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.
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.
And here's where the order flips (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I hadn't thought of it that way. (Score:3)
Re:I hadn't thought of it that way. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And here's where the order flips (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And here's where the order flips (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that doesn't apply to defense secretaries [latimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:And here's where the order flips (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything the military can't repair in the field isn't fit for purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And here's where the order flips (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:And here's where the order flips (Score:4, Interesting)
Dunno why this got modded down. It adds to the picture:
* $8.466B : Lockheed Martin gross profit July 2023 - June 2024 (from GP post)
* $188.261B : Google gross profit July 2023 - June 2024 (from GP post)
* $1,520,000B : DoD funding for FY2023 (from parent post)
* $466.3B: DoD defense contract award obligations for FY2023 (from the link in parent post)
* $68.590B : Lockheed Martin DoD awarded contracts for FY2023 (from the link in parent post)
IMHO, gross profits aren't a good number for scale comparisons from this perspective. Profits, both net and gross, have to do with how the company is managing its money and product.
Seems to me Google has way more money to spend on renting, leasing, outright buying or otherwise corrupting politicians...
Gross profit doesn't tell us how much they're spending in those ways, nor how much they're getting from the government.
Which one is the soulless corporate behemoth we should worry about more?
IMO, you should look at the revenue of those companies, or at the portion of revenue that comes from government contracts (or specifically DoD), or at the total amount spent on lobbyists, or some other such figure if you want to find which soulless behemoth to worry about most :-)
The soulless behemoth you want to worry about is the one perpetuating a genocide. Think before you post.
May also be worth noting that the DoD, being part of the government rather than a separate corporate entity, is us (as in every eligible voter). Just over half of the voting eligible population participates in the presidential election, and far less in other elections. We do have the numbers on our side to change things. We are the soulless behemoth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the remaining 34% would be more than enough to swing damn near any vote. Even if only 2% voted in total, those 2% would still have the power to change things.
My point is, trying to shift the blame to the DoD isn't the same as blaming a company. We the people are responsible for the actions of the DoD.
Re: (Score:2)
* $1,520,000B : DoD funding for FY2023 (from parent post)
Of course, $1.5 quadrillion dollars is a typo, but even $1.5 trillion is incorrect. The real number is $816.7 billion [defense.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. Yes, you're correct that was a typo.
FWIW, I pulled that number from the same link the parent post has provided: https://dsm.forecastinternatio... [forecastin...tional.com]
The full quote there was:
In FY23, the DoD’s share of available funding was $1.52 trillion, or 12.8 percent of the FY23 U.S. federal budget. This is a decrease of 7.3 percent compared to the DoD’s share of the U.S. federal budget for FY22 of $1.64 trillion, or 14.3 percent.
I don't know which number is correct. Even more bizarrely, the link you provided (from defense.gov) states, "The act means a 4.6 percent pay raise ... and includes $45 billion more than originally requested," while the other link (from forecastinternational.com) says the budget decreased by 7.3%... but that's as a percent share of th
Re: And here's where the order flips (Score:2)
We don't have a candidate to vote for who is any genocide and also won't run the country straight into the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
True. But we would if we wanted one badly enough - we pick the candidates! There's also every house and senate member, and all the other things we vote for. We *could* change them all out in any way we'd like, if only most of us could agree on anything. The depressing part (and I assume this goes for all sides of issues, for anyone rational at all) is realizing how many people are actively choosing to do the opposite of our ideals. Blaming the DoD as the bad boogeyman is a nice scapegoat to ease our conscie
Re: And here's where the order flips (Score:2)
"But we would if we wanted one badly enough - we pick the candidates"
Do we? There is little recent evidence of that.
Re: (Score:2)
"But we would if we wanted one badly enough - we pick the candidates"
Do we? There is little recent evidence of that.
Do we want one badly enough? (Obviously not) Or did you mean do we pick the candidates? (Sadly, we do)
It is evident that there are more than enough people who won't make their decisions based on this issue, or will oppose it. Whether that's because they're ignorant of it, or feel the opposite about it, or don't care one way or another about it, or give other issues priority over it, or are paid off (ex. corporate political donations), etc.. the result is the same. But it's not all bad news... that same clus
Re: (Score:2)
"In FY23, the DoD’s share of available funding was $1.52 trillion, or 12.8 percent of the FY23 U.S. federal budget." https://dsm.forecastinternatio... [forecastin...tional.com] The soulless behemoth you want to worry about is the one perpetuating a genocide. Think before you post.
Sure, but Google is not the only component of the Digital Information Industrial complex and combined they are far, far bigger than the Military-Industrial Complex. Also, if you want to talk about perpetuating genocide, the Military-Industrial Complex just makes the arms and as long as that arsenal is adimistrated by a well disciplined, trained and educated military I'm not worried about them. What worries me far more is the Digital Information Industrial complex and the seemingly complete freedom they enjo
Re: (Score:2)
oh noes they will find (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
For $.89, you get a wood screw. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Hey!!!! You're not allowed to bring facts into this conversation!!!
Disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Extracting maximum value from your products even after selling them seems quite American, to be perfectly honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on who you talk to.
Lots of people don't consider that American at all.
Re: Disgusting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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'.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Can you say, National Security Risk? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I already subscribe to that newsletter... but if I threaten a corporation, I'm going to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you gotta skip the threats and go straight to action without getting caught.
Re: (Score:2)
While the current situation is definitely far from ideal, having the military go rogue seems kinda worse.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Incredibly Dangerous (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
For the entire history of technology... (Score:2)
...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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Seems like a bad sign... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
it was a requirements failure because the concept was bad to start with.
The concept was fine. The US Navy still needs littoral combat ships that can traverse the oceans. It turns out that modular interchangeable missions platform designs costs more than making ships dedicated to one mission.
It was a requirements failure because what procurers asked for wasn't fiscally feasible (and preplanning of crew requirements per mission platform wasn't properly done). (Honestly, I'm way more pissed off by the Zumwalt class destroyer program than the LCS.)
On top of that, the LCS manufac
Support under fire? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Support under fire? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1-900-FIX-SHIP
How patriotic of them (Score:4, Interesting)
Great to see such love of country abiding in the hearts of rich men.
Contracting and Procurement process??? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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. :(
Just like the Pharmaceutical Cartel (Score:3)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
This wouldn't have flown during the cold war (Score:3)
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!"
National security risk? (Score:2)
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.
New Corporate Mantra (Score:2)
Re:Suddenly (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans are all about right to repair laws.
Always were, farmers especially. It's the globalists who are against it.
Uh, kinda. Republicans at the bottom of the pecking order are all in favor of the right to repair, the Republican elites who run the party consider right to repair satanic communism (...well, not really, I exaggerate, they've just been bribed by lobbyists). And before somebody pulls out their gold plated instant debate winning 'whattabout the Democrats' card, pretty much the same applies to the Democrats (including the bribery). Corruption is willing to work with any political faction, left or right, it's very fair that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Suddenly (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, kinda. Republicans at the bottom of the pecking order are all in favor of the right to repair, the Republican elites who run the party consider right to repair satanic communism (...well, not really, I exaggerate, they've just been bribed by lobbyists). And before somebody pulls out their gold plated instant debate winning 'whattabout the Democrats' card, pretty much the same applies to the Democrats (including the bribery). Corruption is willing to work with any political faction, left or right, it's very fair that way.
That's why I used the word "globalists," they are by definition traitors to the United States, and they span party lines almost universally. A globalist is anyone willing to sell out their own constituents on behalf of some goal or people or nation outside of them, dragging everyone along to suffer their dogshit decisions, substituting sound policy with political rhetoric for the sake of leveraging low-information voters to stay in power, get their dick sucked, and let the party keep going for themselves.
