[giancarlostoro]

The thing being asked for with the right to repair and why these companies are against it is that devices arent so convoluted you cannot repair them. We would see bigger devices that can be repaired because not everything is soldered together. At least thats what I remember reading a year ago. It would force companies to redesign their devices. Which is sensibly why they are against it all.

[no_wizard]

IANL however my understanding of the legislation behind it boils down to:

Right to repair essentially boils down to the product needs to be repairable in a reproducible way. It doesn’t state how that repair needs to be done or what exactly that means.

The big one is for repair 𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 and 𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙖𝙞𝙧 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙨 is what is most important. So that a repair shop or savvy consumer could indeed do their repairs without push back from the manufacturer. It also means the specifications for those repairs and parts would be open(ish)

Having to openly document repair procedure and have open part availability is what I think wrongly companies are attempting to protect. Because third parties could manufacturer spec compliant parts that wouldn't void the overall warranty of a product

I think redesign is a non significant factor

EDIT: I just want to note that in the right to repair debate product lifecycle planned obelesance is actually a legitimate argument for right to repair. I don't think devices are built to live longer then a product generations lifecycle (for instance, an iPhone has a typical generation lifecycle of 3-5 years I believe)

Right to repair would reverse that trend at least somewhat