Defense Contractors Lobby To Kill Military Right-to-Repair, Push Pay-Per-Use Data Model (theverge.com) 61
A bipartisan right-to-repair provision that would let the U.S. military fix its own equipment faces a serious threat from defense industry lobbyists who want to replace it with a pay-per-use model for accessing repair information. A source familiar with negotiations told The Verge that there are significant concerns that the language in the National Defense Authorization Act will be swapped out for a "data-as-a-service" alternative that would require the Department of Defense to pay contractors for access to technical repair data.
The provision, introduced by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT) in their Warrior Right to Repair Act, passed the Senate in October and has support from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Army and the Navy. The National Defense Industrial Association published a white paper backing the data-as-a-service model, arguing it would protect contractors' intellectual property. Reps. Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Adam Smith (D-WA), who lead the House Armed Services Committee, outlined similar language in their SPEED Act. Rogers received more than $535,000 from the defense industry in 2024; Smith received over $310,550. The final NDAA is expected early next week.
The provision, introduced by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT) in their Warrior Right to Repair Act, passed the Senate in October and has support from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Army and the Navy. The National Defense Industrial Association published a white paper backing the data-as-a-service model, arguing it would protect contractors' intellectual property. Reps. Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Adam Smith (D-WA), who lead the House Armed Services Committee, outlined similar language in their SPEED Act. Rogers received more than $535,000 from the defense industry in 2024; Smith received over $310,550. The final NDAA is expected early next week.
The correct response... (Score:4, Funny)
Congresscritter to security: You two - both of you are combat vets - take the lobbyists into the other room and explain things to them.
Let me know if I need to call an ambulance.
Re:The correct response... (Score:4)
explain things to them
Read: Keep those cheques coming!
Re: The correct response... (Score:2)
Porkies
Re: (Score:2)
I see... you did NOT understand the ambulance reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, it's those that drafted and signed the contracts that are the problems.
Re: (Score:2)
They only take that attitude with the weak.
Bulletproof vest (Score:3)
why stop there? (Score:1)
They should put a coin slot on every M16 so soldiers can put a quarter in every time they pull the trigger.
Re:why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)
with a "customer service" phone number on the stock for when the damn thing jams.
"Please hold your fire... all agents are helping other warriors; one will be with you as soon as they are free. If you are still alive, please press One..."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"We are experiencing higher than usual call volumes but rest assured your call is important to us and we will connect you as soon as possible. Your current wait time is one hundred and ten minutes. [Hold music]"
Burst of rapid gunfire, screams
Two hours seven minutes later.
Hello, welcoming to GunsRUs, this is Panjit, and how can I be helping you?... Hello? Hello?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They should put a coin slot on every M16 so soldiers can put a quarter in every time they pull the trigger.
...and sell them a tool to remove jammed quarters.
Re: (Score:1)
They should put a coin slot on every M16 so soldiers can put a quarter in every time they pull the trigger.
...and sell them a tool to remove jammed quarters.
They wouldn't be allowed to. That's the point. The rifle needs to be returned to the manufacturer for repairs. Just buy a replacement for use in the meantime.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed.
Sample: New acquisition rules beginning 2028. All new defense acquisitions starting Jan 2028 must include detailed parts breakdown, service manuals, recommended servicing schedules, and list periodic consumables needed. Field servicing guides must be included but this does not prevent military services from contracting outside maintenance.
Any company that does not want to provide repair procedures with their equipment is free to not bid on contracts with the military. If the military wants someon
Is military right-to-repair unrealistic? How so? (Score:5, Insightful)
The taxpayers paid for the goods along with their research and development. That fact alone should give the taxpayers more rights than the defense contractors.
That's also an argument for funding Ukraine, (R&D among other reasons like the furtherance of democracy and stuff).
Re:Is military right-to-repair unrealistic? How so (Score:4, Interesting)
It's mostly a contracting issue. Sometimes, if a customer wants full rights to all documentation and design details (or source code or whatever), they have to pay more. If they want exclusive full rights, they have to pay even more. This can be beneficial for some things, not so good for others. If you want to customize your ERP system (SAP or something like that), you'll generally bring in an outside company to do it. You could demand all the source code for everything they did and pay more for it, but if you don't have the necessary expertise on tap to make use of it, it's just throwing money out the window.
Not always. Companies do undertake their own research on their own dime, hoping to later sell it to government or other contractors. To take a simple example, a government that purchases a Cessna Citation jet for travel purposes is mostly buying off the shelf. They may customize it with their own communications gear, but they didn't pay for the R&D that went into it. Textron (owner of Cessna and part of RTX) paid for that and is making it up over time with sales of the jet.
A more complicated example is Anduril, which started developing families of weapons on its own and then started getting contracts to further the development process. How much of that should the government own, or at least get access to, if they didn't pay for it?
I agree that the government should be able to fix its own things through contractors of its choosing, and it should get access to all necessary design data. But it's still a contracting issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for your excellent explanation, which I especially appreciate since I have been an open-source developer for quite a while now, with a fair amount of experience working for the Feds. The economics are different, as you make clear to me.
Re:Is military right-to-repair unrealistic? How so (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's still a contracting issue.
I am not sure what your point is. This legislation doesn't force anyone to sell anything to the government. It sets the terms the government requires for their contracts. If they don't want to meet those contract terms, they can find other customers. What the contractors are pushing for is legislation that requires contracts to give more benefits to them. And they paid to elect people who would have their interests as a high priority.
Re: (Score:2)
"They may customize it with their own communications gear, but they didn't pay for the R&D that went into it. "
Companies build the prior research cost into their current pricing. It isn't as though gov. is not paying for it when they buy off the shelf. They just are not paying for it up front, but they will pay.
Regardless, this brings up a dilemma for the alleged administration. They have two competing impulses. They want to decrease the cost of the care and upkeep of systems so they can spend more on s
Re: (Score:2)
How much of that should the government own, or at least get access to, if they didn't pay for it?
Let's put it this way, we will not defeat China in a conventional war if we let private companies dictate the conditions for repairing our equipment.
If on the other hand our goal is not to fight or defeat China, then there's no need for this enormous military.
Re: (Score:1)
No the enormous military is about propping up GDP
Re: Is military right-to-repair unrealistic? How s (Score:2)
You can prop up the GDP with literally anything and it would be better for the nation. Infrastructure, scientific research, space, education, health care, even foreign aid because you're making friends instead of enemies.
Re: (Score:1)
I know :(
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, if a customer wants full rights to all documentation and design details (or source code or whatever), they have to pay more. If they want exclusive full rights, they have to pay even more.
I was replacing chips in naval electronics at over $200k a chip back in the 90s. I think we paid for EVERYTHING regarding those devices. I also had to fix those devices in active warzones. Fuck contacting the manufacturer for permission.
Tank broken down in the middle of a battle? (Score:1)
Intellectual property has no place in the military (Score:1)
Government should claim eminent domain. National security is a legitimate reason in this case. There's still much money at stake for the MIC to say 'no'. Time to put the squeeze on them for a change
Re: (Score:3)
Btw, curious they are still calling themselves Defense contractors, Trump prefers War contractors
Re:Intellectual property has no place in the milit (Score:5, Insightful)
Btw, curious they are still calling themselves Defense contractors, Trump prefers War contractors :)
Traditionalists prefer "War Profiteers".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely, this could well end up being a life and death situation on the battlefield.
Look at the ad hoc repairs and mode both ukraine and russia are doing on a daily basis. A good proportion of the weapons in use on both sides were manufactured by the other side during soviet times so it's not like they can count on the manufacturer for support.
Any military should be demanding full specifications and manuals for any equipment they purchase.
Will GM have to give up Colorado data? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Army's new truck is built on a Chevy Colorado. (https://www.gmdefensellc.com/site/us/en/gm-defense/home/integrated-vehicles/infantry-squad-vehicle.html ) Will GM have to give the Army all the part specifications for Colorado parts? Will Palantir have to give up detailed data on how its software works?
The Government has always been able to require data hand-over as part of meeting a solicitation/Request for Proposal. See https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia... [dau.edu] Now in many cases I saw, the PM decided to not spend the $ for this, either because s/he didn't think it was necessary or because the bill would have been too high. It used to really piss me off when the government would pay for a lot of new software but not own that software. The argument was "let the contractor commercialize that and that should reduce the government's maintenance costs." But requirements, operating environment, and lifetimes for software used in military applications are significantly different than those in commercial practice. The related problem came when the contractor would do some R&D, and then carve out the core of the system as "company proprietary." (Imagine Linux if the kernel wasn't open source....)
But to pretend this is a Sudden New Revelation is to ignore what have been acquisition practices for much longer than the now 40 years I was working in that business.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with Palantir having to "open the kimono" to be used on government contracts. Palantir really scares me, they're the archetype for dystopian "society controlled by evil tech companies" Science Fiction.
A related issue is software supply chain. Most software now is composed of both new code and components obtained elsewhere/reused. How reliable are those "not developed here" components? (I remember an audit of a large DoD program back in the early '00s that found something like 20 copies of the S
Extra for the information required to repair? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Give me 5 million and I'd do it, I confess.
Re: (Score:2)
What paid off government moron made these deals?
Perhaps the guy who had a budget set by congress and had to choose between ordering two more weapon systems and paying extra up front for information that might never be used. And defense contractors who figured out they could charge extra for including repair information in the contract or charge for it later if the information was needed. And they would get the best of both worlds. Selling two more weapons systems and making money in the future when they needed to be repaired. And both sides understanding
Re: (Score:2)
And both sides understanding the money will be found to pay for repairs when the time comes.
Money may be found when needed to repair the gear, but will there be time to in the middle of the combat to
1) bring the official contractors over during combat time to perform the repairs?
2) start looking at the documentation and perform repairs slowly since when you may not have performed the same task before / trained on such repairs?
3) wait for the proprietary components to arrive?
While you are waiting / figuring things out, your ship may have sunk, your tank division may be stuck / destroyed, your combat aircraft become nice looking land based targets.
Good luck when you are in a situation when seconds / minutes can mean the difference between life and death.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the official contractors even be willing to carry out repairs in a warzone where they could come under attack at any moment? Probably not...
Re: (Score:2)
The "Department of War" hasn't been in a "real" war for a very long time. Its not surprising that those kind of considerations are not at the front of the minds of people dealing with defense contracts. They have real current world restraints that make it a low priority.
Is the real barrier to repairing things the company's intellectual property or having people trained to do the job? My impression is that our current military relies on private contractors to provide a lot of its logistical support. Its no
Stop buying their product! (Score:2)
Another variant of responce (Score:5, Insightful)
Take sons or grandsons of these lobbyists, enlist them into army, arm them with newest and costliest equipment from their fathers' companies and send to Syria or some other place with bad climate and actual actions. I think parents would in one moment change their mind about right to repair.
once (Score:2)
Pay-per-use will turn into buy-once-and-copy. Defense contractors will be going into the DRM/DLP business harder than ever.
Nice equipment you have here (Score:2)
Nice equipment you have here, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
contractors' intellectual property (Score:3)
arguing it would protect contractors' intellectual property
Paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds. Contractors are paid by the government which paid for by the people. It's government, and our, IP.
Adam Smith (Score:2)
Selfishness and Greed... (Score:2)
Companies more interested in their own profit than the defence or their country. What a shining example of loyalty, and asking 'not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country'. Corporate greed will be the death of America.
Re: (Score:2)
Require domestic supplies to be at cost, only allow making a profit on foreign sales. Also require that domestic be prioritised so they have to supply the local military first before chasing profits.
Surprised (Score:2)
I'm honestly surprised anyone in the military ever allowed this in the first place. Not being able to repair tech in the field is an automatic NO from me.
Seems like an obvious liability.
Make it stop, landfills are already full of device (Score:2)
I think (Score:2)
We should eliminate lobbying altogether. What purpose does it serve other than that of the lobbyists?
corruption plain and simple. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. Enough with this B.S. from major contractors.
I would call that treason. (Score:2)
Yup. You get one warning, after that, it's treason. No 'renting' a nations defenses.