That is a nativist victimhood narrative that I refuse subscribe to because it blames everybody except the USA for the USA's structural problems. There is nothing essentially wrong with international trade and business and it does not by definition have to be corrupt nor is globalism somehow naturally against the right to repair anything. US elites are against the military's right to repair for the same reason that they are against the US healthcare system being allowed to negotiate for lower prices. It allows them to artificually line their pockets with taxpayer money. Once they've stuffed their pockets full of ill-gotten taxpayer money they hold events, and rallies where they celebrate themselves as winners of some non existent meritocracy. None of that is in any way a consequence Globalism, it is the consequence of extreme and manifest corruption at the highest levels of US government and the US judiciary and the complete and utter failure of the 'checks and balances' the US is so proud of.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not globalists lobbying against this, these are corporations with headquarters in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just about everone. So what's wrong with globalists then?
Re: (Score:2)
Quote (from the summary above), " Sen. Elizabeth Warren highlighted the issue in a May hearing, citing examples of how repair restrictions..."
Re: "Globalists" (Score:2)
"When you right shit like this it devalues everything you say"
Hahahahahahahha
Re: Suddenly (Score:2)
It's corporate self-interest, the digital rights management and patent lobbies that are against it.
Re: (Score:2)
If their wives are accepting singles into G-Strings they have home-land security issues to deal with as well.
Re: (Score:2)
... a company asking government to *create* a monopoly for its own sake, this is what governments should not be allowed to do.
That's damn near the definition of a patent, and is something a government does.
patent:
1. a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.
Re:Now THAT is a monopoly behaviour (Score:4, Insightful)
... a company asking government to *create* a monopoly for its own sake, this is what governments should not be allowed to do.
That's damn near the definition of a patent, and is something a government does.
The definition of a patent is that the patent holder discloses and explains their invention in terms such that an "ordinary practitioner in the art" can duplicate it, in return for a limited period of exclusive rights.
The point of a patent is to be an alternative to secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
... a company asking government to *create* a monopoly for its own sake, this is what governments should not be allowed to do.
That's damn near the definition of a patent, and is something a government does.
The definition of a patent is that the patent holder discloses and explains their invention in terms such that an "ordinary practitioner in the art" can duplicate it, in return for a limited period of exclusive rights.
The point of a patent is to be an alternative to secrets.
I quoted the ACTUAL definition of a patent. WTF are you talking about? That "limited period of exclusive rights" you mention... that's a monopoly! A government ordained monopoly.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The limited period is important.
Re: (Score:2)
And I included that in my original post and the follow up. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
And I included that in my original post and the follow up.
The post you were responding to didn't.
That's damn near the definition of a patent, except that patents are explicitly for a limited period.
Re: (Score:2)
And I included that in my original post and the follow up.
The post you were responding to didn't.
That's damn near the definition of a patent, except that patents are explicitly for a limited period.
What part of "damn near" don't you understand?
Is this the post you are referring to (also mine):
... a company asking government to *create* a monopoly for its own sake, this is what governments should not be allowed to do.
That's damn near the definition of a patent, and is something a government does.
patent:
1. a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention.
NOTE: in YOUR reply, you cut off the definition that I had clearly provided, and you provided something that was NOT the literal definition of patent. Did you overlook that, maybe thinking it was a signature or something? Or are you just being obtuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any actual content to this discussion, or can we go home now?
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, I said it here for decades, I will repeat again [slashdot.org] and again [slashdot.org], patents need to be abolished, same with copyrights AFAIC.
Even if I agree with that, which I mostly do (I'd like to start with reinstating the limits similar to the original ones), that's not the current case.
Also, how do you think they're able to maintain a monopoly on repairs? It's patents (and maybe a mix of related stuff - copyrights, trademark, etc..).
Even if you want to get rid of patents and copyright, there are still going to be natural monopolies, like utilities. Who is going to manage/grant/regulate those if it's not the government. That's one of the cor