More on IP concerns

drafting/outline.typ

@@ -279,13 +279,15 @@ This section will focus on the ethical issues surrounding IP infringement, and h
 = 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.  
 
-== IP Infringement and Ethics
-
-One of the arguments is that RTR legislation undermines intellectual property (IP) protections: "Right to repair legislation forces manufacturers to reveal trade secrets ..." and may infringe on copyright @two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right. The claim is that if manufacturers are compelled to give over access to information and tools they deem as proprietary, then the manufacturers own right of ownership over those tools is put in jeopardy. Reinauer frames parts of the law as imposing "Compulsory Contracts" on manufacturers, and initiating a double standard where the consumer has more property rights than the manufacturer.
-
 == Disincentivizing Innovation
 
-Another claim brought up in Reinauer's article is that RTR mandates might reduce incentive for innovation by forcing standardization: "the mandate ... could ultimately influence how manufacturers design their devices, leading to more standardization across product lines and less innovation" @two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right. The argument is that if OEMs are required to make parts, tools, and diagnostic documentation broadly available, then they may shy away from novel designs, simplifying them to be "repair-friendly," and potentially trading off performance, miniaturization, or advanced features. The article also raises concerns that smaller manufacturers "may lack the capital and resources to both create innovative digital products and produce adequate repair documentation" @two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right.
+One of the claims brought up in Reinauer's article is that RTR mandates might reduce incentive for innovation by forcing standardization: "the mandate ... could ultimately influence how manufacturers design their devices, leading to more standardization across product lines and less innovation" @two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right. The argument is that if OEMs are required to make parts, tools, and diagnostic documentation broadly available, then they may shy away from novel designs, simplifying them to be "repair-friendly," and potentially trading off performance, miniaturization, or advanced features. The article also raises concerns that smaller manufacturers "may lack the capital and resources to both create innovative digital products and produce adequate repair documentation" @two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right.
+
+== IP Infringement and Ethics
+
+Another argument presented is that RTR legislation undermines intellectual property (IP) protections: "Right to repair legislation forces manufacturers to reveal trade secrets ..." and may infringe on copyright @two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right. The claim is that, as mentioned previously, if manufacturers are compelled to give over access to information and tools they deem as proprietary, then the manufacturers own right of ownership over those tools is put in jeopardy. Reinauer frames parts of the law as imposing "Compulsory Contracts" on manufacturers, and initiating a double standard where the consumer has more property rights than the manufacturer.
+
+These IP concerns do have some legal standing. The Cato Institute, for example, highlights the fact that right-to-repair can force companies to disclose source code, which undermines copyright protection, potentially enabling competitors to duplicate designs @criticism-right-repair-laws. Additionally, trade secret laws do not always block reverse engineering 
 
 == Consumer Data Privacy Concerns
 The most major criticism of enforcing broad right-to-repair laws is that it could compromise consumer data privacy and system security. As the original article warns, "industry representatives have raised concerns over data security and cybersecurity regarding the mandates" because they would require "the original equipment manufacturer [to] make available ... any special documentation, tools ... to access and reset [the] lock." @two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right. In a 2021 FTC report that Microsoft noted that “independent repair shops that conduct repairs could compromise the embedded hardware security” @ftc_nixing_fix_2021. The inherent security risk of independent repair is once again mirrored an article by Ike Brannon, an author of multiple anti-RTR articles, who cautions that such access could be misused by bad actors, giving them full access to any of their customers' personal information @criticism-right-repair-laws. 
@@ -297,8 +299,9 @@ And These concerns aren't purely speculative, in a study conducted in 2022, the
 The resolution to this lies in the computer literacy of the customer. In the study, three repair providers claimed to require credentials to preform a battery replacement @ceci2022privacyelectronicsrepairindustry. This may be a red flag to anyone with a technical background, however, most people wouldn't question it at all, just like you wouldn't question letting your exterminator into your house. If consumers were made away that for nearly every repair--apart from data recovery--unlocking of the device was unnecessary, then they may avoid placed which ask for a password. If a repair service gains a reputation for asking for too much access, then they may loose customers or go out of business entirely.
 
 
-= What can be done to help?
+= Current Status of Right to repair
 Legal pressure facing John Deere captures how far manufacturer are willing to go to retain control over repair. Multiple lawsuits allege that the company
 == Ongoing Lawsuits
+The article "FTC sues Deere & Co. for monopolizing farm-equipment repair market" is a media source written by John O'Connor for the Associated Press. It details a class action lawsuit filed by the FTC in cooperation with the attorney general of Illinois and Minnesota, accusing them of monopolizing the repair market of their farm equipment. The FTC alleges that the practice increases repair costs, and causes significant delays for the farmers who rely on the equipment. They also claim that Deere refuses to share the software diagnostics needed to repair their farming equipment, making it impossible for an individual to repair their equipment. O'Connor then presents a quote from Lina M. Khan, an FTC chairperson, stating "[farmers should be] free to repair their own equipment or use repair shops of their choice -- lowering costs, preventing ruinous delays, and promoting fair competition." Deere denies all of the allegations, and claims to support customer repair.
 @john-deere-accused @john-deere-sued 
 == Other Activism and Demonstrations