They’re not allowed to do that. The tool design has to be freely available for any manufacturer to fabricate free of charge, they’re not allowed to try and use this as a profit making exercise.
I don’t know why it is that every single time the EU comes up with a law there’s always people in the comments that say it’s a bad law and that they haven’t thought it out, when they’ve not read the documentation. All of the little tricks that the companies might come up with to turn this to their advantage have already being thought of and protected against. This is exactly what happened with the mandating the USB-C port.
Laws being made in good faith and corporations taking advantage of ambiguities or loopholes for “compliance” has been the staple of western corporate lore. I’m sure many of those commenters would love replaceable batteries with usb-c port on their phones too.
Sure but if anybody clicks through to read the article they can see the full wording of the law. It goes on for pages and pages it’s far from ambiguous. This isn’t just something they thought above on a random Friday afternoon this is something that’s been worked on for a few years now.
Yes, but then there’s this decades-long tradition of Lemmy/Reddit/Digg/Slashdot/etc users not reading the actual article and comment based only from headlines often crafted to maximize engagement.
Exactly, the law definitely defines that the tools have to be commonly available with no restrictions or proprietary rights, and that any tools that don’t fit under that definition must be provided free of charge. It also lists a few practices that are outright banned regardless of availability, like needing thermal or chemical tools. They’ve been very thorough.
They’re not allowed to do that. The tool design has to be freely available for any manufacturer to fabricate free of charge, they’re not allowed to try and use this as a profit making exercise.
I don’t know why it is that every single time the EU comes up with a law there’s always people in the comments that say it’s a bad law and that they haven’t thought it out, when they’ve not read the documentation. All of the little tricks that the companies might come up with to turn this to their advantage have already being thought of and protected against. This is exactly what happened with the mandating the USB-C port.
Laws being made in good faith and corporations taking advantage of ambiguities or loopholes for “compliance” has been the staple of western corporate lore. I’m sure many of those commenters would love replaceable batteries with usb-c port on their phones too.
Sure but if anybody clicks through to read the article they can see the full wording of the law. It goes on for pages and pages it’s far from ambiguous. This isn’t just something they thought above on a random Friday afternoon this is something that’s been worked on for a few years now.
Yes, but then there’s this decades-long tradition of Lemmy/Reddit/Digg/Slashdot/etc users not reading the actual article and comment based only from headlines often crafted to maximize engagement.
Exactly, the law definitely defines that the tools have to be commonly available with no restrictions or proprietary rights, and that any tools that don’t fit under that definition must be provided free of charge. It also lists a few practices that are outright banned regardless of availability, like needing thermal or chemical tools. They’ve been very thorough.