Stop makers from shutting down or disabling technology that buyers depend on, just because it suits the maker
In short
- Makers are banned from remotely switching off machines or software after they have sold them.
- When a maker stops updating a product, it hands over the design information so other people can fix and run it.
- Makers deposit that information in a separate place before they start selling, so it is available even if the company fails.
- Makers stop being the only sellers of repair parts and tools, a practice that keeps repairs in their own hands.
If this comes true
A high school student with an implanted hearing device keeps listening in class even after the company that made it has disappeared, because a local repair shop fixes the parts using the published designs. But no new features are added anymore, and repairs cost more than before.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This covers every technology product that people pay for and rely on in their daily lives, their work, or the working of their bodies. That includes home appliances, cars, farm machines, medical devices and devices placed inside the body, and the software and online services that run them. There are three main principles. First, after a sale, makers must not shut a product off from far away, strip out its functions, or narrow how it can be used later. The only exception is a serious safety defect, and in that case the maker must tell the owner the reason and provide another way to keep using the product. Second, when a maker ends software updates or an online service, it must give notice well in advance and publish the design information and keys that other companies or owners need to keep the product running. Third, when sales begin, the maker must place that information with a storage provider independent of the maker, set to open automatically if the company goes bankrupt or pulls out of the market. As a rule, the practice of makers being the only sellers of repair parts and tools, and systems that reject non-original parts, are also not allowed. Trade secrets are still protected, but a maker cannot refuse on grounds of secrecy to share what is needed to keep a product running. Pure services paid for by monthly fees are not covered, but a sales method that ties a machine's own functions to such a service is treated the same as a product sold outright.
BenefitsTools people have bought are cut loose from the fate of their makers
Under this system, buying something is no longer just renting it for as long as the company lasts. Even if the company fails or changes its policy, owners and local repair businesses can keep the tool running, so people who trust their bodies or their work to machines can feel safer. For farms and hospitals that use machines made by large companies in distant countries, and for regions that get by on used goods, this brings back the power to fix things themselves and narrows the gap in power between those who use technology and those who make it. Once design information is out there, local repair shops and small companies gain new work, and people who remake and improve parts are trained. Products are used for longer, so waste and the use of resources go down. Makers, too, are likely to put their effort into earning trust with good products that last, rather than stripping features after a sale to push people to buy again. Above all, society can clearly give an answer, on the owner's side, to the question of whether technology widens or narrows human freedom.
DrawbacksSome safety and innovation is traded away for owners' freedom
Releasing design information and keys also opens a protective door. For products where a small change can threaten lives, such as medical devices placed inside the body or a car's brakes, repairs by people without enough knowledge or malicious modifications could cause accidents, and it would also be unclear who is responsible. If weaknesses in published software are used in attacks, the harm spreads beyond the owner to the people around them. In addition, the duty to look after products long after they are sold, and the cost of depositing the information, push up prices. The burden is heaviest on new companies with little money, and fewer of them may take the risk of bold new products. If large companies stop selling in markets with heavy duties, or in small countries, some regions could end up with less technology available to them. If more companies stop selling outright and switch to monthly rental only, they could slip through the net of these principles. A society that chooses this proposal accepts somewhat higher prices and the risk of losing some safety and novelty, for the sake of owners' freedom.
Learn the background
Refrigerators, cars, and hearing aids now all run on software inside and servers somewhere online. As a result, even after you buy something, it is the maker, not the owner, who decides whether you can really keep using it. All over the world, owners who did nothing wrong are losing tools they depend on: appliances that stop working the moment a company closes its servers, farm machines that sit idle at harvest time because only approved shops can fix them, and medical devices inside the body that can no longer be repaired or updated because the company that made them stopped doing business. The hardest hit are people who cannot afford to buy new, and people in regions that import used goods and use them for a long time. Large numbers of machines that still work become garbage, and waste of resources and pollution grow. Science and technology were supposed to expand what people can do, but under today's way of selling, the more technology there is, the more people are tied to its makers. It is time to redraw the line between what belongs to the owner and where the maker can have a say, as a principle that applies to technology as a whole.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-20a) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes