Mechanics Right To Repair

madmax · August 18, 2008

I hope that all parties get behind this Bill. If it needs work, work on it.

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/new...1f-1ffac48a86cb

NAMAO - An NDP MP from Ontario was in Namao today to introduce a private member's bill that would give Canadian mechanics the "right to repair" vehicles.
Right now, Canadian non-dealership mechanics are denied access to the computer software necessary to assess and fix problems in today's increasingly computerized vehicles.

Brian Masse, a New Democratic MP from Windsor, Ont., has put forth a bill that will force automobile manufacturers to let licensed technicians access those programs and codes.

fellowtraveller · August 18, 2008

Disagree.

Manufacturers of any equipment have the right to not allow access to their proprietary software, they paid the money to develop it and it belongs to them under intellectual copyright. If that means you have to take your Volvo(a prime culprit btw) to the Volvo dealer to get thoroughly cheated for repairs- then so be it.

Of course, ifyour brand is labelled as 'expensive to fix', the maker will eventually have trouble selling them.

Comsumers are cluing into the reality that the main sources of income for dealers are financing and service/repairs. selling the vehicles does not make a lot, especially now.

William Ashley · August 18, 2008

Disagree.
Manufacturers of any equipment have the right to not allow access to their proprietary software, they paid the money to develop it and it belongs to them under intellectual copyright. If that means you have to take your Volvo(a prime culprit btw) to the Volvo dealer to get thoroughly cheated for repairs- then so be it.

Of course, ifyour brand is labelled as 'expensive to fix', the maker will eventually have trouble selling them.

Comsumers are cluing into the reality that the main sources of income for dealers are financing and service/repairs. selling the vehicles does not make a lot, especially now.

They have no reason to prevent access it isn't their property - once someone buys the vehicle the hardware and code stored in it becomes thiers. While they may not be able to resell that code, there should be no restrictions on right to modify the funcion of hardware you own. I do not beleive that there are any laws that prevent modification of the function of your own vehicle - except for physical modifications like tinted windows, chain/spike tires, etc.. but no such law preventing use of computers in your vehicle.

While the companies should not be obligated to explain the code - anyone who owns a vechicle should be able to modify code - in mind that existing warranty or other dangers are taken into account - where the company would not be liable like a broken seal etc...

Insurance companies would likely need to allow - modified vehicles - allowed within the policy - that in cases of error etc.. on the firm ware for the vehicle.

But in no way should someone be able to say that I'm not allowed to modify my computer and how it functions. While I cannot attempt to use for a commercial purpose the code of say Vista - there is nothing stopping me from downloading software that modifies the function of Vista. Likewise nothing is stopping me from executing code that modifies microsoft code, exe files etc.. since MS disclaims itself anyway.

No law exists to stop people from moifyng their own computer.

The problem - what if it is used/old, and their is no one from the company - or place that sell that brand or the company goes out of business, and there are no "brand" sales / tune up centers.... why can't joe blow do what the other guy does, since joe blow is the only one. Or why have to pay 10x the price for the service someone else will do.. is the monopolization fair? What if now your car has no resale value because the computer system so vital now can't be fixed legally?

Edited August 18, 2008 by William Ashley

FTA Lawyer · August 18, 2008

I can't follow you William Ashley.

It seems to me you are free to do whatever the hell you want to your car (subject to safety and traffic legislation). If you can't modify it the way you want becuase the manufacturer won't lend you its tools then I recommend not modifying...or do so at your own risk.

No one forced you to buy a vehicle whose manufacturer doesn't share its tools...if that is so important to you.

I'm quite sure that I cannot fix my GE coffee-maker without a GE part. If GE doesn't want to have distributors for that part, then I either buy direct from GE or get a new coffeemaker. I don't think I'd lobby my MP for a coffee-maker repairman's "right" to fix my coffee-maker.

My dad sold an Oldsmobile International he once owned, in part because you had to remove the engine to change the spark plugs...and he didn't like spending multiple hundreds of dollars for something that should cost $50.00.

I agree with fellowtraveller. You cannot force a manufacturer to support an independent secondary industry by legislating restrictions on how they do business. I suspect this same NDP MP will be very upset if his bill passes and 10,000 autoworkers lose their jobs because the companies they work for lose serious repair and maintenance profits to independent mechanics.

