This has nothing to do with repair because the product is not broken by any meaningful definition of the word "broken". It's just ill-designed from a certain POV.
In the context of the proposed laws, does it have to be already broken for it to be considered repairable?
Personally I'd rather not see the law as a bludgeon aimed at Intel's head but rather as a protocol or platform for communication about this issue. For example an if they released their overclockable CPUs with an individual encryption key for the ME, putting the end-users' interests first, I might be interested in being their customer once again. Right now I have a 2500k SandyBridge and no reason at all to upgrade, and certainly not with an Intel device.
Personally I'd rather not see the law as a bludgeon aimed at Intel's head but rather as a protocol or platform for communication about this issue. For example an if they released their overclockable CPUs with an individual encryption key for the ME, putting the end-users' interests first, I might be interested in being their customer once again. Right now I have a 2500k SandyBridge and no reason at all to upgrade, and certainly not with an Intel device.