More realistically, companies should not be allowed to hold their patents if they stop supporting the product so that third parties can produce and sell the parts.
There is interesting thing, really. Say, Ford made 1970 Ford Mustang obsolete. So, they are not interested in any profit connected with this model. But at the same time if you try to manufacture this model Ford clearly not interested in, you will be sued to the bottom by Ford for all that patent/IP/trademark shit. So, selling a car, Ford intentionally withhold some property rignts. And since Ford didn't pass them to the owner, Ford hold responsibility before every single owner of Mustang. If Ford withold any rights from customer after sale, it is obliged to provide all necessary support connected with that rights as long, as owners of "obsolete" model exists.
Only way Ford could be somehow fair with customers is to opensource of all blueprints and specifications, including manufacturing process (treatment, tempering and all that stuff) and changing any patent/IP/trademark used to public domain for the models they declare "obsolete". Only in that case Ford will be clear from responsibility before the customer.
Same thing is with electronics, home appliances and so on.
Aftermarket manufacturers suffer from the same economy of shit insanity - as demand drops, they just stop to manufacture spare parts even if there is significant number of owners, and it is nearly impossible to order even a batch of such parts from them.
Also, there is interesting rabbit hole with stainless steel body parts. There was several attempts by oldtimer/youngtimer communities to order stainless steel body parts from aftermarket manufacturers like Klokkerholm/Polcar/Gordon and others, but all was denied, regardless of huge money communities was ready to pay. There is definitely some worldwide conspiracy with ban on manufacturing cars with stainless steel body. There was two attempts to manufacture cars with body panels (not chassis, meanwhile) - DeLorean and Musk. DeLorean was destroyed by FBI setup, Musk still making his trucks, but I'm in doubt it will last long. And it is with just outer body panels made from stainless steel, not structural parts.
I agree, and I think this should clearly extend to software as well. If software is sold that requires access to a server, for example, and the company stops supporting it, they should be required to release the tech specs that would allow anyone to run their own server.
There was a huge push in the 2000s to equate patents/trademarks/copyrights as property, even though they're actual special government granted monopolies. That being the case, there should be some responsibility on those who the government grants these extrordinary legal rights.
While it would be nice if companies had to continue to maintain their products, I don't think that would be legally enforceable and it would be simpler all around to just release their monopolies and let people do what they like.
If software is sold that requires access to a server, for example, and the company stops supporting it, they should be required to release the tech specs that would allow anyone to run their own server.
Few games creators do exactly that. So this is not just some wishful thinking, it really works in real world. As benefit, such companies gain respect among customers, wich is hard to gain, but easy to loose.
While it would be nice if companies had to continue to maintain their products, I don't think that would be legally enforceable and it would be simpler all around to just release their monopolies and let people do what they like.
Manufacturers easily enforced to many unreasonable and even just insane regulations without any problem. Just recall that multilayer hoax with freon refrigerants - first, fridge manufacturers was forced to switch to freon due to "explosivity" of propane/butane and ammonia, then forced back to propane/butane due to "ozon holes"
There is interesting thing, really. Say, Ford made 1970 Ford Mustang obsolete. So, they are not interested in any profit connected with this model. But at the same time if you try to manufacture this model Ford clearly not interested in, you will be sued to the bottom by Ford for all that patent/IP/trademark shit. So, selling a car, Ford intentionally withhold some property rignts. And since Ford didn't pass them to the owner, Ford hold responsibility before every single owner of Mustang. If Ford withold any rights from customer after sale, it is obliged to provide all necessary support connected with that rights as long, as owners of "obsolete" model exists.
Only way Ford could be somehow fair with customers is to opensource of all blueprints and specifications, including manufacturing process (treatment, tempering and all that stuff) and changing any patent/IP/trademark used to public domain for the models they declare "obsolete". Only in that case Ford will be clear from responsibility before the customer.
Same thing is with electronics, home appliances and so on.
Aftermarket manufacturers suffer from the same economy of shit insanity - as demand drops, they just stop to manufacture spare parts even if there is significant number of owners, and it is nearly impossible to order even a batch of such parts from them.
Also, there is interesting rabbit hole with stainless steel body parts. There was several attempts by oldtimer/youngtimer communities to order stainless steel body parts from aftermarket manufacturers like Klokkerholm/Polcar/Gordon and others, but all was denied, regardless of huge money communities was ready to pay. There is definitely some worldwide conspiracy with ban on manufacturing cars with stainless steel body. There was two attempts to manufacture cars with body panels (not chassis, meanwhile) - DeLorean and Musk. DeLorean was destroyed by FBI setup, Musk still making his trucks, but I'm in doubt it will last long. And it is with just outer body panels made from stainless steel, not structural parts.
I agree, and I think this should clearly extend to software as well. If software is sold that requires access to a server, for example, and the company stops supporting it, they should be required to release the tech specs that would allow anyone to run their own server.
There was a huge push in the 2000s to equate patents/trademarks/copyrights as property, even though they're actual special government granted monopolies. That being the case, there should be some responsibility on those who the government grants these extrordinary legal rights.
While it would be nice if companies had to continue to maintain their products, I don't think that would be legally enforceable and it would be simpler all around to just release their monopolies and let people do what they like.
Few games creators do exactly that. So this is not just some wishful thinking, it really works in real world. As benefit, such companies gain respect among customers, wich is hard to gain, but easy to loose.
Manufacturers easily enforced to many unreasonable and even just insane regulations without any problem. Just recall that multilayer hoax with freon refrigerants - first, fridge manufacturers was forced to switch to freon due to "explosivity" of propane/butane and ammonia, then forced back to propane/butane due to "ozon holes"