The text of this law is here [1]. The formatting is ridiculously bad, which makes it extremely hard to read: Subsections within subsections within subsections with approximately zero indentation.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, this law defines an independent repair provider as someone with a valid and unexpired certification demonstrating that they have the “technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment” and that the manufacturer is allowed to decide which certifications they trust.
Without these certifications, you are not an independent repair provider and manufacturers can refuse to allow you to do anything. You can be just an average person repairing your own device, in which case the manufacturer must work with you. But you can expect to be forced to prove that you own the device before that happens.
[1] https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Downloads/Meas...
If this is true, it doesn't seem like it's actually "right to repair" at all.
I read things differently. Several sections clearly reference the owner of a device. For example under section C part i
(C) Makes parts available directly or through an authorized service provider to: (i) An independent repair provider or an owner at costs and on terms that are equivalent to the most favorable costs and terms at which the original equipment manufacturer offers the parts to an authorized service provider and that:
the word owner shows up 17 times in the bill, and seems to give the same rights to an owner, that an authorized repair shop has.
The subtle point in that sentence might be "provider OR an owner", as opposed to "provider AND an owner".
There’s tons of prior art in Law saying that And and Or are the same thing and can be interpreted interchangeably based on context.
Much to the chagrin of the computer scientists who think it’s some sort of robust formal specification for civil society.
Law is actually code, just written in a language that is full of UB and you need to have if run on the system to know exactly what it does, the system being the hierarchy of jurisdictions.
Which is why legalese exists. To try to limit undefined behavior by being extremely verbose to cut out any loopholes.
Like...imagine a kid jumping on their bed. Mom says "Stop jumping on the bed!" and the kids stops. Comes back to the kid's room later, kid is jumping on the bed again, tells the kid to stop. Kid says "I'm not jumping, I'm hopping!" and goes into a diatribe about the difference between jumping and hopping, mom says to stop hopping and leaves. Goes back again later, kid is STILL jumping on the bed, and mom is angry! "You said no jumping or hopping, I'm not doing either, I'm bouncing!"
Eventually the mom has to say something like "Do not jump, hop, bounce, spring, leap, or otherwise propel yourself upwards or laterally from the bed, mattress, or any other part of furniture intended for sleeping".
Great example.
And then it goes on even further, because she did not say, that the kid must never "propel themselves upwards or laterally from the bed", and only stopped that action in that moment ...
Does this specific context allow for interchanging?
The bill clearly defines an independent service provider and an owner as different entities.
WANTED: DEAD AND ALIVE
If you look at "wanted" to be prefixed to everything in the list, it'd expand to: "wanted: dead, and wanted: alive".
While this: "Wanted: dead or alive"
could be interpreted as: "We haven't decided yet what we actually want, if it's dead, or alive, but it's one of those".
Then it can be good to give them (the police) a call and ask if they have decided yet, before you go looking for the wanted person
The law there is defining two categories manufacturers need to provide the parts to, changing it to AND would mean owners would have to be certified repair people to be covered.
Not trying to take a dig at your comment, but for others struggling to parse (as much as I was) what it was trying to say, here is the trick that helped me - place a comma right before “changing” or treat that word as the start of a new sentence.
Very fair I don't do the best job going and clarifying my comments some times. They come out a bit stream of consciousness. I did see your comment in time to make the change at least.
All good, no worries. I have the same tendency for writing singular sentences that should’ve honestly been paragraphs instead.
I’ve got some feedback about it at work, so now I genuinely try to be a bit better about it. It is a bit easier for me to be mindful of it on HN, but, as evident by my comment history, I am still far from being consistently good about it.
It is still often a “stream of consciousness written down as I would speak it outloud”, but now I at least started doublechecking the punctuation (or lack of it) for any potential confusion it could create before hitting send.
There was an entire lawsuit about the presence or absence of an Oxford comma in some law, possibly even in Oregon?
[edit: boo it was Maine! Happily "Oxford comma lawsuit" is sufficient search term: https://www.npr.org/2017/03/23/521274657/the-10-million-laws...]
https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=4AyjKgz9tKg [video]
That's what I'm saying. It looks like you can repair your device. But you can't repair devices for anyone else without a mountain of certifications.
They're going to kill the independent repair industry.
It's one thing to fix things for yourself, and a whole other kind of thing to hold yourself out to the public as an expert in something. Kind of like how you can defend yourself in court but not someone else unless you are a lawyer. Though I would be surprised if the law were written such that you couldn't repair someone else's device, so long as you did not receive compensation for it.
So as a non-certified repairer, you have to offer a city tour around the block, at a ridiculously high price, and then repair the device at no additional cost. All a matter of perspective.
This bill does not kill anything that is not already dead.
Yep this law is just a giant handout to the industry.
I wouldn't be surprised if they use this law to now sue "uncertified" repair shops.
