Edit: or maybe they don’t want to release that kind of info for product/brand lock-in reasons?

How can documenting something be an undue burden? In order to write the drivers that they do write, for say Windows, they must have written some documentation.

And if I want to abuse some piece of hardware, such as making a musical instrument out of a pile of floppy disk drives, what business is that of the manufacturer?

It might be worth clarifying that Wacom is not taking that approach. But their statement there suggests that the underlying reason for lack of hardware support in Linux is the OpenSource nature of the software.

> And if I want to abuse some piece of hardware, such as making a musical instrument out of a pile of floppy disk drives, what business is that of the manufacturer?

As an example (maybe not a fair one) we can ask Tesla why they don’t want to expose some/all APIs that Tesla owners might want access to. I expect they would bring up a thousand reasons why, maybe safety related, maybe not.

I generally agree with you though, you paid and own something, and you wish to use it as you see fit. Unfortunately it seems like what we think we own and what we actually own are in some cases two separate things.

Well, yeah, the point of regulations is to make companies do things that are not in their direct self-interest, but benefit wider society.

Manufacturers would also be reluctant to comply with planned obsolescence bans, or consumer safety regulations. That's why the regulations must have teeth to them.

Comments like yours seem to advocate a very beneficial situation for the companies where they have all protections, all authority, without any responsibilities.

If your serious about getting the government out, including out of copyright and patents, then let's talk. Until then, let's regulate these companies.

I'm all for eliminating all government privileges and cronyism (which are really rights violations of the competition). In this world, there is no way we're going to get a grand bargain where all things will simultaneously change in that way. For each proposed change, ask whether we increase or decrease natural rights (especially to life and property). "Intellectual" property is a creation wholly new in human history before a few hundred years ago. Property in land and goods goes back to evolutionary times: it's basic territoriality, and respecting that keeps the peace. Free trade is the way forward to widespread prosperity.

I asked myself and answered: Requiring companies to document their hardware for right-to-repair or right-to-utilize reasons has no effect on life, and some effect on property. It would give individuals more power over their own property - more power over their old school, physical possession, basic territoriality, property. The government protecting people's right to repair and utilize their physical possessions seems like a good thing.

At this point you seem, to me, to have reversed position. Are you now okay with requiring companies to document their APIs for the benefit of consumers (in some cases at least)?

Either way, this conversation is frustrating to me, and one I wont continue here (you're, of course, welcome to respond and debate with others). I'm frustrated because the "no regulation, no government" view hides a lot of nuance and shuts down conversations. It's so easy to throw out "no government" and so hard to talk past it, and I think this is one reason libertarian views like this often cause people to just roll their eyes and ignore. I'm sympathetic to a lot of libertarian ideas, but I wish people would give more acknowledgement to why people want regulation (in this case) before a drive-by "no government please" comment.

This basically boils down to an argument in strict favour of primacy, which doesn't strike me as as any more obviously moral than alternatives

Tell that to all the big banks bailed by the government.

Instead answer to yourself, why I should have any right to dictate the standards of the goods you may knowingly and willingly purchase, and particularly when the consequences of your substandard purchase are born by you? Should I literally be able to force you to upgrade to a product with iFixit-approved repairability? Under what moral code is that legitimate? Protect people from themselves, i.e., I may treat you as my child?

They are not born by me, as I personally have a very low influence on the market. Market is dictated by the masses, and masses are manipulated (nudged) by media, which is again controlled by the corporations.

Your argument of blaming individuals for bad choices masses make is deeply flawed and skewed in favor of corporations.