Sorry but I don't think they are realistic at all. OP writes about global rights that:
1. "Grant the right to self-repair": Maybe someone would want to have a product that doesn't allow 3rdparty repairs? I.e. user would want to be sure there were no unauthorized repairs when buying some used hardware because user would like to have confidence the last repair wasn't sloppy or the used product contains only original parts? Why would you want to deny that possibility? Medical equipment, weapons, devices used in expensive mass transit like planes, I'd say to leave repairs of those to the proper companies.
2. "Replacement parts at sane price": how would you want to control the price of a part that is actually expensive to manufacture? Should prices of other, cheaper parts be bigger so that the expensive part will be cheaper? In such case, if I never own the MacBook with a design fault, but I will need the cheaper part, why should I pay more so you can buy your expensive part cheaper?
3. "Prevent using glue, welds": Isn't it cheaper and produces devices that have less moving parts? It allows quicker assembly and allows automatization during production so again, cheaper devices. The adhesive used in the phones are not as bad as people think, I've replaced batteries and screens from multiple phones, it's a PITA but nothing that can't be done. Also Chinese kids are also doing it on the streets in few minutes.
4. "Service material should be distributed on the same market as the device": Again, more costs. The customer will pay for those costs, not the company. The devices will be more expensive.
5. "Increase the warranty for parts that shouldn't break". I have no idea how anyone would be able to pass the law that already knows what part will break in a new device in the day of bringing this device to the market.
6. "Damage markers are not to be used to void warranty". What about vehicle crash sensors? Hard disk sudden motion sensor?
The problem when a user tries to think of new laws is always the same, those laws only address user's problem and nothing more. Just please, leave the law alone, imagine it's kernel mode programming and you're a web designer.
>Sorry but I don't think they are realistic at all.
Not complete, but I think they outline some general ideas that would be useful for most customers.
[1]
>Maybe someone would want to have a product that doesn't allow 3rdparty repairs?
Perhaps, but I don't see how you could ever possibly stop that from happening. Even with Apple's very tight control over the repair market, repairs are still made to their laptops, phones, etc. When you buy from the second hand market, all bets are off. If you own the device from new and it is from the manufacturer, you can guarantee that repairs are carried out how you want them.
>Medical equipment, weapons, devices used in expensive mass transit like planes, I'd say to leave repairs of those to the proper companies.
Again, if you want to make those guarantees, you would have "trusted" re-seller markets or purchase new. Hell, go a step further, have the devices pulled apart and manually checked for their fitness for purpose.
On the other hand, one only needs to look at an iron lung or an old military device needing restoration to realized why the right to repair is important even in those cases. Manufacturers can die, parts can go out of production and manufacturers may not always be incentivized to make the right repair (for example in cases where the right repair costs them money).
[2]
>In such case, if I never own the MacBook with a design fault, but I will need the cheaper part, why should I pay more so you can buy your expensive part cheaper?
The parts would be cheaper for everybody by forcibly locking in the cost of replacement parts. One would expect that the replacement parts in total not cost more than a multiplier of the original retail price of the device. For example, it shouldn't be more expensive to replace a part of a machine that to buy one new.
[3]
>Isn't it cheaper and produces devices that have less moving parts? It allows quicker assembly and allows automatization during production so again, cheaper devices.
Yes it is. So is making use-once e-cigarettes. Electronic waste is a massive problem and should not be encouraged at any level. Manufacturers of expensive devices should make said devices fixable. Most of Apple's competitors somehow manage to build devices with screws whilst delivering on a lower price, so I don't believe for a moment Apple is incapable of also doing so.
[4]
>Again, more costs. The customer will pay for those costs, not the company. The devices will be more expensive.
A well known secret: The devices are priced to be a multiplier of the customers annual disposable income. Besides, devices being slightly more expensive but being more repairable is a good trade off.
[5]
>I have no idea how anyone would be able to pass the law that already knows what part will break in a new device in the day of bringing this device to the market.
Parts have an expected life time. Most vehicles have an expected life time of 10 years. Depressingly, mobile phones are ~1/2 years. Other than some agreed degradable parts, such as batteries which depend on charge habits, one wouldn't expect the processor to give out in less than 1/2 years with normal use. If it did, it would point towards a design flaw. Of course not all design flaws can be seen before production, but these can be reduced with better prior testing and more easily replaceable internals.
[6]
>What about vehicle crash sensors? Hard disk sudden motion sensor?
In both cases, there is either damage or there isn't. If a vehicle crashes and there is absolutely no damage at all - what's the difference? Of course this calls on better testing of devices being returned, but this should be the case anyway. It shouldn't be that difficult to build a bed of nails to send out to repair centers to test whether a motherboard is damaged.
--
>The problem when a user tries to think of new laws is always the same, those laws only address user's problem and nothing more. Just please, leave the law alone, imagine it's kernel mode programming and you're a web designer.
This is a very poor attitude to have. We should be having open discussions about everything - who knows where the next best idea will come from. Elitism usually turns out bad.
It's more complicated than this. For quite a number of people this isn't a choice. Many companies are locked into a hardware platform, many average users are locked into a hardware platform because of social expectations (i.e. all of my friends/family using Face Time, my office uses OSX office documents, etc).
This, and the problem that users are being told that _they_ are the problem. Keyboard breaks? Stop getting dust on it. Light show on display? Stop opening and closing the lid. Signal cuts out? You're holding it wrong.
Capitalism only works with regulation - you can't have a completely free market devoid of strict regulation to uphold some kind of minimal standards.
