[Draft] Regulation of Planned Obsolescence

[Zenkarra]

I'm still unable to come up with a better definition for bio-degradable. Leaving it out entirely would cause issues.

OOC: No, I meant replacing "Products which are entirely bio-degradable, meaning that they will return to their base materials within a reasonably short period of time in nature, and do not break down into toxic substances." with "Products which biodegrade naturally." There's a reason I linked the article to the biodegradeability issue, because many RL biodegrading things require very specific circumstances (usually heat and moisture, such as in large compost heaps of industrial scale) to actually biodegrade, and the "return to their base materials" is in any case a completely unnecessary complication and would mean that you could tag biodegradeability to petroleum products, since oil takes millions of years to form, and that's the "base material" for most plastics. (Whereas cellulose products won't turn back into wood.)

I don't understand where there is a conflict with patent or copyright law. WA resolution #232 Foreign Copyright Recognition

There's a separate resolution for patents.

I see what you mean now. I will make that change.
As for patents, the International Patent Agreement applies to patents created through the World Assembly Patent Office. I assume that the WAPO would not accept patents for illegal products. As for existing patents, the bill does not protect the rights of the patent holder to create the patented product; it only protects them from competition.

Without definition 1c, products made intentionally difficult to repair would be exempt from this entire bill unless they also used a second method of self-sabotage.

In order to use definition 1c to exempt their product from the bill, it must be made intentionally easier to repair. If it is made intentionally difficult, they are not exempt. Additionally, if it is naturally difficult to repair, then 1c does not trigger at all, and the rest of the bill requirements remain intact. Clause 3 then prevents future attempts at repair sabotage.
Thus, in order to use this part of the bill to get around regulation, they would have to make all of their sabotaged parts intentionally possible to repair by a third party. While this is noteworthy, I don't imagine it being a problem.

What I was suggesting at the end there is keep clause 3, but remove the third part of the definition. This way manufactures will still have to make their products cheap and easy to repair while not invalidating all of clause 2. As the resolution is currently written, clause 2 is toothless and a waste of ink.

Clause 3 directly cancels out part 3 of clause 1.

A product which is made unusually difficult or expensive to restore to functionality without the assistance of the company or individuals responsible for the product's design or creation,

requires that all products which meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution must not be made intentionally difficult or expensive to repair by purchasers.

Upon compliance with clause 3, which is mandatory, all products cease to meet the definition of "Planned Obsolescence".

Therefore, no product will be affected by clause 2 which only applies to "products which meet the definition of 'planned obsolescence'”.

So, I guess my question is, Why is clause 2 there at all?

If a product no longer meets the definition of planned obsolescence, then it does not need to be regulated. I do not understand why this is a problem. There is no superposition where it meets clause 3 and is still an issue.
If I remove the third part of the definition, then products made intentionally difficult to repair will not be subject to this bill at all, and clause 3 will have no effect. It is possible to create a product where the only intended sabotage is related to obfuscating repair attempts.
Lastly, there is no requirement that a product be made easy to repair. It only requires that a product may not be made intentionally difficult to repair.

If a product is intentionally fragile, but made easy to repair, then it is not covered by this bill.
If a product is intentionally fragile, but repair was not considered at all, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
If a product is intentionally fragile, and repair was made intentionally difficult, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
If a product is made sturdy, and repair was not considered at all, then it is not covered by this bill.
If a product is made sturdy, but repair was made intentionally difficult, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
I do not see what additional possibility is not covered here that you are seeing as a potential issue.

“The combination of 2a and 2b seems an odd choice. For example, a member nation cannot chose to use two different methods in combination, such as prohibits entirely some deliberately obsolescent items to be sold while allowing others to be sold with labelling. I suggest requiring labelling in any instance, and perhaps suggesting that products be additionally banned.”

My concern is that there should be no reason why some sabotaged products should be acceptable, but others not. By allowing member nations to mix and match the two at their own discretion, it could potentially be used as an anti-competitive law to favor certain products over others. Member nations are still allowed to choose 2a, and then ban individual products at their discretion without involving this bill.

[Cardoness]

What I was suggesting at the end there is keep clause 3, but remove the third part of the definition. This way manufactures will still have to make their products cheap and easy to repair while not invalidating all of clause 2. As the resolution is currently written, clause 2 is toothless and a waste of ink.

Clause 3 directly cancels out part 3 of clause 1.



Upon compliance with clause 3, which is mandatory, all products cease to meet the definition of "Planned Obsolescence".

Therefore, no product will be affected by clause 2 which only applies to "products which meet the definition of 'planned obsolescence'”.

So, I guess my question is, Why is clause 2 there at all?

If a product no longer meets the definition of planned obsolescence, then it does not need to be regulated. I do not understand why this is a problem. There is no superposition where it meets clause 3 and is still an issue.
If I remove the third part of the definition, then products made intentionally difficult to repair will not be subject to this bill at all, and clause 3 will have no effect. It is possible to create a product where the only intended sabotage is related to obfuscating repair attempts.
Lastly, there is no requirement that a product be made easy to repair. It only requires that a product may not be made intentionally difficult to repair.

If a product is intentionally fragile, but made easy to repair, then it is not covered by this bill.
If a product is intentionally fragile, but repair was not considered at all, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
If a product is intentionally fragile, and repair was made intentionally difficult, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
If a product is made sturdy, and repair was not considered at all, then it is not covered by this bill.
If a product is made sturdy, but repair was made intentionally difficult, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
I do not see what additional possibility is not covered here that you are seeing as a potential issue.

Perhaps someone else can jump in here. We seem to be going in circles and I don't know how to make it any clearer. The problem is that clause 3 eliminates clause 2. If you follow clause 3, clause 2 doesn't apply to you. Every single product produced in WA member States will be barred from being intentionally and unusually difficult or expensive to repair. Thus, no product at all will ever again meet the definition of "Planned Obsolesce". Therefore, no product at all will ever be subject to clause 2. Because everybody has to follow clause 3, nobody has to follow any part of clause 2. Why, because of the definition. Now, if you remove part 3 of the definition, then everybody has to follow both clause 2 and clause 3. Without the third part of the definition, nations will still have to follow clause three. Why, because this resolution tells them to. You don't even have to change the wording of clause 3, all products that meet the first two parts of the definition will be barred from being intentionally difficult or expensive to repair. In fact, this would bring more products under the umbrella of this resolution. As your definition only applies to products that meet all three parts, any products that meet your current definition will continue to meet a definition consisting of only the first two parts.

I like this resolution, I really do. But it won't do what you think it will do.

[Old Hope]

Regulation of Planned Obsolescence

Category: Regulation | Area of effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Observing that many businesses utilize predatory practices to increase sales through intentional sabotage of their product after sale;

Recognizing that large percentages of consumer populations are unaware of this practice, even after planned sabotage has occurred;

Further recognizing that businesses utilizing these practices will often intentionally make it impossible for the consumer to prevent or solve in ways that do not continue to benefit the business, at the consumer's expense;

Concerned over the environmental impacts of large amounts of unnecessary consumer waste which does not break down for years, decades, or significantly longer;

Desiring to reduce this intentional sabotage, while informing consumers about its existence;

Hereby:

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution, “planned obsolescence” where all of the following criteria are true:


a) A product which is designed and created, with the intent to be traded or sold.

b) A product which is designed to have a limited functioning lifespan, or is designed to degrade in function over time, through mechanical faults, materials of insufficient strength, or self-sabotaging software.

c) A product which is made unusuallydifficult or expensive to restore to functionality without the assistance of the company or individuals responsible for the product's design or creation, if it is meant to be possible to repair or a product that is not meant to be possible to repair.

2. Requires that all members of the World Assembly choose to enforce at least one of the following two solutions on all products which meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution:


a) All products must have their intended lifespan clearly stated in a way that is made obvious to the purchaser. This must include a warning which states that it is intentionally limited. Warranties must be provided to guarantee that the product lasts for its entire lifespan as stated to the purchaser, or will be replaced without monetary cost to the purchaser in the event of failure.

b) All products must have their production banned. Foreign imports of these products must also be banned, unless requirement 2a is applied to them instead.

3. Furthermore requires that all products which meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution must not be made intentionallymore difficult or expensive to repair by purchasers than necessary for the advertized purpose and quality of the product..

4. Exempts:


a) Products which are considered as consumable items, as long as the company or individuals responsible for its creation do not intentionally obfuscate its status as a consumable.

b) Products which are entirely bio-degradable, meaning that they will return to their base materials within a reasonably short period of time in nature, and do not break down into toxic substances.

c) Products in which planned obsolescence does not impair the intended function of the product, as it was communicated to the purchaser.

d) Warranty requirements, where a consumer has intentionally attempted to damage, modify, or repair a product, or has used the product outside of its intended purpose, where its purpose is clearly stated to the purchaser.

Regulation of Planned Obsolescence

Category: Regulation | Area of effect: Consumer Protection

A resolution which aims to place heavy restrictions on the act of the planned obsolescence of consumer products. The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution, “planned obsolescence” where all of the following criteria are true:


a) A product which is designed and created, with the intent to be traded or sold.

b) A product which is designed to have a limited functioning lifespan, or is designed to degrade in function over time, through mechanical faults, materials of insufficient strength, or software.

c) A product which is made unusually difficult or expensive to restore to functionality without the assistance of the company or individuals responsible for the product's design or creation, if it is meant to be possible to repair.

2. Requires that all members of the World Assembly choose to enforce at least one of the following two solutions:


a) All products must have their intended lifespan clearly stated in a way that is made obvious to the purchaser. Warranties must be provided to guarantee that the product lasts for it's entire lifespan as stated to the purchaser, or will be replaced without monetary cost to the purchaser in the event of failure.

b) All products which meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution, have their production banned. Foreign imports of these products must also be banned, unless requirement 2a is applied to them instead.

3. Furthermore requires that all products which meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution must not be made intentionally difficult or expensive to repair by purchasers.

4. Exempts:


a) Products which are considered as consumable items, as long as the company or individuals responsible for its creation do not intentionally obfuscate its status as a consumable.

b) Products which are entirely bio-degradable.

c) Products in which planned obsolescence does not impair the intended function of the product, as communicated to the purchaser.

d) Warranty requirements, where a consumer has intentionally attempted to damage, modify, or repair a product, or has used the product outside of it's intended purpose, where it's purpose is clearly stated to the purchaser.

We recommend these changes.

[Zenkarra]

If a product no longer meets the definition of planned obsolescence, then it does not need to be regulated. I do not understand why this is a problem. There is no superposition where it meets clause 3 and is still an issue.
If I remove the third part of the definition, then products made intentionally difficult to repair will not be subject to this bill at all, and clause 3 will have no effect. It is possible to create a product where the only intended sabotage is related to obfuscating repair attempts.
Lastly, there is no requirement that a product be made easy to repair. It only requires that a product may not be made intentionally difficult to repair.

If a product is intentionally fragile, but made easy to repair, then it is not covered by this bill.
If a product is intentionally fragile, but repair was not considered at all, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
If a product is intentionally fragile, and repair was made intentionally difficult, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
If a product is made sturdy, and repair was not considered at all, then it is not covered by this bill.
If a product is made sturdy, but repair was made intentionally difficult, then it becomes regulated by this bill.
I do not see what additional possibility is not covered here that you are seeing as a potential issue.

Perhaps someone else can jump in here. We seem to be going in circles and I don't know how to make it any clearer. The problem is that clause 3 eliminates clause 2. If you follow clause 3, clause 2 doesn't apply to you. Every single product produced in WA member States will be barred from being intentionally and unusually difficult or expensive to repair. Thus, no product at all will ever again meet the definition of "Planned Obsolesce". Therefore, no product at all will ever be subject to clause 2. Because everybody has to follow clause 3, nobody has to follow any part of clause 2. Why, because of the definition. Now, if you remove part 3 of the definition, then everybody has to follow both clause 2 and clause 3. Without the third part of the definition, nations will still have to follow clause three. Why, because this resolution tells them to. You don't even have to change the wording of clause 3, all products that meet the first two parts of the definition will be barred from being intentionally difficult or expensive to repair. In fact, this would bring more products under the umbrella of this resolution. As your definition only applies to products that meet all three parts, any products that meet your current definition will continue to meet a definition consisting of only the first two parts.

I like this resolution, I really do. But it won't do what you think it will do.

Clause 3 only eliminates clause 2 when the product in question sabotages repair attempts. There are types of planned obsolescence covered by this bill that either do not include repair sabotage, or do not need to be covered by clause 2 because they are related to repair sabotage.

Yes, clause 3 eliminates clause 2, but not in every case, and it is intended to when it does.

Here's a hypothetical scenario: I create a product which is designed to break after 2 years, and the parts to fix it are sold only by myself. This will trigger clause 3 but not clause 2. I am now forced to either make it easier for third party repairs, or break it in a way that does not trigger 1c. Because I am still greedy, I do the latter, and cause a different part to break that is unreasonable to expect to repair at all. My product is now exempt from definition 1c, causing it to trigger clause 2. My product is now either banned, or subject to regulation, depending on the country that it is in.

Definition 1c is necessary to catch repair sabotage specifically, because not all sabotage is related to repair. If repair obfuscation is the only sabotage committed, then the first two definitions are insufficient to catch it. Nothing is covered by this bill at all until it meets the definition first.

We recommend these changes.

Your changes to 1c aren't viable. This would cause extremely complex items such as the components of circuit boards, to become regulated by this bill. It would require that these parts be made easy to repair.
Your changes to clause 3 also make it non-viable for a product to have more than the bare-minimum of advertised functionality, for fear of also increasing repair complexity.
It isn't viable to expect that all products be easy to repair regardless of their functionality or complexity. It is better to instead target intentional sabotage.

[Araraukar]

when the product in question sabotages repair attempts

OOC: What do you mean by that? And can you name a RL product that does so?

This would cause extremely complex items such as the components of circuit boards, to become regulated by this bill.

Which I told you would be an issue (iPhones as an example) and which you said was exactly why you wrote this proposal.

[Zenkarra]

when the product in question sabotages repair attempts

OOC: What do you mean by that? And can you name a RL product that does so?

I'll name 3.
Pentalobe security screws, which Apple invented to prevent tampering with iPhones.
John Deere tractors.
Proprietary automobile parts. Anti-lock break systems as one example, among many others.
It's not hard to find cases.

This would cause extremely complex items such as the components of circuit boards, to become regulated by this bill.

Which I told you would be an issue (iPhones as an example) and which you said was exactly why you wrote this proposal.

See what I said about Pentalobe screws. Their circuit boards in particular are not meant to be covered by the repair clause of this bill, unless they are somehow sabotaging those as well. Remember: the bill does not cover the difficulty of repair, only the intent to make it more difficult.