Yes, it's such a giant handout that Apple came out against it.
The implicit claim being made in this sarcastic comment is that it's not possible for a law to be detrimental to one company while unfairly favoring another.
Which, of course, is obviously false when you think about it.
Which major tech companies would it be good for while being bad for Apple? Keeping in mind that the owner of a device is also allowed to repair without certification.
Where did I say "major"?
The OP said "a giant handout to the industry". If you're trying to make a point that excludes all the major players in the tech industry then by all means go ahead but it isn't the conversation you joined.
I imagine the parable of Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch is largely lost on today's audiences. More's the pity.
What mechanism in this law do you propose allows them to sue repair shops?
Well, it's the same state that won't "permit" a non-certified engineer from recording and noting the time on a stoplight is outside of law. (Note: he won a first amendment lawsuit, and the state body used his formula in the end)
https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-w...
So yeah, when I see verbiage about certifications like this as a barrier to repair electronics, it's pure protectionism and the state impeding actual ownership rights over whatever this crap is.
(Put bluntly, my hardware is mine. If I want to take it to someone else for repair, that's 100% on me and my property rights to decide that. 'CerTiFicAtIoN', especially with the shit company or govt in question should have no say on who can or cant fix MY hardware.)
If you read the bill, they clearly differentiate between a service provider and an owner. The bill does not require an owner to be certified to purchase parts, manuals, tools or make repairs. It does require the manufacture to make those things available to both.
The contention is whether or not you can fix someone else’s device without a certification. If you can only fix your own device then that’s useless to 90% of people who are not technically adept enough to do it.
When I want to get a battery replaced I take my device to the repair shop and they replace the battery. I don’t ask them if they are “certified”. If they break something the liability is on them. Every single repair shop I’ve ever been to offers a warranty on their repair.
You mean those actual businesses with business licenses? Yeah, they’re fine.
The guy ipersting out of The back of his car at a flea market?
Who exactly certifies a repair shop???
The state, the company, or some 3rd party independent org?
If you read the bill it states that a shop must "Possesses a valid and unexpired certification that demonstrates that the person has the technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment in accordance with widely accepted standards, such as a Wireless Industry Service Excellence Certification, an A+ certification from the Computing Technology Industry Association, a National Appliance Service Technician Certification or another certification that an original equipment manufacturer accepts as evidence that the person can perform safe, secure and reliable repairs to consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells".
The bill also requires that a manufacturer does not "impose a substantial condition, obligation or restriction that is not reasonably necessary to enable an independent repair provider or an owner to diagnose, maintain, repair or update consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells"
So in theory I could buy the manuals, tools, and spare parts, and bring them to Chuck over there who runs an unaccredited repair shop? That doesn't seem awful.
They're just saying you need like a CompTIA certificate and you can't just be some rando. But mind you, it also includes anything YOU own, so if someone is able to act on your behalf that's good enough too. Getting one of those certs to set up shop isn't that hard. Probably just to prevent people from mass ordering parts and redistributing.
The very next sentence says:
It also could be misused by Apple.
It's the same for doing work on your house. If you're the owner you don't need to be licensed to do most repairs or renovations but to work on other people's houses you need certification.
Not saying it's a good system, just that it's consistent.
No, this would be like if the city's electrical supply house got to choose what counted as an electrical qualification.
The difference being is that electricians are certified by a real and reputable body and manufacturers don’t get to pick and choose.
No doubt they will weaponise this ability
If that's the case then Apple must have been lobbying for show or misdirection
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you are parsing that correctly according to legal canons of construction. Generally all language in a law must be considered relevant, and or implies a disjunctive list. Finally permissive language like such as grant discretion.
https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring...
So the language says "...in accordance with widely accepted standards, such as..." and lists stuff like A+ and WISE certs. The per the OEM standards is probably best undrstood as modifying the or another certification, so I think the language you are referring to is allowing an additional certification that the OEM considers valid.
It's unclear whether that means it counts as a widely accepted standard, or is allowed even if it's not a widely accepted standard, but pretty sure it's understood as modifying the last antecedent, rather than the clause as a whole in a way that eliminates the widely accepted standard portion..
It would require ignoring the widely accepted standard language and several other departures from the canons of construction to reasonably have the interpretation you use.
The language could be cleaner like they could use either and two sub clauses, but it doesn't need to be.
"Possesses a valid and unexpired certification that demonstrates that the person has the technical capabilities and competence necessary to safely, securely and reliably repair consumer electronic equipment in accordance with widely accepted standards, such as a Wireless Industry Service Excellence Certification, an A+ certification from the Computing Technology Industry Association, a National Appliance Service Technician Certification or another certification that an original equipment manufacturer accepts as evidence that the person can perform safe, secure and reliable repairs to consumer electronic equipment that the original equipment manufacturer makes or sells."