When it comes to repairing a Bobcat tractor (or similar heavy equipment), customers often turn to a Bobcat dealer because special tools, skills, service and parts information are required. However, with the incredible quantity of cars on the road, consumers often have a choice between an OEM dealership and an independent repair facility (IRF) for automotive repairs.

Lately there has been renewed debate about whether carmakers are obligated to share their proprietary service information and tools with anyone that may want it—their franchised dealers, IRFs and consumers. The Right to Repair legislation, formally known as Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act (HR 2048), was first proposed in Congress in early 2005, aiming to "require automakers to provide the same service information and tools to independent auto and maintenance shops, as well as to consumers, that the automaker dealership service centers receive."

This legislative effort appears to have the support of some civic organizations and the aftermarket industry. For example, in early 2009 The Auto Channel quoted Aaron Lowe of the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA): "there are more than five million cars registered in Massachusetts that need easily accessible and affordable service. If car manufacturers can dictate where you have your car repaired then you have lost your right to choose. This legislation asks the question, who owns your car?"

However, the Automotive Service Association has gone on record to disagree with the Right to Repair argument, including a series of six videos posted by the ASA. Each video features several IRF owners who actually oppose the Right to Repair legislation. They state very clearly that when they need parts or service information, they can always get what they need from the National Automotive Service Task Force web site. (NASTF's web site says it was "established to facilitate the identification and correction of gaps in the availability and accessibility of automotive service information, service training, diagnostic tools and equipment, and communications for the benefit of automotive service professionals.") In fact, if you click on NASTF's OEM service web sites page, it links to all the major car manufacturer service sites, where information can be easily downloaded.

So, it seems there is some lively debate about the necessity of this Right to Repair legislation.

Here are some points to consider:

1. Right to Repair advocates claim they want owners and service technicians to have "access to the computers that control the systems and components that affect the safe operation of their automobiles."  Truth is, cars have become much more complicated machines, involving sophisticated electronics that require special tools and service information for proper diagnosis and repair. It's nostalgic to remember those days when our neighborhood mechanic could fix anything and everything on our vehicles. In 20+ years of owning a car, I have occasionally brought my car into a dealership for service, but I've never had to do so; my local mechanic could fix whatever was broken. However, I realize that although many things can be fixed by a local mechanic, some things can't. Someday something more complicated might go wrong on one of my cars, requiring dealership service. Between the complexity of today's cars and the very real concern for liability, it seems reasonable that certain automotive systems should only be repaired by a properly certified mechanic. Nevertheless, I agree that it's a problem for a car owner if the nearest dealership is 100 miles away (heck, even 30 miles away is a nuisance).
2. Do IRFs truly want the burden of keeping their shops outfitted with the necessary equipment and skilled mechanics to handle every service repair? And even if they do want that challenge, can they realistically afford to keep pace with the latest OEM developments and computer technology? Since IRFs run a volume business, based on fixing all makes and models quickly and efficiently, aren't they focused on the most frequent car repairs? Why worry about programming electronic modules? Nevertheless, this is a business decision the IRF must make.
3. There is no such thing as a free lunch. It costs OEMs money to create, publish and distribute proprietary parts and service information. Being forced to deliver and maintain that information to a larger network of users will naturally cost OEMs more time and money, and those costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers. (After all, this won't be a one-time publishing of content to the web; all updates, service bulletins, safety notices and other revisions must be made available and tracked for legal/compliance purposes. With a significant increase in the user-base, more servers and sophisticated access control will be required to protect and maintain the data.) Consumers will surely complain about increased costs from implementing the Right to Repair legislation but we can't expect the OEMs to carry the costs for their competitors. 
4. OEMs may be legally obliged to offer better support to their dealer networks because the dealerships pay franchise fees to the OEM; and in some cases the dealers pay subscription fees to obtain the latest service and parts information. We all know that dealers don't make much profit selling cars; the profit comes from the service department. (Part of the reason dealers pay OEM franchise fees is to provide complete repair services for a specific automotive brand. Therefore, it's understandable if these dealers expect exclusive rights to certain service and parts information.)
5. Some reports indicate that the primary forces driving Right to Repair legislation are the aftermarket component manufacturers. There is a claim that these 3rd party parts makers are looking to gain access to proprietary OEM information so that they can build cheap knock-off components. As with any new piece of legislation, it would be nice to know the true motives and the true beneficiaries. Too often, new consumer protection laws fail to work as advertised.

It's interesting to note that for Enigma, Right to Repair legislation might actually be beneficial. Enigma offers OEMs a new approach to providing customer/dealer support therefore, Right to Repair could force OEMs to re-think their aftermarket strategy and that could be to our favor. However, I wonder if Right to Repair is truly necessary?.

Whether or not the Right to Repair legislation passes, Enigma software simplifies the distribution of parts and service information to whatever channel the OEM chooses; the Enigma electronic parts catalog software helps service technicians fix things more quickly and accurately, no matter where their service bay is located.