Lots of smoke, but likely little heat.

Yet, got me thinking about what sort of form legislation *might* take.

Obviously, you can't force manufacturers to disclose their IP.
Yet, you need to make *some* information available to The Public,
if you are going to support their "Right to Repair".

If the edict requires you to make public everything that you
make available to your "authorized service partners", that
could still far short of PRACTICAL "DIY fixit". E.g., if
you require your partners to purchase special test fixtures
(from you), then you could require others (DIY) to purchase
those fixtures in order to make sense of your published
repair procedures.

If your service partners are limited to board level swap,
then DIYers would similarly be constrained; no need for
your partners to have detailed information about a board's
design -- just enough to do black box testing. (So,
even if an LDO failure at U36 is a common cause for board
replacement, there's no need to expose that level of detail
to your partners or DIYers: "We don't sell replacement
*components*, just subassemblies")

OTOH, what if you have no "partners" and do all repairs at
the factory? Do you have to make public the materials
(and supplies) that you would use internally?

I.e., how can legislators (actually, the lobbyists working
behind them) come up with any language that will *really*
wrest repair from the control of the manufacturers and
their agents? Is this just lots of smoke with no fire?

[What if your design is an ASCI with signal conditioning discretes
surrounding it. In practical terms, the part that leaves the
customer screwed is the ASIC itself, not the score of discretes!
What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]

Am 03.08.21 um 21:49 schrieb Don Y:

> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]

HP came quite close to that for a steel axle with some rubber
on it after the fusing station of my HP LJ6-MP.

Gerhard, now Kyocera customer.

On 8/3/2021 1:02 PM, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
> Am 03.08.21 um 21:49 schrieb Don Y:
>
>> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
>> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]
>
> HP came quite close to that for a steel axle with some rubber
> on it after the fusing station of my HP LJ6-MP.
>
> Gerhard, now Kyocera customer.

You can argue that the cost *of* a replacement part can easily
exceed the cost of the entire product; your operation is likely
geared to making *products*, not selling spares!

How many LJ6's do they sell? How many replacement axles?

What's the cost (to them) of selling an LJ6 vs. a replacement
part? How *many* replacement parts will they have to stock
and make available vs. the handful of LJ6 variants? How much
profit should they be entitled to make on replacement parts
vs. complete products?

I can recall writing a contract for a large, multinational
medical equipment manufacturer. We were developing a product
for them and had the exclusive right to manufacture. What
should we make available to them on a "spares" policy?
If they want to purchase some adhesive decals that we slap
on the device, should we have to stock them as an FRU and
make them available "on demand"?

What about commodity parts? How do we know that they won't use
us as an alternative to distis if the market for a particular
device gets tight? (if we sell them a bunch of tent peg grease,
what will *we* do when we need it to manufacture their device?)

In our case, we omitted much formal language -- but, allowed
us to set the price of anything we sold to them (other than
completed units). So, you want to use us as a hardware store
to purchase M5 screws? Fine! They're $6 -- *each*! (and,
if that doesn't discourage you, we'll up the price to $60!)

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:02:14 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:

>Am 03.08.21 um 21:49 schrieb Don Y:
>
>> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
>> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]

>HP came quite close to that for a steel axle with some rubber
>on it after the fusing station of my HP LJ6-MP.

Yep. This roller?
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/121012448507>
About $20 plus tax.

There's still a large aftermarket demand for replacement HP printer
parts, which was filled by offshore vendors. HP does want to service
this market because it detracts from the sale of new replacement
printers. So, they set parts prices high, only sell expensive
sub-assemblies, make the online parts store an ordeal process:
<https://parts.hp.com>
and maintain zero inventory parts that fail. Here's the most popular
parts ordered online:
<https://parts.hp.com/hppartsIGSO/Default.aspx?mscssid=37D1185F88004A7D9E1444D12553365A&cc=US&lang=EN&jumpid=>
A common 6ft AC power cord is only $30.37 with zero in stock. Nice.

Users seem to be following the guidance provided by Apple, Microsoft,
and other computer vendors, to replace everything every 5 years or
earlier. When it's easier and cheaper to buy a new computah, than to
fix the hardware and software on the old computer, such things are
possible. Circuit designers are helping by designing products that
blow up or fall apart after about 5 years. Anything that lasts longer
is considered waste and is "cost reduced" in the next revision.
Fortunately, the printer manufacturers haven't discovered this source
of revenue enhancement. I routinely see printers that have been
running for 10 or more years.

>Gerhard, now Kyocera customer.

Despite my being officially retired, I prefer fixing Brother printers.
However, I still work on HP printers because they tend to be
profitable. If I buy refurbished Brother printers, I can get three
Brother printers for the retail cost of one HP printer.
<https://www.brother-usa.com/promotions/refurbished#sort=%40productcataloglistprice%20descending&f:productcategory=[Laser%20Printers]>
Note: I only do laser printers.

I find "right to repair" rather amusing. Why do I need the right to
fix something that shouldn't break in the first place? Shouldn't the
effort be made to extend the life of a product by designing products
that last longer? Maybe we should establish a Ministry of Reliability
and fine vendors who sell products that self destruct far too early?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 8/3/2021 5:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:02:14 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Am 03.08.21 um 21:49 schrieb Don Y:
>>
>>> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
>>> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]
>
>> HP came quite close to that for a steel axle with some rubber
>> on it after the fusing station of my HP LJ6-MP.
>
> Yep. This roller?
> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/121012448507>
> About $20 plus tax.
>
> There's still a large aftermarket demand for replacement HP printer
> parts, which was filled by offshore vendors. HP does want to service
> this market because it detracts from the sale of new replacement
> printers. So, they set parts prices high, only sell expensive
> sub-assemblies, make the online parts store an ordeal process:
> <https://parts.hp.com>
> and maintain zero inventory parts that fail. Here's the most popular
> parts ordered online:
> <https://parts.hp.com/hppartsIGSO/Default.aspx?mscssid=37D1185F88004A7D9E1444D12553365A&cc=US&lang=EN&jumpid=>
> A common 6ft AC power cord is only $30.37 with zero in stock. Nice.

