Besides the legal argument, I do think Tesla will eventually need to release service manuals. Everyone else seems to so I don't see why we should give Tesla a pass on this one. As more and more cars come out of warranty, folks shouldn't be limited to Tesla SvC for all repairs.
...over time, the technologies underlying the car will begin to standardize - such as locations for HV disable cut-loops, etc. This is where these types of manuals will be necessary. My point was that those people who are trying to gain access to this service information, expecting to learn about the deep details (e.g., so they can wind their own motors or wire in their own cameras, etc.) are going to be disappointed in many if not most cases. And there will be independent service facilities who can replace modules in the car. Tesla's warranty makes it a non-issue for most owners right now, though.
There will be a requirement in 2018, depending upon how you read the MA law. As to how far Tesla believes it needs to go? No one knows.
- - - Updated - - -
I didn't say your theory had no value, in fact I think there are plenty of reasonable theories. What I did say was we don't know for sure and that your tone was uncalled for. This is a discussion board, so let's discuss this. But there's absolutely no reason to be condescending about something that none of us can prove.
I agree that it was inappropriate. However, the original quote said this:
Looks like the "you aren't allowed to service it anywhere but with us" business model was found to not comply with Massachusetts law.
"was found" has a specific determination to it, meaning that it was determined by an administrative agency or court of law. I asked for a specific reference to how it "was found" to be that way, and the argument changed to "well, Tesla wouldn't have done it unless it was the case", to which I argued the same argument breser makes -- that perhaps they were considering optics, or anticipating a future change to law, or perhaps just wanted to store a bit of political capital with Massachusetts since that's where they had a lot of fights in the past.
But "was found"? No. Even a lay person reading the law and the definitions (linked above) would reach the conclusions. To think that Tesla can't read that dealer is defined as "any person or business who, in the ordinary course of its business, sells or leases new motor vehicles to consumers or other end users
pursuant to a franchise agreement and who has obtained a class 1 license pursuant to sections 58 and 59 of chapter 140 and diagnoses, services, maintains or repairs motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines
pursuant to said franchise agreement" and read the definition of "franchise agreement" as "an oral or written arrangement for a definite or indefinite period in which a
manufacturer or distributor
grants to a motor vehicle dealer a license to use a trade name, service mark or related characteristic and in which there is a community of interest in the marketing of new motor vehicles or services related thereto at wholesale, retail, leasing or otherwise" is not cutting them much slack at all.