[Cardoness]

Perhaps someone else can jump in here. We seem to be going in circles and I don't know how to make it any clearer. The problem is that clause 3 eliminates clause 2. If you follow clause 3, clause 2 doesn't apply to you. Every single product produced in WA member States will be barred from being intentionally and unusually difficult or expensive to repair. Thus, no product at all will ever again meet the definition of "Planned Obsolesce". Therefore, no product at all will ever be subject to clause 2. Because everybody has to follow clause 3, nobody has to follow any part of clause 2. Why, because of the definition. Now, if you remove part 3 of the definition, then everybody has to follow both clause 2 and clause 3. Without the third part of the definition, nations will still have to follow clause three. Why, because this resolution tells them to. You don't even have to change the wording of clause 3, all products that meet the first two parts of the definition will be barred from being intentionally difficult or expensive to repair. In fact, this would bring more products under the umbrella of this resolution. As your definition only applies to products that meet all three parts, any products that meet your current definition will continue to meet a definition consisting of only the first two parts.

I like this resolution, I really do. But it won't do what you think it will do.

Clause 3 only eliminates clause 2 when the product in question sabotages repair attempts. There are types of planned obsolescence covered by this bill that either do not include repair sabotage, or do not need to be covered by clause 2 because they are related to repair sabotage.

Yes, clause 3 eliminates clause 2, but not in every case, and it is intended to when it does.

Here's a hypothetical scenario: I create a product which is designed to break after 2 years, and the parts to fix it are sold only by myself. This will trigger clause 3 but not clause 2. I am now forced to either make it easier for third party repairs, or break it in a way that does not trigger 1c. Because I am still greedy, I do the latter, and cause a different part to break that is unreasonable to expect to repair at all. My product is now exempt from definition 1c, causing it to trigger clause 2. My product is now either banned, or subject to regulation, depending on the country that it is in.

Definition 1c is necessary to catch repair sabotage specifically, because not all sabotage is related to repair. If repair obfuscation is the only sabotage committed, then the first two definitions are insufficient to catch it. Nothing is covered by this bill at all until it meets the definition first.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Clause 1 specifically states that all three parts of the definition must be met for a product to fall under the provisions of this resolution. If one of the three parts doesn't apply, than that product isn't affected by this resolution. Clause 3 specifically addresses part 3 of the definition. Clause 2 only applies to products that meet the definition of "Planned Obsolesce", which no product does anymore because all are in with Clause 3 which means they no longer meet the definition.

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant growing in a plantpot with wheels, in the corner of the debate hall, under an auspiciously placed lighting fixture, comes to life, pushing its plantpot a bit further away from the wall with two strong vines, says, "I design and create, for the purposes of trading or selling, genetically modified plants that have specific qualities or functions as desired by the customer. Most plant species have a genetically determined lifespan, or they may simply have evolved to produce seeds quickly and then die away when harsh conditions - such as dry season or freezing winter - set in. That genetic ageing is often difficult to remove without causing severe issues in the healthy growth of the plant in question, so they have a planned obsolescence caused by the self-sabotaging software known as genome. As they are also practically impossible for others than myself to "restore to functionality", they meet your definitions of a product with planned obsolescence. Was that your intention?"

[Kenmoria]

Clause 3 only eliminates clause 2 when the product in question sabotages repair attempts. There are types of planned obsolescence covered by this bill that either do not include repair sabotage, or do not need to be covered by clause 2 because they are related to repair sabotage.

Yes, clause 3 eliminates clause 2, but not in every case, and it is intended to when it does.

Here's a hypothetical scenario: I create a product which is designed to break after 2 years, and the parts to fix it are sold only by myself. This will trigger clause 3 but not clause 2. I am now forced to either make it easier for third party repairs, or break it in a way that does not trigger 1c. Because I am still greedy, I do the latter, and cause a different part to break that is unreasonable to expect to repair at all. My product is now exempt from definition 1c, causing it to trigger clause 2. My product is now either banned, or subject to regulation, depending on the country that it is in.

Definition 1c is necessary to catch repair sabotage specifically, because not all sabotage is related to repair. If repair obfuscation is the only sabotage committed, then the first two definitions are insufficient to catch it. Nothing is covered by this bill at all until it meets the definition first.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Clause 1 specifically states that all three parts of the definition must be met for a product to fall under the provisions of this resolution. If one of the three parts doesn't apply, than that product isn't affected by this resolution. Clause 3 specifically addresses part 3 of the definition. Clause 2 only applies to products that meet the definition of "Planned Obsolesce", which no product does anymore because all are in with Clause 3 which means they no longer meet the definition.

(OOC: Clause 1c states that ‘A product which is made unusually difficult or expensive to restore to functionality without the assistance of the company or individuals responsible’ has planned obsolescence. Clause 3 is slightly different, as it states that products ‘must not be made intentionally difficult or expensive to repair by purchasers’, without any mention of companies or individuals. The two are about very subtly different topics.)

[Zenkarra]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Clause 1 specifically states that all three parts of the definition must be met for a product to fall under the provisions of this resolution. If one of the three parts doesn't apply, than that product isn't affected by this resolution. Clause 3 specifically addresses part 3 of the definition. Clause 2 only applies to products that meet the definition of "Planned Obsolesce", which no product does anymore because all are in with Clause 3 which means they no longer meet the definition.

