gross profit for the twelve months ending June 30, 2024 was $8.466B Google's gross profits for the same period were $188.261B. Which one is the soulless corporate behemoth we should worry about more? Seems to me Google has way more money to spend on renting, leasing, outright buying or otherwise corrupting politicians than the Military-Industrial Complex does.

      • by Striek ( 1811980 )

        Yah, the obsession some people have with the Military-Industrial Complex is amusing. I know they Military-Industrial Complex is corrupt but Lockheed Martin's gross profit for the twelve months ending June 30, 2024 was $8.466B Google's gross profits for the same period were $188.261B. Which one is the soulless corporate behemoth we should worry about more? Seems to me Google has way more money to spend on renting, leasing, outright buying or otherwise corrupting politicians than the Military-Industrial Complex does.

        One is literally in the business of killing people – with nuclear weapons if need be, or at least, they build weaponry that makes it possible. Google's products, as far as I know, are not designed to literally kill people. I therefore submit that Lockheed Martin is far more lacking in "soul" than Google.

        Plus, the geopolitical consequences of Lockheed Martin making a big mistake far outweigh the consequences of Google making one. Notwithstanding profits and what can be bought with them, that alone is r

  • out that that $20,000 specialist pork hammer is only $5 everywhere else.
    • Those are not 2024 dollars you're talking. I guarantee you a mil-std hammer is a lot more than $20k, and a regular hammer from your local big-box store is a lot more than $5 too.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by ufgrat ( 6245202 )

      Why not a million dollar hammer? Why not $10 million per hammer?

      I mean, if you're going to make $@%^ up.....

      The original $600 hammer was created by someone who didn't understand government purchases. The hammers were lumped in with a bunch of other items, some of which had R&D costs lumped in. So the $15 hammer was getting the additional R&D costs associated with other items in that purchase inaccurately added (and don't think that R&D cost was "accidentally" added to the hammer's cost, I'm s

  • Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jvkjvk ( 102057 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @10:28AM (#64743426)

    Disgusting anti-American behavior and I hope it is stopped.

    The only questions should be - which will increase the readiness and safety of the troops, and is it remotely legal?

    I believe that having the military being able to fix their own stuff is superior, just like farmers.

    Should be interesting to see if judges are more pro corporate or pro American.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Should be interesting to see if judges are more pro corporate or pro American.

      Unfortunately... https://www.scotusblog.com/202... [scotusblog.com]

      Are judges partial to Alaska fishing trips? https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org] or luxury motor homes https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com] ?

    • Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @10:50AM (#64743524)

      Extracting maximum value from your products even after selling them seems quite American, to be perfectly honest.

    • Just add one line in the contract. Military can use all of its resources to obtain repairability information and hardware to facilitate repairs. Give the military something fun to do. Give tractor company owners a headache (and new mistress).
    • ... see if judges are ...

      Despite the habit of current SCotUS to give rich people more rights, they are enforcing the law: If the law says hardware should be treated as untouchable copyright, the justices (SC judges), have 2 reasons to agree with rich people.

      US congress needs to fix a bad law, not paper-over it with a band-aid law, then brag they did 'something'.

      • US congress needs to fix a bad law

        Nice fantasy you have there. Unfortunately for you, no-one in their right mind believes such a thing will happen with the current crop of BS artists we call our "duly elected representatives and senators." But I guess you have a kink for people suffering, so enjoy it. It's only going to get worse the longer you hold on to such fantasies.

  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @10:32AM (#64743440)

    Nobody should be able to hold your military to ransom. "Give us more money or your machinery fails".

    How about they take some of those rifles, point them at some CEOs, and strongly advise them to have a change of heart?

    • Nobody should be able to hold your military to ransom

      Are you suggesting the military has more right to be treated fairly than Joe Consumer?

      Here's what I believe: Nobody should be able to hold Joe Consumer to ransom either.

    • by Calydor ( 739835 )

      While the current situation is definitely far from ideal, having the military go rogue seems kinda worse.

      • Of course. I was speaking figuratively, not literally. If the military ever used force to control a domestic corporation, you'd be past the point where you should have been concerned about a military coup.

    • Nobody should be able to hold your military to ransom. "Give us more money or your machinery fails".

      How about they take some of those rifles, point them at some CEOs, and strongly advise them to have a change of heart?

      Better yet, actually pull the trigger on a couple of the worst, most arrogant offenders. Then look at the rest of the CEOs and say "Well?"

      I'm exaggerating of course - I wouldn't really want that to happen, although it is a rather pleasant daydream. But it underlines the point that unless and until we set the system up such that a corporations' actions are the full personal legal responsibility of a small, well-defined group of corporate leaders, we're going to be stuck with the same old crap. A complete ove

    • How about they take some of those rifles, point them at some CEOs, and strongly advise them to have a change of heart?

      Because the people who could order the military to point rifles at CEOs are being paid by those CEOs to not let those rifles be pointed at them. Nice theory though.

  • by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @10:43AM (#64743480) Homepage Journal

    This is not advanced wargaming.

    Military has a single-source single-factory system for repairing defense assets

    Those factories immediately go on an adversary's First-Strike List.

