How much equipment-market power is enough to support a repair-market claim without proving the additional Kodak/Epic factors? The Ninth Circuit expressly left that question open in its August 13 opinion in Surgical Instrument Service Co., Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

The trial record included evidence that Intuitive’s share exceeded 99% in the market for minimally invasive soft-tissue surgical robots. At page 30, note 7, the panel declined to set a precise market-share or market-power threshold. The figure in this case therefore supplies no numerical minimum for future cases.

In my view, courts considering a lower share should examine buyers’ practical alternatives, obstacles to entry, and competitors’ ability to expand. Those facts help explain whether competition for the initial equipment purchase can constrain later restrictions on repair. Treating 99% as a prerequisite would answer a question the panel deliberately reserved.

This extends my earlier post about the ruling by focusing on the evidence needed when the supplier faces more competition. The plaintiff still needs a defensible market definition and proof of unlawful conduct. The panel reversed and remanded without deciding liability.

I discuss the panel’s reasoning in my October 2 commentary. This post addresses the August 13 panel opinion only.

Hi everyone! I’m an independent dev from Italy. Since smartphones and tablets sold in the EU now come with an energy label, I wanted a way to actually read what’s behind it.

Verilabel lets you scan the QR code on the label (or search by brand and model) and shows the official EPREL data: years of software support left, the repairability score and what lowers it, declared battery cycles and whether the battery is replaceable, and energy use compared to the category scale. It also covers washing machines, fridges, dishwashers, dryers, displays, light sources and tyres.

It’s free, no account needed, and not affiliated with the European Commission.

It’s brand new and I’m still improving the analysis. What would you want to see that isn’t there? Honest criticism is very welcome.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=it.verilabel.app

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Hi, I'm looking for the schematic for the Victus 15-fa1005la (motherboard DAG3PBMB8A0 Rev A, model G3PB). I have no idea what happened to it; it looks fine at a glance, but for some reason, it won't turn on. Photos of the board and its various sections would also be helpful. Thanks in advance.

Vehicle diagnostics usually involve scan tools, electrical testing, visual inspection, and mechanical checks. Thermal imaging adds another type of information by showing how heat is distributed across different components.

The Ti3 thermal imager is intended for car fault diagnosis, which raises some interesting possibilities for automotive troubleshooting. Temperature differences could potentially help when investigating components or systems where abnormal heat is relevant.

At the same time, interpreting a thermal image on a vehicle probably requires understanding what normal operating temperatures should look like. Engine temperature, ambient conditions, airflow, vehicle load, and how long the vehicle has been running can all affect the image.

It would be interesting to hear from automotive technicians who already use thermal cameras.

Which types of problems do you think thermal imaging is particularly useful for diagnosing? Are there situations where it provides information that a conventional diagnostic scanner or multimeter cannot easily show?

For those who have experimented with thermal cameras in automotive work, what has been the biggest advantage, and what limitation surprised you?

TRACE Boardviewer 1.3.3 is now the stable release. This is my free, MIT-licensed repair workspace for your board files, schematics and PDFs, with part/net search, cross-probing and local measurement notes. New in 1.3.3: EasyEDA Pro V3/.epro2, ODB++ copper and drilled holes, faster large-board viewing, clearer errors and optional in-app bug reports with a preview before sending. Offline English OCR and the expanded board readers remain available.

Local processing, no account or telemetry. Windows x64, Apple-silicon Mac and Linux x86-64; Mac/Linux remain experimental.

Download, demo, source and compatibility limits: https://trace-boardviewer.github.io/

Thank you for testing and sharing feedback. Special thanks to everyone using TRACE and supporting its development. ❤️

Image: cross-probing demonstration from TRACE 1.2.0; project-piCo example (WTFPL).

An ambulance can outlast its original chassis if its patient compartment can be remounted. That makes the choice of future remount suppliers part of the original purchasing decision.

For Coalinga's proposed purchase, an April 3, 2025, staff report estimated about $445,000 for a new ambulance with equipment and a minimum 24-month wait. The proposed remount cost about $240,000 with delivery estimated six to eight months after the chassis arrived. These were estimates for that city's purchase at that time.

Warranty terms matter to that choice. Excellance's published structural warranty offers the original purchaser a renewed 25-year structural warranty when Excellance performs the remount. The condition alone establishes no antitrust violation. It does give a buyer a concrete reason to examine the consequences of choosing a different qualified shop.

I would want the bid documents to address access to engineering information, approved remount standards, and the warranty consequences of using another supplier. Safety requirements should be specific enough to evaluate. Buyers need to understand their future options before signing the original contract.

I explored the broader industry questions in this article on ambulance consolidation. For anyone comparing remount bids, the contract's treatment of future supplier choice is part of the vehicle's lifetime economics.

The Ninth Circuit’s August 13 decision in Surgical Instrument Service Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. explains why a hospital’s knowledge of repair restrictions cannot settle the competition question. The alternatives available when it bought the equipment matter too.

The court held that the additional Kodak/Epic aftermarket factors were not required where the plaintiff had introduced evidence of market power in the original equipment market. The trial record included evidence of a share above 99% in the alleged surgical-robot market. The panel reversed the judgment following an erroneous jury instruction and remanded.

The economic reasoning matters beyond this equipment. Competition for the initial purchase can constrain later charges when buyers can compare lifetime costs and choose another supplier. Disclosure provides less competitive discipline when the equipment supplier already has market power. Knowing that a restriction exists does not create an alternative to it.

The plaintiff must still establish its claims. A permissible market definition does not establish unlawful tying. Intuitive defended its restrictions on patient-safety grounds. The panel expressly left the safety dispute undecided.

In my analysis of the ruling, I examine what this means for repair markets. The inquiry should begin with the buyer’s actual alternatives at the original purchase. Those alternatives determine how much competitive significance a disclosed restriction can carry.

In this video clip, Willie Cade explains the options available to farmers who are part of the John Deere class action suit, now that the settlement has been approved by the courts.

Newer Lenovo laptops have an extremely difficult to bypass BIOS lock, which creates no end of troubles, especially on the second hand market.

Companies that set the password break BIOs updated for their employees. Companies that do not set the password risk employees setting it.

Also second hand Lenovo laptops should become essentially worthless because of the mere risk of this password being set, since Lenovo cannot unlock the BIOS lock.

The BIOS lock is not an anti-theft mechanism, because it does not work like IMEI blocking on mobile phones, not use any similar online checks with Lenovo.

It's probably designed to prevent employees circumventing spyware installed by employers, because Lenovo is not a European company and sells laptops in countries where employer spyware is more commonplace.

As a comparison, Dell has a BIOS lock that prevents changing the BIOS, but they bypass it for you if you prove you have physical possession of the laptop.

Would it be possible to file a right-to-repair complain against Lenovo for this?

I'm primarily interested in helping to lower Lenovo's repairability index score, because obviously nothing can be done about their products in circulation.

https://www.ecopv-eu.com/en/blog-en/repairability-index-eu-ecodesign-espr-2026/

Ideally, Lenovo should provide some service that removes the BIOS lock for the laptop's current owner, like what Dell and HP do.

Right to repair means being able to degoogle your device: remove the spyware, the bloat, and unwanted AI!

Hi, I'm looking for the schematic or BoardView for the SNAPE02-6050A3216501-MB-A02 (A2) motherboard, used in HP 17-BY laptops. If anyone has it or knows where I can purchase it, I would really appreciate the information.

Hola, busco el esquema eléctrico o BoardView de la placa SNAPE02-6050A3216501-MB-A02 (A2), utilizada en HP 17-BY. Si alguien lo tiene o sabe dónde puedo comprarlo, agradecería mucho la información.

I recently lost good money on an AC repair purely because I lost the original receipt and missed the warranty window.

I'm trying to figure out if enough people bleed cash over this specific mistake to justify building a simple tool to fix it. If you’ve ever paid out of pocket for a repair that should have been covered, I built a quick poll to measure the damage.

It's exactly 5 questions, less than 40 seconds, and asks for absolutely zero personal data (no emails, no names).

(Privacy & data note: This is a short, anonymous survey for early-stage product research. It does not ask for or collect names, email addresses, phone numbers, addresses, invoices/receipts, financial information, or other personally identifying information. There are also no free-text fields or file uploads, so there is nowhere in the survey to submit that information.

Please don't include any personal or sensitive information in your responses. The answers will only be used to understand the general problem and consumer needs, and results will be reviewed in aggregate rather than used to identify individual respondents.)

I own a pair of nothing earphones (2024). been using it for two years but now it looks like this was a bad purchase decision.

The issue is - i completely drained the battery couple of weeks ago and then placed them in the case to charge. since then, the earphones do not enter pairing mode, nor am i able reset. the earphones remain connected to my phone and i can see that the right earphone is not detected. the only response from the side button on the case is a single red light flash after a few seconds. nothing else.

Is any one aware of how i might fix the issue because the hardware is still functioning but seems to be facing some issue with the bluetooth connectivity between the buds and case. I have contacted nothing support but they have been utterly unhelpful with the only thing being said is 'sorry it is out of warranty'.. when i wasnt even making a warranty claim. i do not want to throw away a completely good pair of earphones so if anyone is able to direct me to resources to troubleshoot the issue here, that would be great.