You're forgetting this part of definition 1c: "if it is meant to be possible to repair."
If it is not meant to be possible to repair, then only 1a and 1b are considered.

Clause 2 and 3 are both entirely irrelevant unless the product matches the definition first, making a full definition necessary.

A product can be sabotaged without being made intentionally difficult to repair. Clause 3 is not relevant to all products, and the ending of 1c exempts those cases.

A large potted plant growing in a plantpot with wheels, in the corner of the debate hall, under an auspiciously placed lighting fixture, comes to life, pushing its plantpot a bit further away from the wall with two strong vines, says, "I design and create, for the purposes of trading or selling, genetically modified plants that have specific qualities or functions as desired by the customer. Most plant species have a genetically determined lifespan, or they may simply have evolved to produce seeds quickly and then die away when harsh conditions - such as dry season or freezing winter - set in. That genetic ageing is often difficult to remove without causing severe issues in the healthy growth of the plant in question, so they have a planned obsolescence caused by the self-sabotaging software known as genome. As they are also practically impossible for others than myself to "restore to functionality", they meet your definitions of a product with planned obsolescence. Was that your intention?"

In this case, while it exists in the product, it was not intentionally added as part of the design. The existing obsolescence genome was not created by its manufacturer. It is therefore exempt. This bill was made with a secular point of view however. Planned obsolescence by God himself is outside of the intended scope of this bill. Furthermore, plants are bio-degradable, and gain an additional exemption, even if they otherwise met the definition.


*Edit* The third draft is now posted.

[Cardoness]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Clause 1 specifically states that all three parts of the definition must be met for a product to fall under the provisions of this resolution. If one of the three parts doesn't apply, than that product isn't affected by this resolution. Clause 3 specifically addresses part 3 of the definition. Clause 2 only applies to products that meet the definition of "Planned Obsolesce", which no product does anymore because all are in with Clause 3 which means they no longer meet the definition.

(OOC: Clause 1c states that ‘A product which is made unusually difficult or expensive to restore to functionality without the assistance of the company or individuals responsible’ has planned obsolescence. Clause 3 is slightly different, as it states that products ‘must not be made intentionally difficult or expensive to repair by purchasers’, without any mention of companies or individuals. The two are about very subtly different topics.)

That's like saying 1+2=3 is a subtly different topic than 2+1=3. The definition tackles the issue from the manufacturer point of view, while clause 3 is from the purchasers.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Clause 1 specifically states that all three parts of the definition must be met for a product to fall under the provisions of this resolution. If one of the three parts doesn't apply, than that product isn't affected by this resolution. Clause 3 specifically addresses part 3 of the definition. Clause 2 only applies to products that meet the definition of "Planned Obsolesce", which no product does anymore because all are in with Clause 3 which means they no longer meet the definition.

You're forgetting this part of definition 1c: "if it is meant to be possible to repair."
If it is not meant to be possible to repair, then only 1a and 1b are considered.

Clause 2 and 3 are both entirely irrelevant unless the product matches the definition first, making a full definition necessary.

A product can be sabotaged without being made intentionally difficult to repair. Clause 3 is not relevant to all products, and the ending of 1c exempts those cases.[quote/]
I can reasonably see your conclusion here. However, I can also see how it can reasonably be interpreted to be an all or nothing definition, as that is what it says it is. A better method would be to cut that last part and make it an exception. An even better option is to cut part 3 of the definition. You don't lose anything in doing so and I think you will make a better, tougher resolution in the process.

As is, we cannot and will not support its passage. We do not believe it will do what it sets out to do, that it will block future attempts to tackle the issue, and will do more harm than good. Make this small change and we will be able to support this 100%.

[Zenkarra]

That's like saying 1+2=3 is a subtly different topic than 2+1=3. The definition tackles the issue from the manufacturer point of view, while clause 3 is from the purchasers.

It's not merely a semantic angle. The definition 1c entirely depends on it being related to the manufacturer's attempt to profit from sabotage, while clause 3 removes that defining element. Regardless, I think that this in particular is a tangent to the issue at hand.

I can reasonably see your conclusion here. However, I can also see how it can reasonably be interpreted to be an all or nothing definition, as that is what it says it is.

I don't see the ambiguity. "If it is meant to be possible to repair" is a part of definition 1c that cannot be ignored. If repair is not considered in the design of the product, then 1c is entirely invalidated. There is no superposition where it is invalidated, but also valid. An invalid definition makes itself completely irrelevant.

Therefore: a product in which repair is not a part of its design has no possibility of failing to meet definition 1c. It is a free mark, because it will always apply.

You can think of it like programming. In order to run the program, 1a must first be valid, or else it will return an error and crash. 1b is checked immediately after that using the same rules. Finally it will reach 1c. 1c is different. It is encapsulated within an "if" statement. If the definition is met, or the definition does not apply, both cases are valid to progress to the next part of the program.

An even better option is to cut part 3 of the definition. You don't lose anything in doing so...