I've found a good strategy to be "pulling" (likely) useful parts off of
discarded devices. Actually trying to keep the entire device (as a
spare) eats up a lot of space. But, pulling things like friction rollers
(think paper feed) takes damn little space in a drawer and can pay big
rewards!

> Users seem to be following the guidance provided by Apple, Microsoft,
> and other computer vendors, to replace everything every 5 years or
> earlier. When it's easier and cheaper to buy a new computah, than to
> fix the hardware and software on the old computer, such things are
> possible. Circuit designers are helping by designing products that
> blow up or fall apart after about 5 years.

If the market is going to be chasing the latest version of XXX OS,
then what value to making a machine that will run longer than
major release updates?

We see THOUSANDS of discarded PCs (corporate donors) annually.
Absolutely nothing wrong with them! Fully intact (we have to
ensure any identifying information is scrubbed from them -- not
just disks but BIOSes, inventory control tags, "stickers", etc.)

> Anything that lasts longer
> is considered waste and is "cost reduced" in the next revision.
> Fortunately, the printer manufacturers haven't discovered this source
> of revenue enhancement. I routinely see printers that have been
> running for 10 or more years.

Lasers and phasers. But inkjets seem to shit the bed pretty early.
I've rescued several (wide format) and found that I couldn't generate
enough usage for them to keep them from drying out. So, back into
the tip they go!

I've even tossed my phasers (and all of that delightfully expensive ink!)
and higher speed lasers -- in favor of the slower, low temperature
toner varieties (LJ5 & 6). Of course, having rescued a dozen NIB
HP toner cartridges went a LONG way towards that decision! :> :>

>> Gerhard, now Kyocera customer.
>
> Despite my being officially retired, I prefer fixing Brother printers.
> However, I still work on HP printers because they tend to be
> profitable. If I buy refurbished Brother printers, I can get three
> Brother printers for the retail cost of one HP printer.
> <https://www.brother-usa.com/promotions/refurbished#sort=%40productcataloglistprice%20descending&f:productcategory=[Laser%20Printers]>
> Note: I only do laser printers.
>
> I find "right to repair" rather amusing. Why do I need the right to
> fix something that shouldn't break in the first place?

Why shouldn't it? What other things "shouldn't" break? By and
large, the failures that I encounter are power-supply related.
(e.g., I have six identical workstations -- and 3 spare power supplies,
"just in case") I can't count the number of LCD monitors that I've
had to service because of bad caps or bad FETs (fine; more free toys
for me!)

> Shouldn't the
> effort be made to extend the life of a product by designing products
> that last longer? Maybe we should establish a Ministry of Reliability
> and fine vendors who sell products that self destruct far too early?

We should put a "deposit" on things that will become eWaste. At the
very least, it would encourage folks to dispose of them properly.
(we process 3500 pounds of "computers and ilk" *daily*. Six days
a week. 50 weeks per year.

A better goal would be to convince users (consumers) that they don't
NEED the stuff that is being offered in the "latest version" (of whatever).

My Windows apps run under W7 -- because they don't NEED anything that W8+
have to offer! (and think of all the time I save NOT installing OS
updates!)

The (NetBSD) machine on which I do most of my software development gets
updated every few years. If I've been diligent with my coding style,
there are no consequences to my work -- no worrying about whether
some new version of a tool will require me to rework *my* stuff!

Y did Don write:

=====================
> Lots of smoke, but likely little heat.
>
** Exatly like all his crazy posts.

> Yet, got me thinking about what sort of form legislation *might* take.

** Drivel.

>
> Obviously, you can't force manufacturers to disclose their IP.

** Nonsense.

> If the edict requires you to make public everything that you
> make available to your "authorized service partners",

* It will not say that. Way too arbitrary.

> If your service partners are limited to board level swap,
> then DIYers would similarly be constrained;

** That is why it will not say that.

> OTOH, what if you have no "partners" and do all repairs at
> the factory?

** Factory repairs are done quite differently to how others do it.

And when the factory is in China - what then ?

> I.e., how can legislators (actually, the lobbyists working
> behind them) come up with any language that will *really*
> wrest repair from the control of the manufacturers and
> their agents? Is this just lots of smoke with no fire?

** Simply to supply what outsiders say they must have to carry out repairs and cannot get elsewhere.
NO dubious excuses allowed.

> [What if your design is an ASCI with signal conditioning discretes
> surrounding it. In practical terms, the part that leaves the
> customer screwed is the ASIC itself, not the score of discretes!
> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]

** A rule against excessive pricing ?
..

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
> Lots of smoke, but likely little heat.
>
> Yet, got me thinking about what sort of form legislation *might* take.
>
> Obviously, you can't force manufacturers to disclose their IP.
> Yet, you need to make *some* information available to The Public,
> if you are going to support their "Right to Repair".
>
> If the edict requires you to make public everything that you
> make available to your "authorized service partners", that
> could still far short of PRACTICAL "DIY fixit". E.g., if
> you require your partners to purchase special test fixtures
> (from you), then you could require others (DIY) to purchase
> those fixtures in order to make sense of your published
> repair procedures.
>
> If your service partners are limited to board level swap,
> then DIYers would similarly be constrained; no need for
> your partners to have detailed information about a board's
> design -- just enough to do black box testing. (So,
> even if an LDO failure at U36 is a common cause for board
> replacement, there's no need to expose that level of detail
> to your partners or DIYers: "We don't sell replacement
> *components*, just subassemblies")
>
> OTOH, what if you have no "partners" and do all repairs at
> the factory? Do you have to make public the materials
> (and supplies) that you would use internally?
>
> I.e., how can legislators (actually, the lobbyists working
> behind them) come up with any language that will *really*
> wrest repair from the control of the manufacturers and
> their agents? Is this just lots of smoke with no fire?
>
> [What if your design is an ASCI with signal conditioning discretes
> surrounding it. In practical terms, the part that leaves the
> customer screwed is the ASIC itself, not the score of discretes!
> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]

The "Right to Repair" is exactly there to break through this
line of thinking. No "we publish nothing because we want to
protect our IP", but the obligation to publish enough information
to allow others to understand the product well enough to do
repairs. And, the obligation to make parts available for that,
not necessarily from the manufacturer itself but at least not
blocking their availability from other sources.

So, once it has been determined that LDO failure at U36 is a common
failure, either make that LDO available or not block its availability
at the wellknown electronics parts sellers.

Your own repair policy has nothing to do with that. And you
can continue to do it that way. When your policy is: "whatever
defect our equipment has, we only swap it for a new and functioning
device either within warranty or at a fixed fee" then that is OK.
But when others want to repair it at component level, that should
be their right to do and you should not block it.

When this feels like "interfering with my way of doing business"
then get used to that. This already is the case in many places
around the world, e.g. Europe. When you want to do business, you
are often not free to do it in the way you like best, but you have
to adopt to what legislators force you to do. Or do no business.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 12:49:51 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

>Lots of smoke, but likely little heat.
>
>Yet, got me thinking about what sort of form legislation *might* take.
>
>Obviously, you can't force manufacturers to disclose their IP.
>Yet, you need to make *some* information available to The Public,
>if you are going to support their "Right to Repair".
>
>If the edict requires you to make public everything that you
>make available to your "authorized service partners", that
>could still far short of PRACTICAL "DIY fixit". E.g., if
>you require your partners to purchase special test fixtures
>(from you), then you could require others (DIY) to purchase
>those fixtures in order to make sense of your published
>repair procedures.
>
>If your service partners are limited to board level swap,
>then DIYers would similarly be constrained; no need for
>your partners to have detailed information about a board's
>design -- just enough to do black box testing. (So,
>even if an LDO failure at U36 is a common cause for board
>replacement, there's no need to expose that level of detail
>to your partners or DIYers: "We don't sell replacement
>*components*, just subassemblies")
>
>OTOH, what if you have no "partners" and do all repairs at
>the factory? Do you have to make public the materials
>(and supplies) that you would use internally?
>
>I.e., how can legislators (actually, the lobbyists working
>behind them) come up with any language that will *really*
>wrest repair from the control of the manufacturers and
>their agents? Is this just lots of smoke with no fire?
>
>[What if your design is an ASCI with signal conditioning discretes
>surrounding it. In practical terms, the part that leaves the
>customer screwed is the ASIC itself, not the score of discretes!
>What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
>a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]

Replace vs repair may be cheaper for the manufacturer AND the
customer, things being as they are.

Repairing seems to serve the purpose of extending the life
of products that the mfr prefers not to support, because
there's no profit in it.

Serviceability of a product is a point-of-sale feature,
that either raises or lowers a products value. It's a
much bigger issue at re-sale, which is not a mainstream
issue with the well-heeled individual or the short-term
corporation.

I'd love to see legislated requirements for serviceability, but
I think the closest you'll ever get to that is waste material
controls.

Paperwork for carrying out such regulation is substantial, but
can be used as a defacto preferential trade barrier, much as
safety, emc and health restrictions already do.

RL

In article <secsn5$qd6$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
says...
>
> My Windows apps run under W7 -- because they don't NEED anything that W8+
> have to offer! (and think of all the time I save NOT installing OS
> updates!)
>
>

The only Microsoft program I run is the Office program. I had to
upgrade my computer system to Win 10 from XP just because Turbo Tax and
some Google Chrome web sites quit being suported.

I just do not see what kind of 'features' that TT would need from Win 10
or Win 7/8 .

Win 10 is always 'breaking' programs almost every time they upgrade.

Some of my XP programs I run will not run under Win 10 because of the
way they treat the sounds.

In article <khvkgglm85p3ijobt0jcodb306q13phala@4ax.com>,
legg@nospam.magma.ca says...
>
> Replace vs repair may be cheaper for the manufacturer AND the
> customer, things being as they are.
>
>
>

Depending on the device it may be cheaper to replace. Much of the cost
can be the designing and setting up the equipment to produce a product.

Back to the Comodore computer where for about $ 80 they would repair any
problem . The circuit board that cost $ 50 was removed and a new one
installed in the case. It would probably cost less to do it that way
than to trouble shoot the board.

On 8/4/2021 7:04 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <secsn5$qd6$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
> says...
>>
>> My Windows apps run under W7 -- because they don't NEED anything that W8+
>> have to offer! (and think of all the time I save NOT installing OS
>> updates!)
>
> The only Microsoft program I run is the Office program. I had to
> upgrade my computer system to Win 10 from XP just because Turbo Tax and
> some Google Chrome web sites quit being suported.

My other half wanted TT for her taxes. I gave her a laptop with *just*
TT on it. It's called "The Taxes Laptop".

She has numerous MSAccess databases designed ~20 years ago. As those are
most important to her, her desktop computer runs W2K.

We have another laptop that we use *only* for ecommerce.

*This* computer (The Internet Computer) runs W7 -- with scant few applications
(TBird and FFox).

Computers are cheap. Build one for each use.

> I just do not see what kind of 'features' that TT would need from Win 10
> or Win 7/8 .

Agreed. OTOH, there is little incentive for Intuit to support "ancient" OSs.

> Win 10 is always 'breaking' programs almost every time they upgrade.

Yes, my neighbor routinely complains to me about his W10 computer
being hosed. I think he is hoping I will volunteer to fix it for him
("Sorry, I don't run W10 so I have no idea what might be wrong...").

> Some of my XP programs I run will not run under Win 10 because of the
> way they treat the sounds.

For apps that *really* need to run on an older OS, I build VMs and
run them there. The hardware is an order of magnitude faster than
what was available when XP was current so even the inefficiencies of
running in a VM disappear.

In article <seebvn$k4g$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
says...
>
> My other half wanted TT for her taxes. I gave her a laptop with *just*
> TT on it. It's called "The Taxes Laptop".
>
> She has numerous MSAccess databases designed ~20 years ago. As those are
> most important to her, her desktop computer runs W2K.
>
> We have another laptop that we use *only* for ecommerce.
>
> *This* computer (The Internet Computer) runs W7 -- with scant few applications
> (TBird and FFox).
>
> Computers are cheap. Build one for each use.
>
>

Yes, computers are cheap. Especially when I buy them off ebay used. I
just bought one for about $ 100. They are are fast enough to do what I
want. Nothing I do requires a great ammount of computer speed as I
don't play the games.

Problem is the space it takes for them.

I am thinking that Turbo TAx either has or will quit the Win 7/8 and
will need Win 10. Win 11 is about to come out. Guess that we will be
trying to get things ported over to that system before long.

I have a couple of old laptops with DOS/Windows put back that I use
maybe once every 6 months to program some old equipment that has to have
a DOS system and a true serial port. Also use a XP computer most days
because it runs some programs for me that do not need updating and will
not run under Win 10.

On 8/4/2021 8:46 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <seebvn$k4g$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
> says...
>>
>> My other half wanted TT for her taxes. I gave her a laptop with *just*
>> TT on it. It's called "The Taxes Laptop".
>>
>> She has numerous MSAccess databases designed ~20 years ago. As those are
>> most important to her, her desktop computer runs W2K.
>>
>> We have another laptop that we use *only* for ecommerce.
>>
>> *This* computer (The Internet Computer) runs W7 -- with scant few applications
>> (TBird and FFox).
>>
>> Computers are cheap. Build one for each use.
>
> Yes, computers are cheap. Especially when I buy them off ebay used. I
> just bought one for about $ 100. They are are fast enough to do what I
> want. Nothing I do requires a great ammount of computer speed as I
> don't play the games.
>
> Problem is the space it takes for them.

Laptops. It saves you having to set aside space for a keyboard and
display. I think I have 7 or 8 spares (i3+) in the closet.

> I am thinking that Turbo TAx either has or will quit the Win 7/8 and
> will need Win 10. Win 11 is about to come out. Guess that we will be
> trying to get things ported over to that system before long.

I thought last tax season W10 was required (I took her word for it when
she said she needed a W10 computer)

> I have a couple of old laptops with DOS/Windows put back that I use
> maybe once every 6 months to program some old equipment that has to have
> a DOS system and a true serial port.

Yup. I have one that also has a 3" floppy.

> Also use a XP computer most days
> because it runs some programs for me that do not need updating and will
> not run under Win 10.

Everyone *says* you can keep your apps and "just upgrade". That may
be true if you have *few* apps and they are "mainstream". I've been
bitten too many times, in the past, and now adopt the "if it ain't
broke" approach to the OS...

On 8/4/2021 5:09 AM, legg wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 12:49:51 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
> Replace vs repair may be cheaper for the manufacturer AND the
> customer, things being as they are.

Yes, but that won't be what any legislation will address!

And, for some "high margin" products, replace can be costly
(these folks who buy a new iPhone every release cycle...)

> Repairing seems to serve the purpose of extending the life
> of products that the mfr prefers not to support, because
> there's no profit in it.

And that's the hook I can see legislation addressing: ensuring
a supply of replacement parts long after the product has been
retired.

But, that is predicated on either the manufacturer committing
(or being bound) to making them available *or* others being
able to make "work-alikes". What do you do if the CPU in your
iPhone dies? Can you reflash a new one?

And, there are other, less obvious -- but related -- issues.
E.g., if I buy a smart TV (or any other appliance), how long
will the manufacturer be obligated to ensure its continued
functionality? If, for example, the manufacturer provides
a (network) service for his devices and then decides to discontinue
that VERSION of the service, leaving those older devices effectively
useless. (should he be required to publish the details of
the service so some other provider can pick up the market he has
abandoned?)

> Serviceability of a product is a point-of-sale feature,
> that either raises or lowers a products value. It's a
> much bigger issue at re-sale, which is not a mainstream
> issue with the well-heeled individual or the short-term
> corporation.

I suspect few people think about how they will get a product
serviced that they are JUST NOW buying. It's only later,
when something is broken, that they will discover the
realities of that problem.

> I'd love to see legislated requirements for serviceability, but
> I think the closest you'll ever get to that is waste material
> controls.

I think the "e-deposit" is coming. There's just WAY too much ewaste
(which, technically, is HAZARDOUS waste)

> Paperwork for carrying out such regulation is substantial, but
> can be used as a defacto preferential trade barrier, much as
> safety, emc and health restrictions already do.

I think there would be just too many ways to "game" any
sort of "mandatory (or third-party) support" provisions.
Is the gummit going to set the prices for spares?

It will either be "make available everything that your
authorized agents have available to them (likely at
whatever prices you CHARGE those agents -- which may
be prohibitively high because they are enrolled in
a "kick-back" program whereby they are credited for every
repair, etc. ... something that a DIYer would not
have accessible.

Any language would likely mandate "fair" or "reasonable"
pricing. And, how do you legislate those numbers?
A manufacturer can just set up a separate profit center
called "aftermarket support". Buy a building. Staff it.
Have its own accountants, etc. and *burden* the price
of each spare part sold with their actual, DOCUMENTED
costs of overhead. Plus, a "reasonable" profit ("You
can't begrudge me a profit!")

And, if spares are likely a small portion of sales,
they can further burden that firm by disallowing
it to leverage THEIR buying power:

"We sell 100 million widgets annually and, as a result,
get a terrific deal on the components that are used in it.
You, OTOH, will have to negotiate your own pricing for the
< 1% of that number that YOU will likely sell. AND, YOU WILL
HAVE TO KEEP IT IN STOCK FOR n YEARS whereas we can run *our*
inventory to *zero*!"

So, as my initial comment said, largely "smoke".

[A way it may have teeth is to forbid things like patenting
a particular component that is essential to your product's
operation and, as a result, controlling its supply. Do you
modify existing patent law to disallow such claims?]

On 8/4/2021 7:10 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <khvkgglm85p3ijobt0jcodb306q13phala@4ax.com>,
> legg@nospam.magma.ca says...
>>
>> Replace vs repair may be cheaper for the manufacturer AND the
>> customer, things being as they are.
>
> Depending on the device it may be cheaper to replace. Much of the cost
> can be the designing and setting up the equipment to produce a product.
>
> Back to the Comodore computer where for about $ 80 they would repair any
> problem . The circuit board that cost $ 50 was removed and a new one
> installed in the case. It would probably cost less to do it that way
> than to trouble shoot the board.

I suspect their focus is on more costly items. People who will drop $5
on a cup of coffee DAILY are likely not going to fret replacing a $100
item -- as long as it gave them *some* useful life. They think nothing
of replacing computers and printers every few years (and spending gobs
of money on *ink*!)

[We use the printer at the local library. Color prints -- or copies -- being
a dime, each. Now, if I could just get them to DELIVER...]

And, where do you draw the line on "spares" and continuing support?
E.g., if I spend a few kilobucks on a piece of software, shouldn't
I be *entitled* to some level of support even after the manufacturer
(publisher) has "moved on"? Alternatively, should they be required
to locate another firm to pick up that role? Or, disclose their
source code allowing "fair use" for those of us who are capable of
"repairing" it?

At what point do vendors get "overly creative" and find ways to
redefine their *product*? We saw it with functionality moving into
software to sidestep the "warranty" issues of pure hardware
solutions. We're seeing it now as more and more things become *services*
("here's your free toilet paper dispenser! Subscribe to us at
ass-wipers-R-us.com for your daily needs!")

In article <seejes$9qp$1@dont-email.me>, blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
says...
>
> And, where do you draw the line on "spares" and continuing support?
> E.g., if I spend a few kilobucks on a piece of software, shouldn't
> I be *entitled* to some level of support even after the manufacturer
> (publisher) has "moved on"? Alternatively, should they be required
> to locate another firm to pick up that role? Or, disclose their
> source code allowing "fair use" for those of us who are capable of
> "repairing" it?
>
>

Gates solved the software problem. When he started placing on the
package words to the effect that you buy it at your own risk. It is
licensed and not owned by the buyer.

That is different than a piece of hardware that works and then a part
breaks. I have a friend that has a Camaro that is about 30 or so years
old. There is a piece of plastic fuel line at the gas tank that is
broken and there are no replacements for it unless you can find someone
that has one put back from years ago.His broke and a repair place was
able to get it going ,but no guarentee as it was a make shift job.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:29:43 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
<snip>
>> Paperwork for carrying out such regulation is substantial, but
>> can be used as a defacto preferential trade barrier, much as
>> safety, emc and health restrictions already do.
>
>I think there would be just too many ways to "game" any
>sort of "mandatory (or third-party) support" provisions.
>Is the gummit going to set the prices for spares?

It's the other way around in a properly organized trade
barrier. You move the target faster than foreign industry
can anticipate, while making sure local mfrs are up to
date and informed on upcoming changes.

With any luck, the smaller market can be too troublesome
for the bigger vendors to bother with and generate
considerable service bucks selling expertise, test and
design/fab capacity to those that have no alternative.

Germany (now EEC), California . . .

RL

On 8/3/21 12:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
> Lots of smoke, but likely little heat.
>
> Yet, got me thinking about what sort of form legislation *might* take.
>
> Obviously, you can't force manufacturers to disclose their IP.
> Yet, you need to make *some* information available to The Public,
> if you are going to support their "Right to Repair".
>
> If the edict requires you to make public everything that you
> make available to your "authorized service partners", that
> could still far short of PRACTICAL "DIY fixit".  E.g., if
> you require your partners to purchase special test fixtures
> (from you), then you could require others (DIY) to purchase
> those fixtures in order to make sense of your published
> repair procedures.
>
> If your service partners are limited to board level swap,
> then DIYers would similarly be constrained; no need for
> your partners to have detailed information about a board's
> design -- just enough to do black box testing.  (So,
> even if an LDO failure at U36 is a common cause for board
> replacement, there's no need to expose that level of detail
> to your partners or DIYers:  "We don't sell replacement
> *components*, just subassemblies")
>

This is where legislators have to get people with tech know-how
involved, for once. Example:

I lost two Dell PCs in short order and one of them was a pricey i7-based
power machine. Motherboard failure. Well, with the i7 it could also be a
CPU failure but because no schematics are published it's not possible to
tell. Short of shelling out lots of money to try a new CPU and possibly
discovering that this was a waste of money.

So, if PC manufacturers just published the schematics many computers
could be kept out of landfills. Motherboards usually become unobtainable
as spare parts after a short number of years and besides, throwing away
a whole motherboard just because a little IC or a diode on there has
failed doesn't make ecological sense.

And no, this will not harm their sales, on the contrary. After these
experiences I switched brands and replaced these computers with HP. If
Dell had published schematics I could have repaired and then would have
bought the next PC at Dell again.

Here is an example of the opposite: The 50's era large Braun kitchen
mixer from my mom gave up. They furnished a complete service manual for
it. I had to go to Cologne for another reason so figured I'd try to ask
for the spare parts at the factory service place, fully expecting they'd
shoo me away. On the contrary, the employee went back to a large area
with bins, handed me the parts and wanted 1 Deutschmark and 55 Pfennigs.
Huh? "Sir, this must be a misprint, that is way too low" ... "No, this
was the original price when we still built these and we honor that". I
told him they had just won a new loyal customer and after our marriage
we bought several kitchen devices from Braun.

> OTOH, what if you have no "partners" and do all repairs at
> the factory?  Do you have to make public the materials
> (and supplies) that you would use internally?
>

I would not expect any company to divulge trade secrets such as the
contents of an FPGA. However, I do expect release of schematics like was
standard practice in the 60's and 70's where, consequently, I was able
to repair a lot of TV sets as a kid. There is no secret in schematics
since any competitor could easily reverse engineer boards to derive the
schematics.

> I.e., how can legislators (actually, the lobbyists working
> behind them) come up with any language that will *really*
> wrest repair from the control of the manufacturers and
> their agents?  Is this just lots of smoke with no fire?
>

They need to consult and employ experts in the matter -> engineers.

> [What if your design is an ASCI with signal conditioning discretes
> surrounding it.  In practical terms, the part that leaves the
> customer screwed is the ASIC itself, not the score of discretes!
> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]

Easy. Make that reportable and when it festers some goons would be sent
out to that company for a little audit.

It has to be reasonable though. For example, an ASIC with 100 pins or
more or a BGA may not be considered serviceable by ordinary repair
personnel. This is all more about common sense stuff. Such as when the
switch of a old vaccum fries. That happened to us earlier this year.
Could not get the spare, had to buy a whole new vacuum.

I think this is one of the few laws that makes sense if implemented
reasonably and without undue burned on manufacturers. Such as "Identify
the five most common easy to fix failures on your product and make those
parts available at reasonable cost". Switches, motor brushes, cables,
gaskets, that sort of thing. For electronics it's schematics, parts can
generally be bought at Digikey. I don't want a spare for a huge FPGA to
be avaliable for three decades, I just want to be able to have a "map"
that allows me to find that D17 is bad.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 12:30:25 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 8/3/21 12:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> Lots of smoke, but likely little heat.
>>
>> Yet, got me thinking about what sort of form legislation *might* take.
>>
>> Obviously, you can't force manufacturers to disclose their IP.
>> Yet, you need to make *some* information available to The Public,
>> if you are going to support their "Right to Repair".
>>
>> If the edict requires you to make public everything that you
>> make available to your "authorized service partners", that
>> could still far short of PRACTICAL "DIY fixit".  E.g., if
>> you require your partners to purchase special test fixtures
>> (from you), then you could require others (DIY) to purchase
>> those fixtures in order to make sense of your published
>> repair procedures.
>>
>> If your service partners are limited to board level swap,
>> then DIYers would similarly be constrained; no need for
>> your partners to have detailed information about a board's
>> design -- just enough to do black box testing.  (So,
>> even if an LDO failure at U36 is a common cause for board
>> replacement, there's no need to expose that level of detail
>> to your partners or DIYers:  "We don't sell replacement
>> *components*, just subassemblies")
>>
>
>This is where legislators have to get people with tech know-how
>involved, for once. Example:
>
>I lost two Dell PCs in short order and one of them was a pricey i7-based
>power machine. Motherboard failure. Well, with the i7 it could also be a
>CPU failure but because no schematics are published it's not possible to
>tell. Short of shelling out lots of money to try a new CPU and possibly
>discovering that this was a waste of money.
>
>So, if PC manufacturers just published the schematics many computers
>could be kept out of landfills. Motherboards usually become unobtainable
>as spare parts after a short number of years and besides, throwing away
>a whole motherboard just because a little IC or a diode on there has
>failed doesn't make ecological sense.
>
>And no, this will not harm their sales, on the contrary. After these
>experiences I switched brands and replaced these computers with HP. If
>Dell had published schematics I could have repaired and then would have
>bought the next PC at Dell again.
>
>Here is an example of the opposite: The 50's era large Braun kitchen
>mixer from my mom gave up. They furnished a complete service manual for
>it. I had to go to Cologne for another reason so figured I'd try to ask
>for the spare parts at the factory service place, fully expecting they'd
>shoo me away. On the contrary, the employee went back to a large area
>with bins, handed me the parts and wanted 1 Deutschmark and 55 Pfennigs.
>Huh? "Sir, this must be a misprint, that is way too low" ... "No, this
>was the original price when we still built these and we honor that". I
>told him they had just won a new loyal customer and after our marriage
>we bought several kitchen devices from Braun.
>
>
>> OTOH, what if you have no "partners" and do all repairs at
>> the factory?  Do you have to make public the materials
>> (and supplies) that you would use internally?
>>
>
>I would not expect any company to divulge trade secrets such as the
>contents of an FPGA. However, I do expect release of schematics like was
>standard practice in the 60's and 70's where, consequently, I was able
>to repair a lot of TV sets as a kid. There is no secret in schematics
>since any competitor could easily reverse engineer boards to derive the
>schematics.
>
>
>> I.e., how can legislators (actually, the lobbyists working
>> behind them) come up with any language that will *really*
>> wrest repair from the control of the manufacturers and
>> their agents?  Is this just lots of smoke with no fire?
>>
>
>They need to consult and employ experts in the matter -> engineers.
>
>
>> [What if your design is an ASCI with signal conditioning discretes
>> surrounding it.  In practical terms, the part that leaves the
>> customer screwed is the ASIC itself, not the score of discretes!
>> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
>> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]
>
>
>Easy. Make that reportable and when it festers some goons would be sent
>out to that company for a little audit.
>
>It has to be reasonable though. For example, an ASIC with 100 pins or
>more or a BGA may not be considered serviceable by ordinary repair
>personnel. This is all more about common sense stuff. Such as when the
>switch of a old vaccum fries. That happened to us earlier this year.
>Could not get the spare, had to buy a whole new vacuum.
>
>I think this is one of the few laws that makes sense if implemented
>reasonably and without undue burned on manufacturers. Such as "Identify
>the five most common easy to fix failures on your product and make those
>parts available at reasonable cost". Switches, motor brushes, cables,
>gaskets, that sort of thing. For electronics it's schematics, parts can
>generally be bought at Digikey. I don't want a spare for a huge FPGA to
>be avaliable for three decades, I just want to be able to have a "map"
>that allows me to find that D17 is bad.

We just give our customers repair parts and schematics, if they want
to fix something themselves. That seems to make them happy.

On 8/4/21 12:45 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 12:30:25 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/3/21 12:49 PM, Don Y wrote:

[...]

>>> [What if your design is an ASCI with signal conditioning discretes
>>> surrounding it.  In practical terms, the part that leaves the
>>> customer screwed is the ASIC itself, not the score of discretes!
>>> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
>>> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]
>>
>>
>> Easy. Make that reportable and when it festers some goons would be sent
>> out to that company for a little audit.
>>
>> It has to be reasonable though. For example, an ASIC with 100 pins or
>> more or a BGA may not be considered serviceable by ordinary repair
>> personnel. This is all more about common sense stuff. Such as when the
>> switch of a old vaccum fries. That happened to us earlier this year.
>> Could not get the spare, had to buy a whole new vacuum.
>>
>> I think this is one of the few laws that makes sense if implemented
>> reasonably and without undue burned on manufacturers. Such as "Identify
>> the five most common easy to fix failures on your product and make those
>> parts available at reasonable cost". Switches, motor brushes, cables,
>> gaskets, that sort of thing. For electronics it's schematics, parts can
>> generally be bought at Digikey. I don't want a spare for a huge FPGA to
>> be avaliable for three decades, I just want to be able to have a "map"
>> that allows me to find that D17 is bad.
>
> We just give our customers repair parts and schematics, if they want
> to fix something themselves. That seems to make them happy.
>

Excellent! That's usually all people ask for. So if such a law ever
comes into effect you guys should already be well prepared. Like at an
airport where a TSA officer held up my lunch package "Listen up folks,
THIS is how it's done!"

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2021-08-04, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
> On 8/4/2021 7:10 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> In article <khvkgglm85p3ijobt0jcodb306q13phala@4ax.com>,
>> legg@nospam.magma.ca says...
>>>
>>> Replace vs repair may be cheaper for the manufacturer AND the
>>> customer, things being as they are.
>>
>> Depending on the device it may be cheaper to replace. Much of the cost
>> can be the designing and setting up the equipment to produce a product.
>>
>> Back to the Comodore computer where for about $ 80 they would repair any
>> problem . The circuit board that cost $ 50 was removed and a new one
>> installed in the case. It would probably cost less to do it that way
>> than to trouble shoot the board.
>
> I suspect their focus is on more costly items. People who will drop $5
> on a cup of coffee DAILY are likely not going to fret replacing a $100
> item -- as long as it gave them *some* useful life. They think nothing
> of replacing computers and printers every few years (and spending gobs
> of money on *ink*!)
>
> [We use the printer at the local library. Color prints -- or copies -- being
> a dime, each. Now, if I could just get them to DELIVER...]

There are printing services that do deliver, but they are unlikely to
be subsidised by your taxes, so may cost a little more.

--
Jasen.

On 8/4/2021 1:38 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

>> [We use the printer at the local library. Color prints -- or copies -- being
>> a dime, each. Now, if I could just get them to DELIVER...]
>
> There are printing services that do deliver, but they are unlikely to
> be subsidised by your taxes, so may cost a little more.

I was being facetious. I'm at the library at least twice a week
so printing (or photocopying) has less effort involved than going to
a "commercial" place!

Amusingly, the library encourages use of their "free" services,
likely to justify their existence. So, when I submit requests
for texts or documents for which they have to scour the nation,
they are *delighted* (apparently, it costs about $100 to fetch
such a document). And, inevitably raises some eyebrows as the
requests aren't really treated as "private"...

Am 04.08.21 um 02:55 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:02:14 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Am 03.08.21 um 21:49 schrieb Don Y:
>>
>>> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
>>> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]
>
>> HP came quite close to that for a steel axle with some rubber
>> on it after the fusing station of my HP LJ6-MP.
>
> Yep. This roller?
> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/121012448507>
> About $20 plus tax.

No, it was simpler. Just a 6mm steel rod with some rubber on it.
The rubber proved not to be temperature resistant.
I fixed it some for some time with 3 layers of thermo shrink hose.

Gerhard

Am 05.08.21 um 00:07 schrieb Gerhard Hoffmann:
> Am 04.08.21 um 02:55 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:02:14 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 03.08.21 um 21:49 schrieb Don Y:
>>>
>>>> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
>>>> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]
>>
>>> HP came quite close to that for a steel axle with some rubber
>>> on it after the fusing station of my HP LJ6-MP.
>>
>> Yep.  This roller?
>> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/121012448507>
>> About $20 plus tax.
>
> No, it was simpler. Just a 6mm steel rod with some rubber on it.
> The rubber proved not to be temperature resistant.
> I fixed it some for some time with 3 layers of thermo shrink hose.
>
> Gerhard
>
Now that I think about it you could not get the rod without an entire
fusing station.

On 8/4/2021 12:30 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 8/3/21 12:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> Lots of smoke, but likely little heat.
>>
>> Yet, got me thinking about what sort of form legislation *might* take.
>>
>> Obviously, you can't force manufacturers to disclose their IP.
>> Yet, you need to make *some* information available to The Public,
>> if you are going to support their "Right to Repair".
>>
>> If the edict requires you to make public everything that you
>> make available to your "authorized service partners", that
>> could still far short of PRACTICAL "DIY fixit". E.g., if
>> you require your partners to purchase special test fixtures
>> (from you), then you could require others (DIY) to purchase
>> those fixtures in order to make sense of your published
>> repair procedures.
>>
>> If your service partners are limited to board level swap,
>> then DIYers would similarly be constrained; no need for
>> your partners to have detailed information about a board's
>> design -- just enough to do black box testing. (So,
>> even if an LDO failure at U36 is a common cause for board
>> replacement, there's no need to expose that level of detail
>> to your partners or DIYers: "We don't sell replacement
>> *components*, just subassemblies")
>>
>
> This is where legislators have to get people with tech know-how involved, for
> once. Example:

They will. Th elobbiests for the various companies (tech and otherwise)
that are affected. The voice of the "user" will be lost in all that.

And, the wording of any law will superficially appear to achieve its
goal -- by using mealy-mouthed words that have no HARD meaning.
Like "fair/reasonable price".

