> A right to repair law would make most products equally servicable

How is that possible to enforce?

If a company comes up with a design that is less serviceable than its competitors, but has other advantages, is it forbidden from selling its new design?

If a company comes up with a design that is more serviceable than its competitors, are all the competitors now forbidden from selling their old design?

Just banning all the zany things manufacturers come up with to thwart repair should be fine. No security screws, no tamper seals, no plastic clips that you must break, no cryptographic verification of components, cartridges, or firmware.

I'm probably missing a load of other tricks, but just doing the above would go a long way to ensuring products can be repaired reasonably.

> ... no cryptographic verification of components, cartridges, or firmware

No, I definitely think that the verification on the parts to make sure that they are original should stay, but it should not disallow non official parts to be installed. Because, if I want to replace a part with an original, there should be a way to verify the part is not counterfeit, and I think it would be super beneficial for consumer if the part was able to verify itself as genuine. But, I should also be able to install non genuine parts as well.

I'd be fine with doing verification of parts like that if and only if it doesn't lead to nonsense such as scary popups warning of damage or reduced functionality or what have you.

Obviously this also implies that to create a replacement part you don't need to ask the original manufacturer for permission. A "third party signing" key should be publicly available.

They usually call it the "invisible hand". If servicibility is not a feature, then it is an implementation detail. The other positive sides of a design will be picked by competitors while servicibility will be an additional feature. The first generation of bad products will be displaced after a few years by a new generation of products that will be cheaper to own and will be as good as the unservicible ones.

Is that correct?

To my knowledge most people campaigning for Right to Repair don’t want change the designs of the things we currently buy.

They just want to stop companies banning their suppliers from selling spares to consumers.

That is, most things are already reparable enough but certain firms are going out of their way to stop that happening.

It's a combination of not restricting parts and not encumbering replacement parts with chips that can only be 'unlocked' by an approved servicer. Things like tractors are now sold that you literally can't repair yourself unless you hack the DRM, which is absurd.

If you can repair your stuff, then you start to buy stuff that is easier and cheaper to repair. Most commodity stuff is not all that differentiable and lower cost of ownership will be a factor.