    There's really no option left but to nationalize the defense industry. Sorry, go full ancap if you can but the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (Ike's printed version) would lead us to destruction before they give up profits and we have to deal with that in the present, before Utopia arrives.

    That's the actual existential risk, not any particular politician.

    Invest in combat-grade 3d sintering printers and put thousands of them around the country to make parts for everything that doesn't need a full machine shop.

    Prestage warehouses full of inconel (or whatever comes next).

    Release the Epstein files and see how many corrupt Congressmen are left standing.

    • There's really no option left but to nationalize the defense industry.

      Get bent. The defense industry is already sufficiently nationalized; they have effectively only one customer which can still control what they sell, even if they aren't a customer. It doesn't matter (much) if the USM single sources a factory to make their weapon. On US soil, the only way that factory gets eliminated is by ICBM delivering a nuke. Its still more cost effective to defend against asymmetrical attacks on a facility than to force multiple installations across the country for redundancy.

      • Correct me if I'm wrong but nationalized would mean the US owning those companies. also LOL @ cost-effective as though that's ever been a concern to US DoD.
        • Correct me if I'm wrong but nationalized would mean the US owning those companies.

          Yes, that is the dictionary definition. Currently, every US military defense company can only sell to one customer, unless the USG conveys permission to that company to sell to nations outside of the US, and dictate the features that company can share with the non-US customer. How is that not essentially controlling the existence of that defense manufacturer?

          also LOL @ cost-effective as though that's ever been a concern to US DoD.

          The United States has a finite amount of money that it can give away to defense contractors; that limit is determined by the nation's credit card. I

      • On US soil, the only way that factory gets eliminated is by ICBM delivering a nuke.

        A lot of factories use these things called computers now. For example, the US took out a Russian gas pipeline and a few Iranian centrifuges without use of nukes...

        • On US soil, the only way that factory gets eliminated is by ICBM delivering a nuke.

          A lot of factories use these things called computers now. For example, the US took out a Russian gas pipeline and a few Iranian centrifuges without use of nukes...

          Its still more cost effective to defend against asymmetrical attacks on a facility than to force multiple installations across the country for redundancy.

    • There's really no option left but to nationalize the defense industry.

      We are trying to AVOID Fascism. Please try to offer something that leads towards our shared goals rather than the goals of a few 'well off' people.

  • That's insane! (Score:5, Informative)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @10:50AM (#64743526)

    I had no idea right to repair extended to the military sector. Simple fix: no contracts awarded to companies that won't include repair manuals, schematics, and parts, all three of which were available to me when I repaired electronic systems on A6E Grumman Intruders during my time in the Marine Corps. These companies are basically hampering our service's force-in-readiness mandates.

  • ...we have had the right to repair, and pretty much everything was effectively open source. Anyone with mechanical skills could take apart a device and see how it worked. We don't want new rights, we object to companies using tech to take away rights we have had for centuries

    • Centuries? We've had those rights longer than we've existed as a species! Flint knapping was not a licensed technique, not was there a monopoly on flint knives.

  • I'm certainly in favor of making repair without begging for the vendor's permission easier; but it seems like a pretty dire sign that you'd need to specifically legislate that in the context of the military as a customer.

    The DoD isn't as large a customer as some entire markets; but as single customers go they are enormous and because they buy some rather specialty items that a vendor can't just shop around the world (legally, at least) some of their vendors basically have just them or just them and some
    • If even they need a legal mandate one can only conclude that either their procurement arm is deeply compromised

      It already is. Just look at the history of the F35 program. Then look at the consequences of a compromised (or brain dead) procurement system; the littoral combat ship and Zumwalt class destroyer.

      Don't know how to fix a voter population that likes to go on unnecessary wars overseas and builds its navy around 11 ships that cost $13 billion to build, and $1.18 billion/year to operate. (If the US stopped having a desire to beat up 3rd world countries, we could probably reduce our active US supercarrier flee

  • by WCLPeter ( 202497 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @11:13AM (#64743644) Homepage

    From the article:

    “General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin consider much of the data on the ship to be proprietary, so the Navy had to delay missions and spend millions of dollars on travel costs just so that contractor-affiliated repairmen could fly in, rather than doing this ourselves,” she said.

    So you're a captain in the middle of an active warzone and your ship is taking fire. Your chief engineer is down in the engine room on the phone with 1-800-FIX-SHIP trying to convince Lockheed's automated answering assistant to escape the doom loop and connect them to a live agent to negotiate for an expedited repair crew to drop ship the repair parts and installation team, unfortunately finding out another ship beat you in the queue.

    Normally this wouldn't have been an issue but a part needed by the airforce for one of their delivery jets is on backorder from Boeing, it'll be at least 24 hours before there's an available delivery jet to send the part and installation team. Of course Lockheed understands the battle will likely be over by then, resulting in the complete loss of ship and crew due to the lack of vital repair, but they'd like to assure you the safety of both your ship and crew remains one of their defining corporate values.are extremely important to them.