Without part 3 of the definition, repair sabotage will not be covered at all for any product.
Clause 3 is dependent on first meeting the definition. If the definition does not catch repair sabotage, then clause 3 has no target.
I am at a complete loss about how to explain this in a simpler way, as you keep missing this point entirely.

[Cardoness]

That's like saying 1+2=3 is a subtly different topic than 2+1=3. The definition tackles the issue from the manufacturer point of view, while clause 3 is from the purchasers.

It's not merely a semantic angle. The definition 1c entirely depends on it being related to the manufacturer's attempt to profit from sabotage, while clause 3 removes that defining element. Regardless, I think that this in particular is a tangent to the issue at hand.

I can reasonably see your conclusion here. However, I can also see how it can reasonably be interpreted to be an all or nothing definition, as that is what it says it is.

I don't see the ambiguity. "If it is meant to be possible to repair" is a part of definition 1c that cannot be ignored. If repair is not considered in the design of the product, then 1c is entirely invalidated. There is no superposition where it is invalidated, but also valid. An invalid definition makes itself completely irrelevant.

Therefore: a product in which repair is not a part of its design has no possibility of failing to meet definition 1c. It is a free mark, because it will always apply.

You can think of it like programming. In order to run the program, 1a must first be valid, or else it will return an error and crash. 1b is checked immediately after that using the same rules. Finally it will reach 1c. 1c is different. It is encapsulated within an "if" statement. If the definition is met, or the definition does not apply, both cases are valid to progress to the next part of the program.

An even better option is to cut part 3 of the definition. You don't lose anything in doing so...

Without part 3 of the definition, repair sabotage will not be covered at all for any product.
Clause 3 is dependent on first meeting the definition. If the definition does not catch repair sabotage, then clause 3 has no target.
I am at a complete loss about how to explain this in a simpler way, as you keep missing this point entirely.

Clause 3 prevents target sabotage, yes? Then you don't actually need it in the definition. Clause 3 will continue to prevent target sabotage regardless.

[Zenkarra]

Clause 3 prevents target sabotage, yes? Then you don't actually need it in the definition. Clause 3 will continue to prevent target sabotage regardless.

No, it does not. Clause 3 fixes sabotage after it is already found, but does not prevent it.
This bill only regulates a product after the definition is met.
If the definition does not catch a product with repair sabotage, why do you think that clause 3 will apply to it?

[Cardoness]

Clause 3 prevents target sabotage, yes? Then you don't actually need it in the definition. Clause 3 will continue to prevent target sabotage regardless.

No, it does not. Clause 3 fixes sabotage after it is already found, but does not prevent it.
This bill only regulates a product after the definition is met.
If the definition does not catch a product with repair sabotage, why do you think that clause 3 will apply to it?

A) I am a major manufacturer of smart phones.
B) I install software that is intended to slow down the functionality over time and eventually quit working in any meaningful way, excepts perhaps as a telephone.
C) In future models, I change the software just enough that app developers would have to create a different patch for each model. Doesn't exactly make my product defective, but as older models are a burden on developers, the older models become obsolete.
D) I also make the hardware difficult to disassemble and repair, except by technicians employed by my company.
Now, A fulfills part 1 of the definition, B and C part 2, and D part 3.

This law gets passed and one or two things must happen.
One, I must recall all my products. (Something to be considered)
And/Or
Two, I must be in compliance going forward.

Let's say I recall all products and change my manufacturing so as to make it so anyone with the proper skill set can repair my product. Now, I think I can do that simply by changing D. But perhaps a court says that also applies to software too. So I change B and D. But no court should ever tell me I have to continue using old software and not innovate, so C continues to limit the effective life of my product and there is nothing anyone can do about that. It's not difficult or expensive to update, and it is intended to be updated, but few are going to want to bother with it.

Now I have a product that meet the first two parts of your definition, but does not meet the third part. My products are no longer required to abide by clause 2.

But, if you take out the third part of your definition, clause 3 will still require me to make all those changes to my product and clause two will require me clearly state the intended lifespan of the product as well as provide a warranty. Your insistence on maintaining the definition as is when you can create a stronger resolution without it is baffling.

[Zenkarra]

I just realized what is missing. If a product is made sturdy, but still hinders repair, it won't meet the definition. Anything else meets it anyway without 1c.
I either need to fix that, or leave it for a separate right to repair bill.

/ooc I'm short on time right now, so I'll read your post later, but thanks for putting up with my slow brain.

*Edit*
New draft is posted. I have removed the third part of the definition. I believe that it would be better covered under a separate bill.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:You should withdraw this, it still needs improving. Marathon not sprint!

[Kenmoria]

OOC:You should withdraw this, it still needs improving. Marathon not sprint!

(OOC: This. For example, 4a should have ‘their’ not ‘its’ since ‘products’ is a plural.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: I kinda have an issue with "where its purpose is clearly stated to the purchaser" (the last clause), because that's going to lead to USA-esque insanities that you can actually find in instruction manual things over here too, if the products are also sold in USA. Like, seriously, "do not try to dry pets in a microwave oven" - yes, I know it's because of some lawsuit or another, but it's like common sense to not put a living thing in an oven of any kind, when it's doing its job of heating and cooking food, and expecting the living thing to come out alive.