FTA

Riverwind · August 18, 2008

Do any of the people defending the right of car makers to use technology to shut out competition in the service market also defend the right of companies like Microsoft to use technology to shut out competitive software products. For example, companies that sell anti-virus software were quite upset when MS took away the "tools" they need to get their products to work on Vista. MS backed down because it knew it would be facing another anti-trust battle despite the fact that people can always "choose" another OS.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Riverwind

FTA Lawyer · August 19, 2008

Do any of the people defending the right of car makers to use technology to shut out competition in the service market also defend the right of companies like Microsoft to use technology to shut out competitive software products. For example, companies that sell anti-virus software were quite upset when MS took away the "tools" they need to get their products to work on Vista. MS backed down because it knew it would be facing another anti-trust battle despite the fact that people can always "choose" another OS.

It's an interesting point...but I don't think that any auto maker can claim the market share that Microsoft does. If Ford Motor Co. gets its computer modules installed on most of the world's cars and then shuts out all competition on fixing said modules then you will have a scenario equivalent to the Microsoft one.

Until then, I can choose not to buy Ford (if they were doing this on their own cars) and instead buy any of about 15 other automakers' products. The word monopoly simply doesn't come to mind when I think cars.

FTA

Riverwind · August 19, 2008

Until then, I can choose not to buy Ford (if they were doing this on their own cars) and instead buy any of about 15 other automakers' products. The word monopoly simply doesn't come to mind when I think cars.

MS does not have a monopoly before people buy their OS but once someone buys it they become "locked in" because the cost of changing OSes is prohibitively high. The same lock-in effect happens with vehicles because of the high initial cost. This means the after market service monopoly is worrisome even though the consumer originally had a choice of 15 vendors instead of 3.

Another example exists in the banking industry. In England, consumers that take out a 25-year mortgage from a bank are locked into that bank for the entire 25 years even though the interest rate is only fixed for the first 5 years. In Canada, thanks to government regulation, consumers have the option of shopping around for the best interest rate after each term expires. In this case, the lock-in is created by contract terms rather than technology.

IOW, The high cost of purchasing a new vehicle if one is faced with an abusive service monopoly means that I don't think it is reasonable to argue that consumers have a choice. Especially when the consumer had no way to calculate the cost of the service monopoly liability at the time of purchase.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Riverwind

FTA Lawyer · August 20, 2008

MS does not have a monopoly before people buy their OS but once someone buys it they become "locked in" because the cost of changing OSes is prohibitively high. The same lock-in effect happens with vehicles because of the high initial cost. This means the after market service monopoly is worrisome even though the consumer originally had a choice of 15 vendors instead of 3.
Another example exists in the banking industry. In England, consumers that take out a 25-year mortgage from a bank are locked into that bank for the entire 25 years even though the interest rate is only fixed for the first 5 years. In Canada, thanks to government regulation, consumers have the option of shopping around for the best interest rate after each term expires. In this case, the lock-in is created by contract terms rather than technology.

IOW, The high cost of purchasing a new vehicle if one is faced with an abusive service monopoly means that I don't think it is reasonable to argue that consumers have a choice. Especially when the consumer had no way to calculate the cost of the service monopoly liability at the time of purchase.

Well, I hear what you are saying...sort of...

The fact is that in about 3 seconds you can find plenty of reliable third-party information about automobile repair costs before you buy:

Consumer Reports

Also, being a discriminating buyer, you can lease a car and never incur the prohibitive cost of ownership...or the cost of maintenance for the most part (if your lease is shorter than or equal to the warranty).

In any event, the difference that I am trying to point out is that I can by an HP computer...running Vista, or a Compaq...running Vista, or an IBM...running, you guessed it, Vista. You get my point.

I really do not believe that there is one single automobile computer component software company out there that no matter whether you buy Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan etc. you have to be at the mercy of that single company. I just don't think your analogy is a sound one.

FTA

Riverwind · August 20, 2008

-

Edited August 20, 2008 by Riverwind

Riverwind · August 20, 2008

In any event, the difference that I am trying to point out is that I can by an HP computer...running Vista, or a Compaq...running Vista, or an IBM...running, you guessed it, Vista. You get my point.

Actually I don't. When you buy a computer you have the option of choosing Linux or MacOS. If you chose an OS vendor and that vendor decided to use technology to lock out third party software packages you would probably be quite annoyed. Unfortunately, once you have choosen an OS it is often quite expensive to change so you are stuck with the OS vendor and have no choice but to pay the price they demand.

The high cost of changing vendors is the main reason why MS is treated as a monopoly - not simply its market share. If market share was the primary issue then Intel would also be subject to anti-trust issues.

That said, I do agree that there is a grey area and the auto maker example is not as extreme as the MS case. ITOH, I don't feel car makers should be given a free hand when it comes to creating monopolies for after market service and have no issue a law that requires them to sell their tools to third party. However, as a compromise, I would not have an issue is automakers establishing certification programs for mechanics and requiring that only certified technicians are allowed to repair cars under warrentee.

FTA Lawyer · August 20, 2008

That said, I do agree that there is a grey area and the auto maker example is not as extreme as the MS case. ITOH, I don't feel car makers should be given a free hand when it comes to creating monopolies for after market service and have no issue a law that requires them to sell their tools to third party. However, as a compromise, I would not have an issue is automakers establishing certification programs for mechanics and requiring that only certified technicians are allowed to repair cars under warrentee.

Okay, but how do you stop the automaker from setting a 2 year, $10,000.00 certification programme before they will give their seal of approval to a non-dealer mechanic? I think we can agree that very few independent guys would go through such a program, so the consumer still has to go to the dealer for service...or have their warranty cancelled?

At what point do we recognize that the marketplace is far better at regulating many things than is government?

Should we pass legislation to force Coke to give its recipe to generic cola makers so the world can share in cheaper access to the refreshing taste of Coke? After all, if you want the taste of Coke, you have no choice whatsoever but to buy Coke!

I know, a bit flippant...after all you were talking about high cost of marketplace entry type things...which Coke is not.

Okay, should we not legislate huge corporate homebuilders into handing out copies of their blueprints...that their architects and engineers produced...so that independent homebuilders have the same opportunity to get hired by me to build my next palace?

Again, I'm being a bit over the top, but what is it about car manufacturers that they should be singled out that they should be prevented from protecting their intellectual property when everyone esle can?

Personally, I think this is why the availability of initial choice in the market is key to the issue. I remember Jay Leno complaining in a car magazine one time that his Ferrari F40 was a pain in the ass because it is not really meant for daily driving...and the clutch always blows up on it...at a cost of about $20,000.00 to fix each time. You simply must get your parts and your mechanic from Italy...there is no other option.

BUT...the option is to buy a different supercar...or no supercar at all.

Since no one seems to be citing that all manufacturers are intentionally making it so only they can service their cars, then am I not right that you can just not buy from the ones that are doing that?

FTA

Riverwind · August 20, 2008

Okay, but how do you stop the automaker from setting a 2 year, $10,000.00 certification programme before they will give their seal of approval to a non-dealer mechanic? I think we can agree that very few independent guys would go through such a program, so the consumer still has to go to the dealer for service...or have their warranty cancelled?

Yes. I as said it is compromise position: the consumers deserve some protection from abuse by a monopoly but the car makers do have legimate interests here.

At what point do we recognize that the marketplace is far better at regulating many things than is government?

The market is a chaotic force subject to excesses that will usually work out in the long run but the life can get quite difficult for individual people while this 'sorting-out' happens. I suspect many home owners in the US are wishing their government regulators were more aggressive when it came to telling the financial industry what they can and cannot do.

Again, I'm being a bit over the top, but what is it about car manufacturers that they should be singled out that they should be prevented from protecting their intellectual property when everyone esle can?

Intellectual property only exists because of government laws and is subject to all kinds of restrictions for the public good. For example, fair use has always been allowed under the copyright act despite opposition by many copyright holders. Drug companies with AIDS drugs have been forced to license them to third world countries at a cost that those countries can pay. So the issue is not whether public good can trump intellectual property rights but whether it is justified in this particular case.

Wilber · August 20, 2008

However, as a compromise, I would not have an issue is automakers establishing certification programs for mechanics and requiring that only certified technicians are allowed to repair cars under warrentee.

Who cares what it costs if the car is still under warranty, I'm not paying for it. It is after warranty that I am concerned about.

I can see that manufacturers might not want their intellectual property to fall into the hands of other manufacturers, but auto repair shops aren't likely to be ripping off their designs and manufacturing their own cars. In the case of parts, many jobber parts are available for different cars, you don't have to buy from the manufacturer. The issue here seems to be the inability to get your car repaired outside of a dealer, even if you are using factory parts. Dead wrong IMO.

fellowtraveller · August 26, 2008

Who cares what it costs if the car is still under warranty, I'm not paying for it. It is after warranty that I am concerned about.
I can see that manufacturers might not want their intellectual property to fall into the hands of other manufacturers, but auto repair shops aren't likely to be ripping off their designs and manufacturing their own cars. In the case of parts, many jobber parts are available for different cars, you don't have to buy from the manufacturer. The issue here seems to be the inability to get your car repaired outside of a dealer, even if you are using factory parts. Dead wrong IMO.

You are confusing the role of auto builders. They are not just in the busness of building cars, they also finance and repair them- and make more money at that than selling the cars. They are in fact in direct and heavy competition every day in the repair of their vehicles. IOf they develop diagnosticv toolsand choose not to hare them it is within their legal right. Other, independent repair shops can take the same course, if they choose to make the same multi-billion dollar invstment. The dealers pay very dearly for maintaining that edge.

Any reasonable buyer who plans to keep a vehicle for a long term, or buys a used vehicle, has only himself to blame if the vehicle he chooses does not share proprietary information for free. Pick another vehicle if it is an issue.

madmax · August 26, 2008

Other, independent repair shops can take the same course, if they choose to make the same multi-billion dollar invstment.

Are you absolutely 100% certain of the above statement?

bk59 · August 28, 2008

I don't see this issue as an intellectual property issue, I see it as a competition issue. Sure the market is good at regulating most things. However the market is not able to regulate an industry where the product is specifically engineered to favour the big players and to exclude all of the small players. Markets require choice. There is no choice if every product entering the market excludes all of the small players.

The market we are looking at is one of vehicle repair. The car manufacturers are not a part of that market - please hold your objections for one second to see what I mean. The same parent company may oversee both aspects of the business (manufacturing and repair) and may also derive revenue from both aspects of the business, but we are still dealing with two different markets - manufacturing/selling vehicles versus repairing vehicles. Given the nature of manufacturing cars you only have a few big companies who can do this. Vehicle repair is totally different. Almost anyone can start a business in that market.

So the manufacturers produce the product as one arm of the parent company's business. But currently they are producing their products in such a way that once the product enters the repair market, they have excluded everyone from competing for the business of the car owner except for the parent company's service department (a different arm of the parent company's business).

It seems like pretty straightforward anti-competitive behaviour. To me anyway.

The other reason I don't see this as much of an intellectual property issue is because I don't see the need to force the companies into giving away any of the software code inside the vehicle. You basically need two things to get the needed information: the interface (i.e. the "file type" definition that would let you read the repair codes) and an interpreter to tell you what the repair codes mean once you get them. There really is no reason to keep that information confidential unless you are trying to force people who are competing with a different area of your business out of business.

cybercoma · August 28, 2008

I agree with fellowtraveller. You cannot force a manufacturer to support an independent secondary industry by legislating restrictions on how they do business. I suspect this same NDP MP will be very upset if his bill passes and 10,000 autoworkers lose their jobs because the companies they work for lose serious repair and maintenance profits to independent mechanics.
FTA

Brian Masse is an NDP MP from Windsor, ON. He's more than likely putting this bill on the table BECAUSE 10,000 autoworkers have lost their jobs and he's trying to better the economy in Windsor.

cybercoma · August 28, 2008

Actually I don't. When you buy a computer you have the option of choosing Linux or MacOS. If you chose an OS vendor and that vendor decided to use technology to lock out third party software packages you would probably be quite annoyed. Unfortunately, once you have choosen an OS it is often quite expensive to change so you are stuck with the OS vendor and have no choice but to pay the price they demand.

The cellphone industry does this. For example, when Rogers buys phones from Nokia, Rogers puts their own software packages on the phones which "lock out" some of the features. A cellphone that I bought recently is advertised by Nokia as being capable of playing custom .mp3s as ringtones. Unfortunately, Rogers locked that feature out and the phone will only play custom MP3s that you download from the "Rogers Mall" online. So, even though I own all kinds of music on CD or I have an MP3 of something that I made that I want on there, I can't do it. I'm stuck searching Rogers website for the mp3 which can cost upwards of $4, then there's an additional fee to download. None of this information is readily available before purchasing the phone.

August1991 · August 29, 2008

Okay, but how do you stop the automaker from setting a 2 year, $10,000.00 certification programme before they will give their seal of approval to a non-dealer mechanic? I think we can agree that very few independent guys would go through such a program, so the consumer still has to go to the dealer for service...or have their warranty cancelled?

This strikes at the core of the question: if I sell you something, should I be able to include in the contract of sale a stipulation of what you can do with the property?

If I'm a fanatical Christian and you buy my old car, can I stipulate that the car cannot be driven on Sundays? What happens if you sell the car to another person? Does the Sunday restriction still apply?

This may seem absurd but it exists with land - the ultimate property. An easement means that someone else has access to your land for a specific purpose (usually the right to cross the land). An easement remains part of the deed. IOW, a current seller can stipulate how future owners can use a piece of property. If you sell land with an easement, future owners must respect it.

----

It is naive to believe that you own your car, or you own anything. In fact, you own a bundle of rights. Those rights are not absolute - unless you are a dictator. A property right is a right to do certain things, but not everything.

What is the rule of law? A civilized society requires two body of laws: property law and contract law. Neither are simple.

fellowtraveller · August 29, 2008

Brian Masse is an NDP MP from Windsor, ON. He's more than likely putting this bill on the table BECAUSE 10,000 autoworkers have lost their jobs and he's trying to better the economy in Windsor.

You've lost me there. Is Masse intending to turn all those CAW members into independent repair shops that will require free access to foreign car repair codes?

Seems to me that if every mechanic has easy access to GM, Ford and Chrysler codes, the profits of those companies will erode further and his members will be in further jeopardy.

Wilber · August 29, 2008

You've lost me there. Is Masse intending to turn all those CAW members into independent repair shops that will require free access to foreign car repair codes?
Seems to me that if every mechanic has easy access to GM, Ford and Chrysler codes, the profits of those companies will erode further and his members will be in further jeopardy.

I would be mighty pissed if I had to have my vehicle towed a couple of hundred km just because a manufacturer wouldn't allow its repair by anyone but a dealer. Not what I would call customer service by any means.

guyser · August 29, 2008

I would be mighty pissed if I had to have my vehicle towed a couple of hundred km just because a manufacturer wouldn't allow its repair by anyone but a dealer. Not what I would call customer service by any means.

That happens every single day hundreds of times.

If one buys a Jag, and lives in Orillia, 150KM tow. If one buys a Merc and lives in Huntsville, then 120KM tow.

Any exotic car will incur tows beyond the norm should you not live in Van, Cgy, Wpg,TO etc.

Wilber · August 29, 2008

That happens every single day hundreds of times.
If one buys a Jag, and lives in Orillia, 150KM tow. If one buys a Merc and lives in Huntsville, then 120KM tow.

Any exotic car will incur tows beyond the norm should you not live in Van, Cgy, Wpg,TO etc.

I wasn't aware that we were just speaking about exotic cars. It is quite easy to find yourself over 100km from domestic dealers in this country. Not every small town has a GM, Ford or Chrysler dealer.

guyser · August 29, 2008

I wasn't aware that we were just speaking about exotic cars. It is quite easy to find yourself over 100km from domestic dealers in this country. Not every small town has a GM, Ford or Chrysler dealer.

We arent , but the same rule applies. No one but a dealer, barring of course a satellite dealer approved by the mfg'er, can touch the car. Anyone else voids the warranty.

And dont believe it isnt done in other market goods. For instance, Bombardier has a clause that says you must return the Sea-Doo to the dealer after 10 hours of operation for an inspection. That will be $200 please. Voids the warrant if you dont.

Due to the remote location of lakes in this province that can well be more than 200 or even 300km tow.

Wilber · August 29, 2008

We arent , but the same rule applies. No one but a dealer, barring of course a satellite dealer approved by the mfg'er, can touch the car. Anyone else voids the warranty.
And dont believe it isnt done in other market goods. For instance, Bombardier has a clause that says you must return the Sea-Doo to the dealer after 10 hours of operation for an inspection. That will be $200 please. Voids the warrant if you dont.

Due to the remote location of lakes in this province that can well be more than 200 or even 300km tow.

I don't have a problem with warranty work but what about after the warranty?