Update the abstract

drafting/outline.typ

@@ -242,9 +242,9 @@
 }
 
 #show: ieee.with(
-  title: [How anti-repair practices are contributing to an excess in waste],
+  title: [Environmental and Ethical Considerations ],
   abstract: [
-    Right-to-repair legislation is challenged by OEMs and larger firms, claiming concerns for end-user data privacy, IP infringement, and degrading of products with cheaper replacement parts. They use these claims to perpetrate practices of locking down software crucial for diagnosing technical issues, building products to be difficult to disassemble, and voiding warranty if they are opened. These practices reduce the incentive for a consumer to continue using a product after it fails, even if the issue is a minor fix, such as replacing the screen or battery. These often still functional electronic products are treated as disposables, instead of a tool which is able to be serviced back to its original function. Supporting right to repair is crucial to allowing the extension of product lifespan, which will reduce electronic waste, and minimize the environmental footprint of consumer goods.
+    Right-to-repair legislation is challenged by OEMs and larger firms, claiming concerns for end-user data privacy, IP infringement, and degrading of products with cheaper replacement parts. They use these claims to perpetrate practices of locking down software crucial for diagnosing technical issues, building products to be difficult to disassemble, and voiding warranty if they are opened. These practices reduce the incentive for a consumer to continue using a product after it fails, even if the issue is a minor fix, such as replacing the screen or battery. These often still functional electronic products are treated as disposables, instead of a tool which is able to be serviced back to its original function. Supporting right to repair is crucial to allowing the extension of product lifespan, which will reduce electronic waste, and minimize the environmental footprint of consumer goods. This paper examines the modern right to repair debate, outlining the principles of the movement while highlighting environmental and ethical consequences of barriers to repair.
     ],
   authors: (
     (
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ Apart from preserving liberty, increasing product maintainability has positive i
 In addition to saving the planet, regulating anti-repair practices through RTR laws would directly save you money. As discussed previously, manufacturers make repairs needlessly difficult, leaving you with no option other than to discard devices. Instead of being forced to buy costly replacements, if repairable products were more commonplace, you would have the option to use an independent repair service, which are often cheaper (and quicker) than the official options. The average consumer spends spend about \$1,767, although in an Investopedia article covering apple's support of new legislation it is reported that you could save roughly \$382 if you were empowered by right to repair @apple-supports. RTR laws, such as the European Union's Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), aim to remove the arbitrary barriers to repair by requiring companies to provide access to repair manuals and affordable ways to obtain spare parts @34ca32eb-5148-4b33-b82a-d7cfca46c672. For instance, Kass writes about how she only paid a fifth of the cost of a new phone for a battery replacement, and it  reportedly "was like getting a new phone without getting a new phone" @bar-right-repair-and-environment. Standardizing RTR would make affordable repairs widely accessible, helping you spend less while extending the life of the products you already own.
 
 = How are manufacturers fighting back?
-Manufacturers increasingly employ design and business practices that make independent repair difficult or even impossible. Common tactics include the use of proprietary screws, excessive adhesive, soldering typically modular components onto boards, and physically welding housings together, blocking internal access @repair-org. These obstacles make simple maintenance impractical. Another barrier is the introduction of digital locks, many companies--such as Apple--require "part-pairing" on all hardware used in their devices. Without reprogramming of replacement parts by an authorized servicer, pervasive warnings may appear on screen, and the replacement parts could even be completely rejected by the motherboard @part-pairing. Together, these barriers consolidate repair power within corporate monopolies, driving repair costs up, and eroding consumer choice and product longevity. But there is a bigger question than just how they are fighting back: are OEMs justified for doing so? A 2023 article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute authored by Alex Reinauer covers a few reasons why manufacturers may make it difficult to repair their devices.  
+Manufacturers increasingly employ design and business practices that make independent repair difficult or even impossible. Common tactics include the use of proprietary screws, excessive adhesive, soldering typically modular components onto boards, and physically welding housings together, blocking internal access @repair-org. These obstacles make simple maintenance impractical. Another barrier is the introduction of digital locks, many companies--such as Apple--require "part-pairing" on all hardware used in their devices. Without reprogramming of replacement parts by an authorized servicer, pervasive warnings may appear on screen, and the replacement parts could even be completely rejected by the motherboard @part-pairing. Together, these barriers consolidate repair power within corporate monopolies, driving repair costs up, and eroding consumer choice and product longevity. But there is a bigger question than just how they are fighting back: are original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) justified for doing so? A 2023 article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute authored by Alex Reinauer covers a few reasons why manufacturers may make it difficult to repair their devices.  
 
 == Disincentivizing Innovation
 
@@ -297,11 +297,13 @@ The resolution to this lies in the computer literacy of the customer. In the stu
 
 = Ethical Considerations
 
-Evaluating whether manufacturers are justified in restricting repair access requires an ethical standpoint--not one purely based on facts. Using Kantian Ethics, we can analyze these practices and discuss if they are morally permissible or unjustified. Kantian ethics, also known as Deontological ethics, specifically focuses on the action itself, not necessarily the outcomes. In this philosophy, morally acceptable actions must stem from good will, and be guided by duty. Not profit, convince or desire @nhv-book.
+Evaluating whether manufacturers are justified in restricting repair access requires an ethical standpoint--not one purely based on facts. Using Kantian Ethics, we can analyze these practices and discuss if they are morally permissible or unjustified. Kantian ethics, also known as Deontological ethics, specifically focuses on the action itself, not the consequences. A morally acceptable action must stem from good will, and be guided by a sense of duty @nhv-book, not motives like profit, convince or desire. Under this framework, companies cannot justify harmful practices by appealing to beneficial outcomes.   
 
 == Does restricting repair treat users as merely revenue sources?
-== Should corperations have any obligation *not* to treat customers as such?
-== Are companies justified in prioritizing shareholder profits?
+
+From a Kantian perspective, certain anti-repair practices such as part-pairing and software locks serve as tools for generating revenue, rather than having grounds in any benefit such as consumer safety. These measures are designed to force customers to use parts and peripheries sold and installed exclusively by the OEM. Kant's philosophy explicitly prohibits treating people "simply as a means" to another's end @nhv-book, yet these tactics function precisely by forcing the consumer to meet the manufacturer's financial interests. The intention behind these barriers is therefore not guided by duty, and is therefore not morally permissible under a Kantian analysis. 
+
+This idea even holds in cases where OEMs claim that restrictions are there to protect device integrity or reduce user error. Kantian ethics rejects justifications based on consequences; an action that violates autonomy is morally wrong regardless of any beneficial side effects. If users are denied control over their property, then they are not being respected as autonomous beings whom set their own ends. Thus, the core structure of restricting repair directly conflicts with the foundational moral requirement to treat users as ends of their own.
 
 = Current Status of Right to repair
 In recent years, right to repair has been gaining a lot of momentum. In 2023, Colorado became the first state to pass RTR laws, with Bedayn from AP News reporting that "Lawmakers in at least 10 other states have introduced similar legislation." @Bedayn2023_ColoradoRightToRepair.

drafting/sources.bib~

@@ -291,4 +291,14 @@
     howpublished = {\url{https://bounties.fulu.org/bounties/ge-refrigerator-water-filter-replacement}},
     author = {FULU Foundation},
     title = {GE Refrigerator Water Filter Replacement — Bounty},
+}
+
+@book{nhv-book,
+    publisher = {Hayden-McNeil},
+    title = {Nature and Human Values: A Student Guide - Colorado School of Mines},
+    year = {2024},
+    pages = {20-22},
+    volume = {},
+    author = {Cortney E. P. Holles},
+    address = {},
 }