    • They swap out the component and send it back for repair. No one on board has the background or training to fix it.
      • by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @01:58PM (#64744312) Homepage
        That's assuming that they have a spare handy, but that's not always true. Back in '72, when I was serving in Tonkin Gulf, the base plate (I'm not sure that's right, but after over 50 years, some of the details have gone fuzzy.) of our 5" gun had broke and we didn't have a spare because they almost never break. It looked like we were going to have to go all the way to Sasebo for a replacement, but some seaman with a bit of imagination found a blank for a replacement bearing that was the right size and one of our senior Machinist Mates managed to work it into the right shape so we were able to continue our mission of ground support by shore bombardment almost without a pause.
        • It does depend on what breaks, but the battle group has a supply ship that carries the most commonly replaced parts.
    • by 0xG ( 712423 )

      1-900-FIX-SHIP

  • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @11:44AM (#64743788)

    Great to see such love of country abiding in the hearts of rich men.

  • by TrumpShaker ( 4855909 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @12:54PM (#64744082)
    What happened to the old process of contracting and procurement? I may be revealing my age here, but I remember when military contracts were very detailed, with entire sections about spares, manuals, training, etc. If a vendor didn't provide, they were in breech of contract or they didn't get the contract to begin with. If the Air Force was contracting for a new aircraft, for example, the contract would state something like: "Vendor will provide one dozen spares for each of the parts listed in Spare_List_12 for each aircraft ordered, with option for USAF to increase quantity to 36 if airframe is still in active use 25 years after production." or "Vendor will provide X master manuals for each system and subsystem. U.S. Government reserves the right to reproduce any documentation produced for this contract". COTS goods were similar, if I were going to requisition 6 Bulldozers from CAT, I would have to include how many operators and service manuals I wanted plus a good supply of parts; enough to last the expected lifetime of the dozers.

    I am beginning to sense from some of the other comments here that it is not done that way anymore?

    Where I work now, we have had two new buildings built and one renovated in the last 10 years. All three went way over budget and way past projected completion date. I asked once why there isn't something in the contract that punishes the contractor or fines them in those cases. "Things don't work that way anymore"....Bullshit! I say hold their feet to the fire and teach them not to bid on contracts they can't complete within the budget and on time. Same for defense contractors. If they don't want to play ball, just order a naval destroyer or Darkstar from alibaba.com. ;-)
    • I am beginning to sense from some of the other comments here that it is not done that way anymore?

      Corruption is everpresent and corrosive. We are seeing the structures getting weakened for a total collapse. I am sad to live to see this; however, the generations after me will have it MUCH worse. :(

  • by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @05:50PM (#64744988)
    This is the same corrupt scam that Big Pharma has been using to gouge American consumers. By buying legislators they short circuit the (not really) free market and get monopolistic profits. Now they are doing it to the military. In both of these examples it's the taxpayer who gets soaked in the end.

    Corporate America will throw anyone or anything under the bus for obscene profit margins. And don't fall for the "we're doing it for the shareholders" crap. The CEO class does it to line their own pockets. The "compensation packages" they get have no down side if there are problems and insanely large returns if things are simply OK. Don't think about the wealth if things go well, because the amounts are more then the entire budgets for a medium size city or a county. And remember that most of that money is siphoned off from people like you.

  • Insider View (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wasteoftime ( 1391425 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2024 @08:38PM (#64745288)

    So I will comment on this from an insider perspective after 20+ years in DoD acquisition. Gov gets data rights for what is done on Gov dime. However, the contractor gets exclusive non-Gov rights for anything they pay for with internal funds (usually called IRAD). So what most companies do is pay for 1-2% of a project with their own funds, and they pay for that 1-2% throughout the various project areas. That way they can claim they get exclusive rights on practically everything. And they will claim proprietary on most firmware/software.

    Now the Gov gets data rights, but not on the IRAD funded stuff, which is just enough to make it very difficult for Gov to completely in-source or compete for future work. As lead engineer on a few projects I tried to fight this, and would give Gov KO lots of supporting evidence. Unfortunately, the standard response is "Gov never wins so why bother trying"...crappy attitude. I tried to protect Gov - i.e. taxpayer - interests but it was a tough battle fighting not just the contractors, but our own civil service folks.

    BTW, I had one project that involved a foreign company as a sub. That foreign company, especially the engineering lead, fought more for our soldiers than the US prime contractor. That's right, the US prime tried to rip us off because "the Gov will never notice" all while the foreign sub argued on behalf of the customer (US Gov). Fucking sleazy US company...

  • Good thing the US doesn't have any credible communist rivals, or this could put them at a disadvantage...

    "Sir we can't re-arm the battleship, we're getting an error that we haven't installed genuine Lockheed-Martin missiles and that the new #2 cannon needs to be paired at an authorized service center, also the new version of the radar software now has an annual subscription fee!"

  • Iâ(TM)d imagine not allowing the military to repair their equipment would be a national security risk, especially with so much software dependent hardware.

    I can imagine the US being in a war and losing a battle because their ships couldnâ(TM)t fire the guns, due to âoeunauthorised partsâ not getting cloud validation.

    • Customers are the Enemy
    • Increase Shareholder Value

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Working...