> I lost two Dell PCs in short order and one of them was a pricey i7-based power
> machine. Motherboard failure. Well, with the i7 it could also be a CPU failure
> but because no schematics are published it's not possible to tell. Short of
> shelling out lots of money to try a new CPU and possibly discovering that this
> was a waste of money.
>
> So, if PC manufacturers just published the schematics many computers could be
> kept out of landfills.

If the goal is to keep things out of landfills, you can do that just
by subsidizing their recovery. If this is done universally, it
doesn't affect a particular manufacturer so he's less inclined
to do anything about it.

Places with deposits on bottles tend to see far more bottles kept
out of the trash! By contrast, glass was just *removed* from our
curbside recycling program. Instead, you have to wash the bottle,
store it on your premises (until you have accumulated "enough" of
them) and then drive to an authorized "glass recycling" point and
place your bottles -- one at a time -- through a small hole (!)
into a very large rolloff! Wanna guess the effect that has on
the amount of recycled glass? (recall, previously, there was NO
deposit... but, recycling was relatively easy as it "came to you")

> Motherboards usually become unobtainable as spare parts
> after a short number of years and besides, throwing away a whole motherboard
> just because a little IC or a diode on there has failed doesn't make ecological
> sense.

Does it make sense if it requires an hour or more of labor to repair?

I had to replace the power inlet for a friend's laptop. No need for
schematics as it's easy to find and "infer" it's role in the design.
It took several hours to dissemble everything (cuz I wanted it to
go back together with no evidence of having been taken apart),
unsolder the old connector, install the new, then reassemble and
test.

Should there also be a mandate to design *FOR* repairability? No
use of adhesives, snap together assemblies, special tools/fasteners,
etc.? And, should it be *easily* repairable? (who defines easy?)

I used to enjoy working on the old 68K Mac's; at most, a single screw
and the whole thing was apart. Old Suns had a bit more screws, but
also came apart pretty easily.

Every medical instrument, process control system, high end peripheral,
etc. that I've designed could (relatively) easily be maintained.
But, consumer devices? Nope. I want them to go together quickly
and cheaply. Repair isn't an issue in the design. There's no
premium that a consumer will pay for HIS ability to repair the device
so why add a cost to do so?

> And no, this will not harm their sales, on the contrary. After these
> experiences I switched brands and replaced these computers with HP. If Dell had
> published schematics I could have repaired and then would have bought the next
> PC at Dell again.

Do you really think someone who bought a XYZ laptop is thinking
"I'll NOT buy another XYZ! My next will be an ABC!!" And, that
there's not someone else thinking "I'll NOT buy another ABC! My
next will be an XYZ!"

I have my pick of basically anything I want -- for the same low $0 price.
Do you think I selected machines that were known to be easy to repair?
Or, small and sexy? Or, "red"?

If my concern was with repairability, I would settle for BEIGE BOXES.
Generic PC cases with generic CPU boards and generic power supplies
and generic drive mounts and...

So, clearly you have not based your purchase decisions on that, either.
Despite your bad experience!

> Here is an example of the opposite: The 50's era large Braun kitchen mixer from
> my mom gave up. They furnished a complete service manual for it. I had to go to
> Cologne for another reason so figured I'd try to ask for the spare parts at the
> factory service place, fully expecting they'd shoo me away. On the contrary,
> the employee went back to a large area with bins, handed me the parts and
> wanted 1 Deutschmark and 55 Pfennigs. Huh? "Sir, this must be a misprint, that
> is way too low" ... "No, this was the original price when we still built these
> and we honor that". I told him they had just won a new loyal customer and after
> our marriage we bought several kitchen devices from Braun.

And we have a 50+ year old freezer chest. Try buying a replacement
*basket* for it. Instead, you'll get an exclamation as to "it's STILL
running?!"

People don't want to keep the "same old thing". Why do they redecorate?
Buy new phones every few years? New *cars*? New TVs? Our (US) society
is founded on consumption -- almost as much as Japan's.

I had a job at a hand tool manufacturer. I used to test competitor's
products against ours (these are largely bogo-unit comparisons as there
are few "standards" that would apply: color consistency of handle?
uniformity of chrome plate? etc.). So, I *know* how various
manufacturer's products stand up. Yet, I see folks queued at HF
outlets all the time. For *inferior* products ("Ah, but you can't
beat the price! And, look, I get a free screwdriver!!!")

>> OTOH, what if you have no "partners" and do all repairs at
>> the factory? Do you have to make public the materials
>> (and supplies) that you would use internally?
>
> I would not expect any company to divulge trade secrets such as the contents of
> an FPGA. However, I do expect release of schematics like was standard practice
> in the 60's and 70's where, consequently, I was able to repair a lot of TV sets
> as a kid. There is no secret in schematics since any competitor could easily
> reverse engineer boards to derive the schematics.

What does a schematic with one ASIC and a bunch of passives tell you
that will aid in your repair? In the 50's+, everything was over the
shelf -- you could buy tubes at your local pharmacy! You could use
a soldering pencil intended for use on copper pipe to repair boards
(that's all *I* had as a kid).

Chances are, the tubes that were used in your last TV were similar to
the ones in the NEXT TV. So, you kept a bag of them in the basement
to guard against having to buy a replacement.

I have thousands of components on hand. And, expect to always need to
*buy* something when I make a repair. Because there are so many more
components available, now. And, they are not interchangeable.

>> I.e., how can legislators (actually, the lobbyists working
>> behind them) come up with any language that will *really*
>> wrest repair from the control of the manufacturers and
>> their agents? Is this just lots of smoke with no fire?
>
> They need to consult and employ experts in the matter -> engineers.

What other fantasies do you have? :>

>> [What if your design is an ASCI with signal conditioning discretes
>> surrounding it. In practical terms, the part that leaves the
>> customer screwed is the ASIC itself, not the score of discretes!
>> What's to stop a manufacturer from making that ASIC available at
>> a price HIGHER than that of the entire product?]
>
> Easy. Make that reportable and when it festers some goons would be sent out to
> that company for a little audit.