‘Right To Repair:’ Law of Unintended Consequences

Good intentions can lead to unintended and undesirable outcomes. There is a better path than enacting new statutes that will increase government costs, reduce industry competition, and expand federal control over intellectual property.

Whether aboard ship at sea, deployed on a forward operating base, or in the middle of contingency operations, U.S. service members deserve every tool to maintain and repair their equipment quickly. No one disputes this, which is why proponents of so-called “right to repair” in the defense acquisition world have been so quick to use it.

And, in truth, the proposal pushed by Reps. Maggie Goodlander and Pat Harrigan in NDAA deliberations highlights real frustrations – delayed repairs, flown-in contractors for simple fixes, and degraded readiness. People of goodwill on all sides want troops to be able to fix what they are trained to fix and save time, money, and lives; but this “right to repair” legislation is a blunt instrument that overshoots its stated goal and risks harming the very readiness it claims to protect.

Counterproductively, however, this proposal imposes a default of “government purpose rights” for virtually all technical data, computer software, and documentation delivered under future War Department contracts, unless a contractor meets a high evidentiary bar with clear and convincing proof of more restrictive rights, plus a compliant assertions table, private-funding documentation, segregable exclusions, and portion markings.