[rtbathula]

Although different items can come together to form a product, it is McDonald's who brought them together as a WHOLE. This is strictly their property, and they have the right to keep their trade secrets, regardless of how bad they are.

If customers have problems with the machines, they should not buy them or use them. They have the freedom to choose. Additionally, if McDonald's has defrauded them in any way, they should sue McDonald's. There is a free choice.

iFixit may be great engineers who can perform magic, but they are literally asking Congress for an exemption to violate copyright law. This will not end with McDonald's; others will follow suit.

As for Ayn Rand's argument, because it provides the right expression in one line.

[kmeisthax]

>but they are literally asking Congress for an exemption to violate copyright law

They are literally not. The Copyright Office cannot actually grant exceptions to copyright law, they can only grant exceptions to DMCA 1201(a), the part of the law that makes it illegal to break copy protection. This is because copy protection software gets in the way of otherwise legal uses of copyrighted material and DMCA 1201 was not intended to overthrow fair use[1].

What iFixit is asking for, is an exemption to break copy protection on things that copyright does not protect. Copyright owners are not entitled to prohibit repair of machines with their software in it. The legislative intent from Congress has been very clear[0]. The only reason why this is even a question is that some hack fraud of a company might decide to throw spurious 1201 claims at people fixing products they own. This wouldn't necessarily be Taylor. It could be, say, Future Motion; which uses DRM to block you from replacing the battery cells in their OneWheel electric skateboards.

This question is valid independent of the other questions regarding trade secrecy or contractual obligations you brought up, because DMCA 1201 does not apply to anything but copyright. The printer manufacturers[2] and garage door opener companies[3] found this out the hard way.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

[1] Although it does feel like it at times.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v.....

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._Sky....

[rtbathula]

The findings of the Lexmark International case(the link you have provided) are very important to understand in this context, as they provide us with all the information we need.

1. Is the software lock protected by copyright law? If so, no one should copy it.

2. Did McDonald's/Taylor defraud the users? If so, the users can sue them.

3. Is Kytch copying the software lock and selling it? If so, that would be a violation. However, you have said that they are not copying it; they are simply reading error codes and providing a different output. In that case, I do not see why they would need to invoke DMCA 1201 for an exemption. This is a completely different situation, like someone creating a keyboard or stand for my laptop. Kytch should apply for their own copyright in this case. Their appeal should be made in this direction.