Right to Repair: Limiting the Intellectual Property Rights of Product Design Owners in the Interests of Competition, Consumer Autonomy and Environmental Sustainability

Samoylov, Vladimir

doi:10.1007/978-981-19-6627-9_7

Vladimir Samoylov²

319 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, the issue of whether the product design owner’s intellectual property rights should extend into the secondary market of repair and replacement parts is explored. As was explained, in Chap. 3, exclusive intellectual property rights in the market act as an incentive to encourage product designers by enabling them to recoup their investments of time, skill, creative effort and money. Furthermore, exclusive intellectual property rights serve as a deterrent against free-riders.

Much of the content in this chapter has been previously published as an article—see Samoylov and Corbett [1] 69.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 119.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1986] 1 All ER 850 (HL).
2.
See British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1982] FSR 481.
3.
See British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1984] FSR 591 (CA).
4.
British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd, above n 1, at 861.
5.
Ibid., at 884.
6.
Rawkins [2] 674 at 676.
7.
Tettenborn [3] 216 at 217.
8.
See British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd, above n 1, at 861.
9.
Mono Pumps (New Zealand) Limited & Anor v Karinya Industries Limited & Ors (1986) 7 IPR 25.
10.
Ibid., at 34.
11.
Dennison Manufacturing Co and Another v Alfred Hold & Co Ltd and Others (1987) 10 IPR 612 at 620.
12.
See (11 October 1984) 458 NZPD 1028. At the time patents were protected for 16 years—see Patents, Designs, and Trade-marks Act 1921, s 19; and registered design, are to date, protected for up to 15 years—see Designs Act 1953, s 12.
13.
Artistic work is deemed to have been applied industrially when more than 50 reproductions of the work are made for the purposes of sale or hire—See Copyright Act 1962, s 20B. For corresponding provision in current legislation see—Copyright Act 1994, s 75.
14.
See Copyright Act 1962, s 8.
15.
See British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd, above n 1, at 882.
16.
Ibid., at 875.
17.
See (11 October 1984) 463 NZPD 4685.
18.
See (11 October 1984) 458 NZPD 1500.
19.
A few products of course, like cars, have significantly longer lifespans.
20.
See Designs Act 2003 (Cth), s 72.
21.
See Sect. 7.5.3: Environmental sustainability.
22.
The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Review of the Designs System: Options Paper (AU, December 2014) at 36.
23.
Ibid.
24.
Ibid., at 37.
25.
Ibid.
26.
See discussion below in Sect. 7.5.4: Implications of advances in technology such as 3D printing.
27.
The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, above n 32, at 37.
28.
Ibid.
29.
Ibid., at 41.
30.
See Productivity Commission Right to Repair: Inquiry Report (2021).
31.
Ibid., at 37.
32.
See Sect. 7.5.3: Environmental sustainability.
33.
See Productivity Commission, above n 30, at 31.
34.
Ibid., at 39.
35.
See Competition and Consumer Amendment (Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme) Act 2021 (Cth).
36.
Ibid.
37.
See Productivity Commission, above n 30, at 32.
38.
Ibid.
39.
Ibid., at 34.
40.
Ibid., at 35.
41.
Ibid.
42.
See Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK), Pt III Design Right, s 213(3)(b).
43.
EC Designs Directive (1998/71/EC) (“1998 Directive”) and the Community Designs Regulation (6/2002/EC) (“2002 Regulation”).
44.
See 2002 Regulation, Art 110 (1).
45.
See Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Round & Metal Ltd [2012] EWHC 2099 (Pat) [2013] Bus LR D30.
46.
Ibid., at [78].
47.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co Ltd [1997] 2 HKC 1 (HK) at 12.
48.
Jeremy Dobbin “Review of the right of repair or spare parts exclusion under the Designs Act 2003” (2 November 2005) Find Law Australia < findlaw.com > .
49.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai [4] 63 at 68.
50.
See Digital Fair Repair Bill 2019 Senate Bill S6309.
51.
See An Act Protecting Motor Vehicle Owners and Small Business in Repairing Motor Vehicles Ch 241 Acts (2012).
52.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai, above n 49, at 72.
53.
See Sect. 7.3: Australian Position on Right to Repair.
54.
Interview with Kyle Schwarting, farmer (Lara Heintz, Motherboard, 1 February 2018).
55.
17 USC § 117(c).
56.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai, above n 49, at 101.
57.
See discussion above in Sect. 7.3: Australian Position on Right to Repair.
58.
See Critical Medical Infrastructure Right to Repair Act of 2020 HR7956 Pub L No 116.
59.
See Federal Trade Commission Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions (2021).
60.
See Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Issues Paper: Review of the Copyright Act 1994 (November, 2018).
61.
Case 237/87 AB Volvo v Erik Veng Ltd [1989] 4 CMLR 122.
62.
Ibid at [130].
63.
Case C-241/91 P Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd v Commission of the European Communities [1995] FSR 530.
64.
Ibid at [543].
65.
See for example: Diana Clement “The cost of spare parts far too high in New Zealand” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 2 April 2017); and Glen Hunter “15 Auto Parts that are Expensive to Repair” (2019) Taha Car Collection < www.tahacarcollection.co.nz > .
66.
See Copyright Act 1994, s 80B.
67.
See Section: 7.3 Australian Position on Right to Repair.
68.
See Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co Ltd, above n 47.
69.
Ibid., at 10.
70.
Ibid., at 12.
71.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai, above n 49, at 125.
72.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co Ltd, above n 47, at 13.
73.
Ibid., at 12.
74.
Ibid., at 10.
75.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai, above n 49, at 85.
76.
Locke [5] at 130.
77.
Ibid.
78.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai, above n 49, at 85.
79.
Georg Hegel Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main, 1972) (translated ed: T M Knox (Translator) Georg Hegel Philosophy of Right (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008)) at 67.
80.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai, above n 49, at 94.
81.
See Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Review of the Copyright Act 1994: MBIE’s approach to policy development (November, 2019) at 15.
82.
See Jeremy Bentham An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1879).
83.
See International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (signed 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) art 15.
84.
Chon [6] 97 at 127.
85.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai, above n 49, at 88.
86.
Nathan Proctor Recharge Repair (Survey for US PIRG and the Public Interest Network, February 2018).
87.
Ibid.
88.
Ibid.
89.
Ibid.
90.
Cooper et al. [7] at 1.
91.
Proctor, above n 86.
92.
Ibid.
93.
TNS Political & Social Attitudes of Europeans Towards Waste Management and Resource Efficiency (survey requested by European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, June 2014) at 4.
94.
See European Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council: establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC (2022) at 52.
95.
Ibid.
96.
See Productivity Commission, above n 30, at 37.
97.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai, above n 49, at 127.
98.
See Ministry of Primary Industries TSW Fact Sheet: Importing Goods for Business or Commercial Use (July 2018) at 2.
99.
Ibid.
100.
Similarly to the expansion of the domestic electronics industry in videogames in the 1980s, due to New Zealand placing restrictions on electronic imports: see discussion in Corbett S “Digital Heritage: Legal Barriers to Conserving New Zealand’s Early Video Games” (2007) 13(1) NZBLQ 48.
101.
Grinvald and Tur-Sinai, above n 49, at 91.

References

Samoylov, Vladimir and Corbett, Susan. 2020. The implications of introducing a ‘spare parts exception’ into New Zealand design law. The New Zealand Business Law Quarterly 26(2).
Google Scholar
Rawkins, Jason. 1997. Copyright—designs—British Leyland spare parts defence. European Intellectual Property Review 19.
Google Scholar
Tettenborn, Andrew. 1986. Copyright and spare parts: Judicial legislation in a good cause. Cambridge Law Journal 45.
Google Scholar
Grinvald, Leah and Ofer Tur-Sinai. 2019. Intellectual property law and the right of repair. Fordham Law Review 88(1).
Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1990. Two Treatises of Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Chon, Margaret. 1993. Postmodern ‘progress’: Reconsidering the copyright and patent power. DePaul Law Review 43.
Google Scholar
Cooper, Carolyn, et al. 2013. Improved Information Could Better Enable EPA to Manage Electronic Waste and Enforce Regulations. US Environmental Protection Agency, Report No 13-P-0298, June 2013.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Victoria University of Wellington Te Herenga Waka, Wellington, New Zealand
Vladimir Samoylov

Authors

Vladimir Samoylov
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Samoylov, V. (2022). Right to Repair: Limiting the Intellectual Property Rights of Product Design Owners in the Interests of Competition, Consumer Autonomy and Environmental Sustainability. In: Design Evolution and The Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6627-9_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6627-9_7
Published: 02 January 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-6626-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-6627-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics