FTC Decides Maybe It's Time To Start Asking Why McDonalds Ice Cream Machines Are Broken All The Damn Time

from the let-the-ice-cream-flow! dept

In unsurprising news, the McDonald's McFlurry machine is down. In actual surprising news, the FTC is looking into it. (Paywall ahead, but here's another option.)

The FTC reached out to McDonald's franchisees this summer seeking information on what, exactly, is going on with the broken ice cream machine problem, according to a letter it sent, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, and people familiar with the matter. The FTC declined to comment.

Well, it's a start. The notoriously unreliable machines are pretty much the only option for McDonalds franchise owners, who are tied into lengthy service contracts that include immediate termination of warranties should any McDonalds employees have the gall to repair their own machines. And knowing what is in need of fixing is deliberately obscured by the manufacturer, Taylor Commercial Foodservice, which weaponizes obscure error codes and overall inscrutability to ensure a steady stream of service call revenue.

There's another solution out there, but it doesn't have the approval of the McDonalds corporation. And, since it could severely diminish one of Taylor's revenue streams, attempts have been made by the company to remove the competitor from the equation.

Two years ago, a company called Kytch Inc. developed a device that attaches to Taylor's ice cream machines and sends franchise owners messages alerting them to possible breakdowns and other problems that demand attention. It also makes sense of Taylor's nonsensical codes, allowing owners to actually take care of the issues, rather than just tell customers the machine is down yet again and wait for a Taylor rep to arrive.

Taylor was so opposed to Kytch helping people repair the machines they had purchased that they spent months trying to trick Kytch into sending one so the company could, allegedly, reverse engineer it. That's the accusation Kytch is making in court, where it has just secured a small win that compels Taylor to stop doing whatever it's doing with the Kytch device it obtained and return the device to its maker.

In a recent legal victory, a judge awarded a temporary restraining order against Taylor after Kytch had alleged in a complaint that the McFlurry machine manufacturer had gotten its hands on a Kytch Solution Devices with the express intention of learning its trade secrets. The complaint also alleged that Taylor had told McDonald’s and its franchisees to stop using Kytch machines on the grounds that they were dangerous, and that the company had begun development on its own version of the Kytch system at the same time.

Now, all of this has dovetailed into the involvement of the FTC: the years of flaky performance by Taylor ice cream machines, the mostly unheeded complaints of McDonalds franchise owners, the apparent attempt to strongarm Kytch out of the repair business. But, at this point, the FTC is really only investigating the possibility of opening an investigation. This is a "preliminary investigation" which mainly involves asking for some input from Taylor machine owners and, if there's enough alleged to move forward, the FTC will presumably do that. But it's a start. And there will be at least one party listening to the complaints of franchise owners: the federal government.

Filed Under: ftc, mcflurry, ownership, repairs, right to repair
Companies: kytch, mcdonald's, taylor commercial foodservice

Apple Admits The Obvious: User Repairs Harm The Bottom Line

from the well-duh dept

It should probably go without saying, but Apple has never looked too kindly upon users actually repairing their own devices. The company's ham-fisted efforts to shut down, sue, or otherwise imperil third-party repair shops are legendary. As are the company's efforts to force recycling shops to shred Apple products (so they can't be refurbished and re-used), and Apple's often comical attacks on essential right to repair legislation, which only sprung up after companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, John Deere, and others created a grass-roots counter-movement via their attempts to monopolize repair.

The motivation for these behaviors is obvious: if users are repairing or recycling their iDevices, that means fewer sales. As such, Apple has increasingly become more and more obnoxious on this front, regardless of the impact on consumer satisfaction, customer rights, or the environment. You know, like that time it claimed that Nebraska would become a "mecca for hackers" (oh no!) if the state embraced legislation protecting a consumer's right to repair their own devices.

Fast forward to last week, when Apple CEO Tim Cook was forced to write a letter to investors announcing that it had to dramatically scale back revenue projections after it sold fewer iPhones than it had hoped. Part of the problem is that, contrary to the traditional gushing mainstream tech press narrative, Apple's products (and smartphones in general) have become arguably more derivative and less innovative than in recent years, slowing the upgrade cycle. Though Cook states the primary culprit was a slowdown in the Chinese economy (caused in part by Trump's "easy to win" trade war), resulting in fewer iPhones being bought.

But buried in the letter is a notable admission Apple has long tried to avoid. That the company's revenue dip was, at least according to Apple, partially due to users repairing and extending the life of their devices:

"While macroeconomic challenges in some markets were a key contributor to this trend, we believe there are other factors broadly impacting our iPhone performance, including consumers adapting to a world with fewer carrier subsidies, US dollar strength-related price increases, and some customers taking advantage of significantly reduced pricing for iPhone battery replacements."

Journalists like Jason Koebler, who has been at the lead of the right to repair beat for years, was quick to appreciate Apple finally admitting the obvious:

"Right to repair advocates have long argued that Apple customers would be able to get a lot more out of their devices if Apple gave them the ability to repair them, but say the company doesn't want to do that because it will hurt its bottom line. Here is evidence that they might be right."

To be clear, Apple appears to simply be talking about its decision to cut its $79 battery replacement fee down to $29 (free, for some) as a way of apologizing for revelations it was intentionally slowing down some older iPhones, something Apple claimed was necessary to protect the integrity of older devices with aging batteries. Still, right to repair advocates like US PIRG, long frustrated by Apple's misdirection on this subject, applauded the otherwise unremarkable admission:

"Over the past year, I’ve spent a lot of time talking to lawmakers and consumers about Right to Repair, and it’s clear that “ThrottleGate” has fundamentally changed the way we think about our smartphones in two key ways. We now know that batteries can be replaced, extending the life of our older phones. We’ve also developed a sense of skepticism about upgrading our smartphones, due to feeling coerced in an underhanded way toward an unnecessary new phone purchase.

“Long-lasting devices are best for consumers, and best for the planet. Which begs the question: Why isn’t Apple out in front of this trend, instead of being caught off-guard by it?"

Granted Apple's arguably minor acknowledgement is not going to stop companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Verizon, or John Deere from continuing their all-out war on a consumer's right to repair, while simultaneously radiating branding that heralds innovation and a breathless adoration of the "user experience." That's particularly obvious in Apple's ongoing assault on the eighteen states currently eyeing right to repair legislation, opposition the company likes to pretend is exclusively driven by Apple's ethical concern about user safety and security.

Filed Under: battery replacement, disposable society, iphones, repairs, right to repair
Companies: apple

Canadian Court Affirms Citizens Still Have An Expectation Of Privacy In Devices Being Repaired By Third Parties

from the smallish-bulwark-against-tyranny dept

A Canadian appeals court has decided in favor of greater privacy protections for Canadians. The case involves the discovery of child porn by a computer technician who was repairing the appellant's computer. This info was handed over to the police who obtained a "general warrant" to image the hard drive to scour it for incriminating evidence.

Yes, "general warrants" are still a thing in the Crown provinces. The same thing we fought against with the institution of the Fourth Amendment exists in Canada. These days, it has more in common with All Writs orders than the general warrants of the pre-Revolution days, but there's still a hint of tyrannical intent to them. (Again, much like our All Writs orders, which date back to 1789.) "General warrants" are something the government uses when the law doesn't specifically grant permission for what it would like to do:

A provincial court judge, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 may issue a warrant in writing authorizing a peace officer to, subject to this section, use any device or investigative technique or procedure or do any thing described in the warrant that would, if not authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property if

(a) the judge is satisfied by information on oath in writing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament has been or will be committed and that information concerning the offence will be obtained through the use of the technique, procedure or device or the doing of the thing;

(b) the judge is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the warrant; and

(c) there is no other provision in this or any other Act of Parliament that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be done.

The appellant's challenge of the general warrant (rather than a more particular search warrant) almost went nowhere, but this decision grants him (and others like him) the standing to challenge the warrant in the first place. As the court notes, handing a computer over to a technician doesn't deprive the device's owner of an expectation of privacy.

In our view, the appellant had standing to argue a violation of his section 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search. The Crown concedes that the appellant maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data stored on the computer even after delivery of his computer to the repair shop. Privacy is not an all-or-nothing concept. Allowing a technician to have physical access to the computer for the purpose of carrying out repairs does not amount to a waiver of the appellant’s strong expectation of privacy vis-à-vis third parties such as the police. While the appellant’s expectation of privacy was diminished to the extent that he could reasonably expect the repair technician to examine files on the computer in the course of the repairs, this operational reality does not deprive the appellant of standing to bring a claim under section 8 of the Charter.

Standing helps, but ultimately didn't help the appellant here. The court decides the failure to obtain the proper warrant is indeed a violation, but one not severe enough to trigger suppression of the evidence.

The failure to obtain an ordinary search warrant resulted in, at worst, a technical breach of the appellant’s section 8 Charter rights. There was prior judicial authorization for the search even though it was obtained pursuant to the wrong section of the Criminal Code. A general warrant requires reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, and reasonable and probable grounds to believe the search will reveal evidence of an offence – the same standard a judge would have applied with a traditional search warrant under section 487 of the Code.

The court goes on to note the failure to follow proper procedures when obtaining the warrant (ultimately the wrong sort of warrant) was negligent. It was anything but a "trivial" breach of protocol. Even if the officer's inexperience resulted in erroneous actions, the violation is severe enough for the court to take note of. But this negligence isn't enough to overcome the inevitable outcome of the search, in the court's opinion.

In this case, however, the causal link between the forensic search of the computer’s files and the violation of section 489.1 is very weak. Again, there is no reason to believe that the search of the computer’s files would have unfolded any differently if the officer who seized his computer had complied with section 489.1. On this record, any justice would have authorized the initial police detention of the computer, giving the police three months in which to seek a search warrant. There was no copying of the computer’s hard drive prior to the police obtaining a general warrant, which occurred within that three-month period. While the search of the computer’s files undoubtedly had a very significant impact on the appellant’s privacy interests, the police had sought and obtained judicial authorization prior to conducting the initial search, i.e., the forensic imaging. Although the effects of the breach were not trivial, we would not describe the impact on the appellant’s Charter-protected interest, as being particularly serious…

So, while this didn't end up giving the defendant the suppression he was seeking, it did at least affirm an expectation of privacy in devices being handled and repaired by third parties. Better, the opinion contains the government's concession that this privacy expectation exists. Hopefully, this will help deter violations -- erroneous or not -- in the future.

Filed Under: canada, general warrant, privacy, repairs, third parties

Sony, Microsoft Lobby Against Right To Repair Bills (Yet Refuse To Talk About It)

from the this-bad-idea-is-for-your-own-good dept

Last week, we noted how Apple was one of several companies lobbying against a right to repair bill in Nebraska. The bill would make it easier for consumers to repair their own products and find replacement parts and tools, which is generally considered to be a good thing -- especially if the only Apple store is eighty miles away from your current location. But Apple tried to argue that Nebraska's bill would not only make the public less safe (self-immolation everywhere!), but it would also result in Nebraska becoming some kind of "mecca" for nefarious hoodie-wearing ne'er-do-well hackers.

Of course Apple, like most companies, just enjoys a repair-monopoly, which not only allows it to charge an arm and a leg for what very well may be superficial repairs, but helps prop up closed, proprietary ecosystems, hurting customers in a myriad of other ways as well.

It's not just in Nebraska where this conversation is happening (the Nebraska bill just happens to be the furthest along legislatively). Similar bills are also winding their way through New York, Minnesota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Illinois state legislatures. And in most of these states, the companies lobbying against these laws are using the same disingenuous arguments Apple has been embracing. Usually it's the trifecta of false claims that the bills will make users less safe, pose a cybersecurity risk, and open the door to cybersecurity theft.

Game console makers Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, long at the forefront of opposing the user right to tinker, fired off a letter last week (pdf) under the banner of the Entertainment Software Association that once again trots out all three bogeymen in taking aim at Nebraska's law:

"We are concerned that legislative Bill 67 would jeopardize consumer safety and security, is unnecessary and compromises intellectual property....Customer safety, security and privacy are fundamental goals in the design of our membership's hardware, software and services...Our free market economy already provides a wide-range of consumer choice for repair with varying levels of quality, price and convenience without the mandates in this legislation."

Note they cite a "free market economy" in the hopes you'll ignore the fact that they've effectively monopolized repair to the detriment of price and convenience. Companies like Sony and Microsoft would certainly prefer that you pay them exorbitant fees to repair what's often their own manufacturing errors that they charge upwards of $200 to fix, but could have been repaired for notably less. Both Sony and Microsoft have also long placed tamper-proof stickers on their game consoles claiming removal of the sticker violates the warranty, even though this technically violates the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Justification for repair bill opposition is so flimsy, none of the companies opposing right to repair legislation want to really talk about it:

"After referring me to several different press representatives, Microsoft declined to comment. Sony did not respond to a request for comment. Apple has ignored repeated requests for comment. The ESA declined to comment. In two years of covering this issue, no manufacturer has ever spoken to me about it either on or off the record."

"We won't make as much money if independent, local repair shops can help customers" isn't a very compelling argument. But as usual, buying or hoodwinking a campaign-contribution-soaked Congress with a fleeting understanding of technology isn't particularly hard:

"It's very easy for the manufacturer to stand up there and say no we're the only ones who know how to do it," Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit, told me. "Lawmakers get spun stories by lobbyists who say the sky is falling, and it's very easy to kill legislation."..."This is not a case of right vs. left or a fringe interest group pushing it," Wiens added. "Everyone wants to be allowed to fix their stuff, and there's only a few organizations that don't want them to be able to. It's very transparent why manufacturers are against this."

In Nebraska, the right to repair bill was driven by John Deere's "authorized" repair requirements, which forced many regional farmers to pay John Deere an arm and a leg for, again, what in many instances may be relatively inexpensive and simple repairs. It's not only a monopoly over repair -- it's the cornerstone of an adversarial and utterly non-transparent relationship with the consumer. And the fact that the companies taking aim at these legislative proposals aren't even willing to publicly talk about them speaks volumes in and of itself.

Filed Under: freedom to tinker, ownership, repairs, right to repair
Companies: esa, microsoft, sony

Apple's IP Lawyers May Force YouTube MacBook Repair Videos Offline Over Schematic

from the still-keeping-that-on-the-down-low dept

It's no secret that Apple does not want you to monkey around with your device's innards or to take it anywhere but to its own stores for repairs. The company has continually screwed around with the screws that keep its hardware together in an effort to prevent DIYers and non-Apple-approved repair shops from opening its devices.

Now, Apple can't legally prevent anyone from utilizing third parties for repairs, as explained in this Motherboard article by Jason Koebler. A 40-year-old piece of legislation states companies can't void warranties simply because the devices have been opened.

What almost no one knows is that these stickers and clauses are illegal under a federal law passed in 1975 called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

To be clear, federal law says you can open your electronics without voiding the warranty, regardless of what the language of that warranty says.

Apple (far from the only offender) maneuvers around this by hinting heavily that you're fucked if you choose to let anyone but an approved Apple tech crack open your iPhone.

Apple’s iPhone warranty is less explicit, but has this message in bold: "Important: Do not open the Apple Product. Opening the Apple Product may cause damage that is not covered by this Warranty. Only Apple or an AASP should perform service on this Apple Product." Apple is also known to refuse to service phones that have been opened by their owners or by third party repair professionals.

"May" and "should" are Apple's hedges against federal law. Apple figures this is enough to discourage people from doing repairs themselves or letting others do it for them. The letter of the law is respected. The spirit of the law, however, is subjected to a series of mean-spirited subtweets.

Apple further funnels repairwork to its own techs by refusing to release schematics and other repair-related info. Various "right to repair" bills are seeking to open up these walled repair gardens, but these have faced heavy opposition from several companies -- the same ones that periodically petition the Library of Congress to make repairs/modifications of their products illegal under the DMCA.

So, it's hardly a surprise that an "unauthorized" repairman would post a video hinting that he's facing legal threats from Apple for showing people how to fix their own MacBooks. (via Slashdot)

Louis Rossmann’s YouTube channel has been an invaluable source of detailed tutorials for DIY repairs, some of them detailing how to perform component replacements rather than the whole-board approach typically taken by Apple Stores. But in a somewhat vague video posted last night, Rossmann indicates that they may be about to disappear.

While Rossmann doesn’t say so explicitly, he implies that he has received a takedown notice for his videos, and Reddit is speculating that Apple may be behind it. It’s unclear what might form the basis of any takedown notice, though Rossmann does express strong views on Apple’s approach to repairs, and some of the videos do include Apple schematics. We’ve reached out to Apple and will update with any response.

The video is indeed cryptic. Rossmann points out that videos can be downloaded and hints that his channel may not be live for long. He also alludes to "being strong" and ready for a long fight, while noting all of his videos may soon be deleted.

The hints dropped here were enough that Game Revolution ran with the story, but subsequently deleted it when Rossmann provided more information. 9-to-5 Mac, however, kept its story live and updated it with Rossmann's comments. Apple isn't going to sue Rossmann or somehow shut down his YouTube account.

Louis Rossmann has posted a follow-up video in which he says that he has been contacted by IP lawyers acting for Apple but is not currently being faced with a lawsuit. He said there is an issue with a schematic, but Apple is said to like the channel.

Rossmann also says the conversation was "friendly" and that Apple's concern with the schematic was "understandable," but notes that it's a holiday weekend and he likely won't know anything more about the company's plans until Monday.

This is better behavior than one would expect from Apple, considering its history of making repair/DIY-unfriendly devices. But it also shows Apple is still interested in limiting the amount of repair-related information the public has access to. If it's trying to keep him from displaying a schematic or using that info to help people repair their own devices, then its legal muscle will achieve the same end, without the collateral PR damage that would come from kicking an "unauthorized" repairman off the internet.

Filed Under: intellectual property, repairs, schematics, warranties
Companies: apple, youtube

Thou Shall Not Browse: Comcast Refuses Service Call To Chicago Church Out Of Fear

from the holy-shit dept

Our Facebook, who art on the internet, mashup be thy name. My question's one, will Comcast come, to our church as connectivity has ended? Give us this day, at least one technician, and forgive us our addresses, as we forgive those whose customer service sucks. And leave us not without our Netflix, but deliver us from downtime, amen.

This, I propose, might need to be adopted as a modernized propitiation by at least one church on Chicago's South Side, and offered to the regulation-creating internet lord, Comcast. That's because, as reported by a rather well-known preacher here in my beloved city, Comcast refused to send a service technician to work on a service issue because the neighborhood was way too scary.

On Wednesday, Father Michael Pfleger said that Comcast will not come out and fix the Internet connection at St. Sabina Church because of the neighborhood violence in Englewood. Classes in the St. Sabina computer lab were disrupted in the morning, not by violence outside, but by Internet problems that made doing anything online slow or impossible. The director called Comcast and set up a repair appointment for the afternoon only to have it canceled five minutes later.

“They told me due to the violence in the area, the increased violence in the area, that they were not dispatching any technicians into the area,” said Phil Hunter, who's the Director of the St. Sabina Community Employment Center.

Now, Father Pfleger is a notorious figure here in Chicago, and nationally, for being quite vocal on racial issues, to the point that he can occasionally come off as being ridiculous. Case in point was his insistence that Hillary Clinton freaked out about Barack Obama running against her because she thought she shouldn't have to compete with a black person (whatever you think about Clinton, Pfleger doesn't have mind-reading powers such as this). But we can leave his reputation aside for the moment, because Comcast didn't deny the accusation. Instead, Comcast insisted that it was cancelling all kinds of appointments in the area due to safety issues. Think about that: Comcast is happy to collect money from internet service customers, but not service them. In a city, mind you, that is carved up by ISPs for exclusive areas to such a degree that it's almost funny.

So, how frightened of the violence was Comcast? Well, this ought to give you some idea.

Well guess what after Facebook goes off and calls and media respond...SUDDENLY, calls from Comcast come and two... Posted by Father Michael Pfleger on Wednesday, November 11, 2015

So, either Chicago's violence problem was suddenly solved in a matter of hours, or Comcast cares more about PR than it does the safety of its technicians, which it had invoked only hours previous as to why it wouldn't come. It's frankly difficult to think of a worse tack Comcast could have chosen to follow: refuse service calls due to safety, get smacked with backlash, ignore safety concerns and do the service call. As Father Pfleger rightly points out, not everyone in the neighborhood is a preacher with a platform.

But that's Comcast for you. They're only answering your prayers for internet service that you're paying for if you've got those media indulgences, I guess...

Filed Under: broadband, chicago, repairs, service, violence
Companies: comcast

Sorry: AT&T & Verizon Can't Upgrade Or Repair Your Aging DSL Line Because Parts Are Too Hard To Find

from the your-call-is-not-important-to-us dept

While the government and industry pay a lot of lip service toward expanding broadband availability and competition, we've noted how giant phone companies like AT&T and Verizon are actually backing away from unwanted DSL markets. Through a combination of apathy (failing to repair the lines timely) and price hikes for services that cost less than ever to offer, the telcos are actively driving DSL users to either cable competitors or wireless (or both, since cable operators now help sell Verizon wireless services). Fixed-line broadband is perfectly profitable, it's just not profitable enough quickly enough for telco investors.

As a result, these companies are shifting their attention to significantly-more-expensive wireless services with caps and overages, and pretending this is just as good as an uncapped, less expensive DSL line. The result? A huge swath of the country where the cable broadband monopoly is going to be more potent than ever, resulting in worse customer service (if that's even possible) and higher prices than ever before.

Of course, AT&T and Verizon can't just come forth and say that they no longer care about huge swaths of the country, so as they go state to state trying to gut all regulations requiring they continue to offer fixed-line services, they're claiming that if state legislatures do their bidding, the states will somehow be awash with amazing new technologies. AT&T calls this the "IP transition," and has been successful in conflating a general shift toward wireless and IP networks with the company's refusal to upgrade fixed-line assets. Both companies have even gone so far as to have folks like Steve Forbes issue editorials proclaiming DSL lines are dead -- news to those for whom that's their only reliable connectivity option.

Verizon has also used natural disasters as justification for refusing to repair or upgrade customers, with some victims of Hurricane Sandy on the East Coast still waiting for their DSL lines to get repaired. Most recently, Verizon tried to claim that the reason it just sold its unwanted fixed-line assets in Florida, Texas and California was because of regulators' positions on net neutrality.

It's of course not just rural regions that are impacted by this shift: Baltimore's one of several cities (like Boston, Alexandria and Buffalo) that didn't get chosen for Verizon's now-dead FiOS expansion plans. With Verizon not willing to spend the money for further FiOS expansion, the company needed something to tell locals that not only aren't seeing upgrades, but in some cases are now waiting months for repairs. This month's excuse? Parts are just too hard to find:

"It's not just the wires that are going bad, it's the switches," said Sherry Lichtenberg, the principal researcher for telecommunications at the Washington-based National Regulatory Research Institute. "It's really hard to find parts." AT&T officials have said the company sometimes has to scrounge on eBay for parts."

Yes that's AT&T, a company that saw $132.4 billion in revenues last year, claiming that it has to head to eBay to upgrade its networks. Of course, parts aren't hard to find when you replace those older parts -- like in more upscale development communities where AT&T is slowly starting to offer very limited 1 Gbps fiber deployments (deployments, it should be noted, that AT&T also claims it paused over net neutrality). Parts also aren't hard to find when you're offering wireless LTE services with $15 per gigabyte overages. Parts are, apparently, only hard to find in areas you're intentionally abandoning -- but don't want to admit you're intentionally abandoning.

On one hand, you can understand that Verizon and AT&T are simply heading where the real money is. The problem is that after refusing to upgrade many markets, the telcos have lobbied for laws prohibiting these same towns and cities from upgrading themselves (or in some cases engaging in public/private partnerships). When the FCC recently (and quite belatedly) announced they'd be trying to eliminate the most contentious parts of these protectionist laws, the broadband industry threatened to sue. As such, the telecom industry has created a giant painful ouroboros of intentional dysfunction, one that only begins to unravel when we stop letting AT&T, Comcast and Verizon write state telecom law.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, dsl, investment, parts, repairs, spare parts, upgrade, wireless
Companies: at&t, verizon

Broken Monitor Still Under Warranty, But Samsung Won't Fix It, Because You Don't Live In Canada

from the blame-canada dept

A guy who bought a Samsung monitor at a Sam's Club in St. Louis, Missouri, had it stop working after a couple years. He found the model number, and saw that it was supposed to have a three year warranty, so he called Samsung. Samsung is refusing to fix it, claiming that the monitor is Canadian and the warranty only works in Canada, unless he has his receipt from two years ago as proof of purchase. It's not clear why Sam's Club was selling Canadian monitors, but should it really matter?

Filed Under: canada, customer service, monitors, repairs
Companies: samsung

How Automakers Abuse Intellectual Property Laws To Force You To Pay More For Repairs

from the it's-all-a-big-scam dept

Back in May, we wrote about the effort to get a Right to Repair bill passed for automobiles: So far, thanks in part to lobbying by automakers, that bill hasn't gone very far. Reader MR sends in this article exploring both the bill and how automakers have been abusing intellectual property law to force you to pay more. Basically, as cars become more sophisticated and computerized, automakers are locking up access to those computers, and claiming that access is protected by copyrights. Mechanics are told they can only access the necessary diagnostics if they pay huge sums -- meaning that many mechanics simply can't repair certain cars, and car owners are forced to go to dealers, who charge significantly higher fees.

There is no legitimate basis for this at all. It's a clear misuse of intellectual property laws -- which were never designed for this sort of thing -- to prevent independent auto mechanics from repairing newer cars. But it's the end result of the increasing creep of intellectual property rights, and the growing computerization of everything. It allows manufacturers to extend "IP" rights to physical goods, and create all sorts of new monopolies. In a perfect world, this wouldn't need a separate law. It would be a clear violation of antitrust laws. But, we don't live in a perfect world, and for the time being you're probably paying a lot more money to repair your car because of it.

Filed Under: cars, intellectual property, repairs