It is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is hard to argue that manufacturers don't build obsolescence into their designs as part of a business strategy. We see this particularly with automobiles. There is no financial reward to build a car that will last 15 years. The design specs focus on a 5 year lifespan, because this coincides with the financing period most people take on a car. This not only serves the manufacturers to sell more products, but it serves the banks to continuously generate returns on their capital.

The problem, however, is that when it comes to technology products there is a natural obsolescence if the product line is subject to innovation. Owning a really solid and well made Palm Pilot would be laughable given the advances in mobile phones and in retrospect if you paid 3x as much for the Palm Pilot, only to find it is obsolete then it would not be a wise financial strategy.

So yes, I agree that if you buy something you should have the right to do with it what you want. Repair, resell, etc. But to force the consumer to pay 3x as much because you are going to build things that will go naturally out of date with the highest quality may be putting effort in the wrong place.