Hang on, what about the part where the FDA only approved the thing for a 5 year use and essentially pushed the manufacturer into liability if they worked on it after that period? Maybe that’s the issue that needs repairing first.

But he did have the right to repair... right? He just couldn't get the part. The article title is misleading. They don't support old medical devices, they were following the rules. Yes, they should have handled the customer service better. Escalated it. But it doesn't sound like some big evil company locking people out of their legs because they tinkered with them. Let's not lump it all in the same category.

Also, this line is beyond ridiculous:

"Straight’s path to paralysis started in the 1990s at the Saratoga Race Course".

That depends on how exactly a right to repair law is going to regulate things. Will a company have to provide parts for older models forever? Because in the article it says that he was going to fix it himself but couldn't find the part that connects the battery to his controller watch.

> And this is why right to repair laws are a thing.

Yes, and also why products should be open sourced and documented when they're declared obsolete by their manufacturer, or the manufacturer cease operations. Let people be responsible for all repairs they do to their devices; this man would probably not give a damn about regulations if the alternative was essentially to become paralyzed again.

He's not being blocked from repairing it, and he doesn't need to hack it.

He just needs a part. (They did eventually send it to him.) If they had not, he doesn't need the right to repair it, rather would need someone to manufacture the part.