And a refridgerator, or a freezer, or an electric fan, or a vacuum cleaner, or anything that's basically a single-use item that anyone purchasing one should know the purpose of, if they're of normal level of intellect (and if not, why are they buying something they don't understand?). Does a vacuum cleaner seriously have to have the explanation of "based on the airflow through a narrow tube, this product is intended for sucking up small objects such as dust and spilled dry foods, into a holding container, which needs to be emptied or replaced periodically"?

[Maowi]

'I've left some feedback on here for your attention, ambassador.'

Regulation of Planned Obsolescence

Category: Regulation | Area of effect: Consumer Protection

The World Assembly,

Observing that many businesses utilize predatory practices to increase sales through intentional sabotage of their product after sale;

Recognizing that large percentages of consumer populations are unaware of this practice, even after planned sabotage has occurred;

Further recognizing that businesses utilizing these practices will often intentionally make it impossible for the consumer to prevent or solve planned sabotage (?) in ways that do not continue to benefit the business, at the consumer's expense;

Concerned over the environmental impacts of large amounts of unnecessary consumer waste which does not break down for years, decades, or significantly longer;

Desiring to reduce this intentional sabotage, while informing consumers about its existence;

Hereby:

1. Defines, (either add a comma here or remove the comma after "resolution") for the purpose of this resolution, “planned obsolescence” where all of the following criteria are true as the designing of a product that is:


a) A product that is designed and created, with the intent to be traded or sold. , and

b) A product that is designed intended to have a limited functioning lifespan, or is designed to degrade in function over time, through mechanical faults, materials of insufficient strength, or self-sabotaging software.

2. Requires that all members of the World Assembly choose to enforce at least one of the following two solutions on all products that meet the definition of designed with “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution:


a) All such products must have their intended lifespan clearly stated in a way that is made obvious to the purchaser. This must include a warning which states that it is the product has an intentionally limited lifespan. Warranties must be provided to guarantee that the product lasts for its entire lifespan as stated to the purchaser, or will be replaced without monetary cost to the purchaser in the event of failure.

b) All such products must have their production banned. Foreign imports of these products must also be banned, unless requirement 2a is applied to them instead (redundant).

3. Furthermore requires that all products that meet the definition of “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution must not be made intentionally difficult or expensive to repair by purchasers the repair of products designed with “planned obsolescence” as defined by this resolution may not intentionally be made difficult or expensive for purchasers.

4. Exempts Clarifies that the designing of the following is not considered, for the purposes of this resolution, "planned obsolescence": (perhaps if you decide to make an edit similar to this one you can move the current clauses 4. a), b) and c) to follow directly on from clause 1)


a) Products that are considered as consumable items, as long as the company or individuals responsible for its their creation do not intentionally obfuscate its their status as a consumable items.

b) Products that bio-degrade naturally, and do not break down into toxic substances.

c) Products in which planned obsolescence does not impair the intended function of the product, as it was communicated to the purchaser.

d) Warranty requirements, where a consumer has intentionally attempted to damage, modify, or repair a product, or has used the product outside of its intended purpose, where its purpose is clearly stated to the purchaser. (make 4. d) a separate clause, introduced properly with a separate sentence)

'These are pretty much all suggestions to make the text flow more naturally.'

OOC: Doesn't look like this will reach quorum, so these are just some suggestions for you to consider.

[Zenkarra]

You're right. It's a little hasty to send the proposal so soon after finalizing the draft. I've withdrawn it, and will be taking suggestions for awhile longer.

OOC: I kinda have an issue with "where its purpose is clearly stated to the purchaser" (the last clause), because that's going to lead to USA-esque insanities that you can actually find in instruction manual things over here too, if the products are also sold in USA. Like, seriously, "do not try to dry pets in a microwave oven" - yes, I know it's because of some lawsuit or another, but it's like common sense to not put a living thing in an oven of any kind, when it's doing its job of heating and cooking food, and expecting the living thing to come out alive.

And a refridgerator, or a freezer, or an electric fan, or a vacuum cleaner, or anything that's basically a single-use item that anyone purchasing one should know the purpose of, if they're of normal level of intellect (and if not, why are they buying something they don't understand?). Does a vacuum cleaner seriously have to have the explanation of "based on the airflow through a narrow tube, this product is intended for sucking up small objects such as dust and spilled dry foods, into a holding container, which needs to be emptied or replaced periodically"?

I can see the possible issue. However, this exemption would only affect products which have planned obsolescence, which might be acceptable where it applies. If it's not something designed to explode, or break down immediately after use, then most cases are probably going to be a product where there is an attempt to hide the planned obsolescence behind a wall of useless and obvious information.
I suppose the question is then, can the former be easily exempted without creating the latter?

'I've left some feedback on here for your attention, ambassador.'

'These are pretty much all suggestions to make the text flow more naturally.'

OOC: Doesn't look like this will reach quorum, so these are just some suggestions for you to consider.

These are good suggestions. Some concerns though:
Your change to clause 1 would make it so that this bill would only affect the designing of such products. If a product has already been designed before being caught, then the bill would become insufficient to regulate them.
The change to 2a is redundant. Maybe changing the period to a semicolon after the first sentence is better?
The change to 2b does not affect redundancy. Since Member states must choose either 2a or 2b exclusively, the latter part of 2b allows those choosing the latter option to make exemptions for foreign trade.
The change to clause 4 seems unnecessary. "Exempts" seems clear and concise to me.

[Araraukar]

Since Member states must choose either 2a or 2b exclusively, the latter part of 2b allows those choosing the latter option to make exemptions for foreign trade.

OOC: Just discard B and make A mandatory. Making A mandatory means that by default B is applied. (Since if you make it mandatory for all cars to be blue, any car not blue is banned.)

[Maowi]

OOC:

'I've left some feedback on here for your attention, ambassador.'

'These are pretty much all suggestions to make the text flow more naturally.'

OOC: Doesn't look like this will reach quorum, so these are just some suggestions for you to consider.

These are good suggestions. Some concerns though:
Your change to clause 1 would make it so that this bill would only affect the designing of such products. If a product has already been designed before being caught, then the bill would become insufficient to regulate them.

If you were to use my suggestions, all future references to "planned obsolescence" would be phrased as 'products designed with "planned obsolescence" ' - i.e. past tense. This would catch all products that have ever been designed to stop working after a certain point.

The change to 2a is redundant. Maybe changing the period to a semicolon after the first sentence is better?

That suggestion was just to be absolutely clear and to prevent opportunities for exploitation of loopholes. I know it's not strictly necessary, but you may want to consider using it to tighten the legislation.

The change to 2b does not affect redundancy. Since Member states must choose either 2a or 2b exclusively, the latter part of 2b allows those choosing the latter option to make exemptions for foreign trade.

You've already said in clause 2 that 'all members of the World Assembly [are required to] choose to enforce at least one of the following two solutions'. You don't have to repeat that at the end of clause 4, and in this case I don't think it closes any loopholes.

The change to clause 4 seems unnecessary. "Exempts" seems clear and concise to me.

I don't know, it just didn't really sit well with me ... it doesn't make much explicit sense: as written, it exempts certain products from ... an unspecified thing. Your proposal, your choice, though It's mainly stylistic

[Zenkarra]

Since Member states must choose either 2a or 2b exclusively, the latter part of 2b allows those choosing the latter option to make exemptions for foreign trade.

OOC: Just discard B and make A mandatory. Making A mandatory means that by default B is applied. (Since if you make it mandatory for all cars to be blue, any car not blue is banned.)

This has been brought up a lot, so I will do that then, but instead replace it with a clause that merely recommends banning them entirely. That's the point I was trying to make by having the second option anyway.

OOC:

These are good suggestions. Some concerns though:
Your change to clause 1 would make it so that this bill would only affect the designing of such products. If a product has already been designed before being caught, then the bill would become insufficient to regulate them.

If you were to use my suggestions, all future references to "planned obsolescence" would be phrased as 'products designed with "planned obsolescence" ' - i.e. past tense. This would catch all products that have ever been designed to stop working after a certain point.

It's confusing that you used present tense for it, but it is a simple fix to make it past tense. Anything past the definition won't matter unless it is caught there first.

The change to 2a is redundant. Maybe changing the period to a semicolon after the first sentence is better?

That suggestion was just to be absolutely clear and to prevent opportunities for exploitation of loopholes. I know it's not strictly necessary, but you may want to consider using it to tighten the legislation.

It's good that you brought it up. I think that adding the semicolon there will make it less ambiguous now while still keeping it concise.

The change to 2b does not affect redundancy. Since Member states must choose either 2a or 2b exclusively, the latter part of 2b allows those choosing the latter option to make exemptions for foreign trade.

You've already said in clause 2 that 'all members of the World Assembly [are required to] choose to enforce at least one of the following two solutions'. You don't have to repeat that at the end of clause 4, and in this case I don't think it closes any loopholes.

I guess this won't matter anymore since I'm now planning to replace 2b.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Is toilet paper (and other things that you don't actually eat-consume) a consumable? My toilet has had to consume an awful lot of it this past week. And if yes, couldn't you call basically everything a consumable? This was probably raised before, but I'm not sure it was properly addressed?

Also, I really recommend splitting warranties off onto their own main clause (from 2.a.), because you could basically write an entire resolution on warranties. Bundling them up with this one would likely make all producers of basically anything go "the predicted lifetime is a week, your product's lifetime warranty is therefore a week", while it could last you several decades. Like take computers for example. Most component parts (the "innards") have guarantees of 1-3 years, power source (still an innard) might have more - my newest computer's got a 5 year guarantee (and a recommendation to not touch its settings as, according to the expert, "it could power up a small village, and then burn down your house"), for example - but will usually keep on working for... well, a long time. My oldest still working computer (I swear I'm not a computer hoarder, but some really good games don't work on new computers!) was put together early 2003. Or 2002. Thereabouts anyway. So clearly many (most?) computer parts waaaaay outlive their guaranteed lifespans.