>...allows for original equipment manufacturers to provide assemblies of parts rather than the original components when the risk of improper installation heightens the risk of injury

At some point, our legislation at the Federal Level is going to have to come to a visionary bipartisan agreement to shift how we do business from Engineering workflows to Corporate Business Models. Some revolutionary ideas are needed to maintain the momentum of the Chips Act and I think Rights to Repair fits into it. For example, less revolutionary methods in Modular design offer some relativity to repairing your own devices and equipment. It could also potentially motivate companies to take less aggressive measures of protecting patents by redesigning security restrictions that don't impede repairs/shift the burden of costs on customers so much so they have to replace it.

Many critical pieces of Technology and machinery that rely on semiconductors can be developed to be almost care-free in maintenance, which in turn would free up resource availability for manufacturing tech and (I tragically wouldn't enjoy talking about) would be extremely viable for our defensive industry demands, that would require a bulk of materials and manufacturing prior to end consumers.

Three major goals are highlighted below:

• A.I. will fundamentally change development, labor, infrastructure, and ROI.
• Automation will increase productivity and provide efficiency at the same rate of labor needed to maintain equipment.
• Chips Act can only go so far in market volatility, as much of the reliance on semiconductor development requires stable sources of material extraction.

If we are to meet those measures, then we will need to shift how we Engineer and manufacture for demand. And Rights for Repair fits into part of the larger goals and as a model to capitalize on its notes.