22

I had visited with my university a Greek IT company that specializes in refurbishing used computers and peripherals. The executive that toured us had mentioned that there is an EU regulation that requires companies to change their "computerization equipment" (both software and hardware) every three (or maybe it was six) months.

As a CS student, it seemed very strange to me that the EU is mandating such a short lifespan for devices that typically last for more than a year, so I pressed for more details, saying that a PC with a 4th-Gen Intel CPU (which she was talking about that time) is still very usable, and that Greek accounting laws state that the IT equipment's useful life for the purpose of depreciation is five years (perfectly reasonable). Her reply was that they can't do anything since that was an EU regulation, and that the Greek laws exemplify that the Greek state is a technological laggard.

This whole story seemed very fish to me. Is there actually such regulation?

Mette Tollaksen
  • 3
  • 1
Theodore Tsirpanis
  • 466
  • 3
  • 6

7 Answers7

88

No, there is no EU regulation mandating companies' IT equipment to be changed every three months.

Lag
  • 16,878
  • 2
  • 39
  • 61
  • 42
    I would normally ask for a citation, but its very hard to prove a negative... – sharur Apr 07 '20 at 19:54
  • 9
    I can confirm that I have seen 10+ years old equipment held together by duck tape, even some mainframes that survived Y2K. – David Tonhofer Apr 07 '20 at 23:50
  • 4
    @sharur I suppose it would be helpful (although, I agree, not necessary) to show a few places where one might look to find this regulation if it existed. – David Z Apr 08 '20 at 04:12
  • 3
    @sharur You might be able to find either a contradictory law, or one that wouldn't exist if this one did (i.e. if you have to test IT equipment for electrical safety every 12 months, then you clearly can't be replacing it after just 3!) – Chronocidal Apr 08 '20 at 08:08
  • 1
    @Chronocidal That's not generally how legislation works. If lawmakers had to cross-reference every law that came before, the job would become impossible. Instead they will often use phrases like "unless stated otherwise in any other enactment or rule of law" or simply rely on implicit repeal. So finding a contradictory law doesn't prove that the other law doesn't also exist. – JBentley Apr 08 '20 at 13:02
  • What about EU regulation to change equipment every 2 months, or every 4 months, or more or less often? Or anything closely related or that might've been mistaken for this (that may or may not part of the EU regulation)? This belief had to come from somewhere. This answers is way too specific. – NotThatGuy Apr 08 '20 at 13:39
  • 2
    @NotThatGuy Other answers have speculated about months meaning years and common company policies with regard to equipment replacement, accounting procedures, vendor support agreements, laptop battery life and PCISS - I'm surprised no-one has mentioned portable appliance testing. I've answered the question asked. And frankly the claim doesn't withstand the scrutiny of considering the consequences if this rule were real. Nor does 2 or 4 months. Some claims are 'not even wrong'. – Lag Apr 08 '20 at 18:30
  • If you want proof that this answer is correct, you have essentially one option: Look through all the laws of the EU, including ones that seem unrelated, just to be sure. –  Apr 08 '20 at 18:37
  • 1
    @Panzercrisis That's not the only option. You could seek a court judgement. Courts interpret the law and their word is final (barring only appeal to a higher court or a subsequent change in the law). Technically your solution wouldn't even result in "proof" because you can't be sure you didn't misunderstand some provision. Only a court can give you that certainty. – JBentley Apr 09 '20 at 22:10
  • @Panzercrisis – It's even harder than that, as noted here. The problem with questions that require proving a negative was also discussed in meta. – feetwet Apr 10 '20 at 17:22
  • I didn't mean that comment to be a practical how-to guide. I grew up around an attorney, and I am *well* aware of things like legal precedence and the impact that a judicial decision has on the law. That was not the point of my comment, and this overreactive arguing is not contributing to the site. –  Apr 10 '20 at 22:54
  • I was simply indirectly stating how difficult it may be, depending on the situation, for the poster to provide proof to back this negative. –  Apr 10 '20 at 22:54
36

This might be a result of misinformation accumulating along a communication chain, based originally on the fact that for laptop/desktop IT equipment, three years is a common lease length or purchase amortization time.

After three years, a leased device will be "paid in full" and purchased device will be fully amortized. Any factory warranty + optional warranty extension/support agreement will also tend to expire at about that time. Extending vendor support agreements for devices older than three years tends to have a higher price than an equivalent support deal for new equipment.

Also, for a laptop that has been in daily use for three years, it will be increasingly likely that it will need some form of service pretty soon: at least the battery will be worn out, if nothing else. So some businesses will make it a policy to replace laptops after three years of use, either as a matter of course, or "after three years of use, if you have any problem with it, it will be fixed by replacing it with a newer model." Apparently in large businesses, this tends to minimize the total cost of IT equipment + their maintenance with the current pricing models.

For enterprise-grade servers and storage systems, five years seems to be a similar milestone.

Bryan Krause
  • 115
  • 8
telcoM
  • 431
  • 3
  • 5
  • 1
    How does this explain the purported EU regulation? – phoog Apr 08 '20 at 07:57
  • 23
    @phoog Basically I'm asserting that either the original poster or the executive they heard it from had mis-heard, misunderstood or got incorrect information in the first place, and the only correct part of the information was the number three: not three months but three years, not a regulation but a common practice, and the reasons behind such practices are rooted in amortization (tax write-off) laws and common pricing models of hardware leasing and support offerings – telcoM Apr 08 '20 at 08:04
  • 3
    @phoog: I guess that "amortization rule of 3 years for capex" + " some finance regulations exist in the EU" = "EU has three something about IT equipment" = "EU mandates the change of IT equipment after 3 months". – WoJ Apr 08 '20 at 10:44
  • 2
    I'd never heard the terms "Chinese whispers" or "the broken telephone effect" and glanced at/failed to understand the intent of the first paragraph initially. Might be worth plainly stating, "The executive misremembered..." or "The executive misunderstood..." (In the US I'd more likely say something like, "This sounds like a game of telephone" if I was trying to capture that sentiment) – Will Haley Apr 08 '20 at 18:19
9

To speculate a little, you may have mis-heared - there is indeed a practice to rotate IT equipment, such as laptops etc., every three years in many companies. However, this is not an EU law (what would be the point of mandating private companies how long they are allowed to use hard- and software that they bought?). Instead, it has much to do with taxation - at least in central Europe, after three years computers are written off tax-wise. What this means is that a company does not generate any tax benefits anymore from this investment, making it a good time to rotate the computer (and potentially sell it to a refurbisher, such as the one you visited). Of course by far not all companies follow this idea, but quite a lot do.

xLeitix
  • 191
  • 5
  • Is write-off specific to central Europe? Are there different rates / lengths of time? – Peter Mortensen Apr 08 '20 at 14:43
  • This is hilarious. Maybe there is a rule they have to rotate the equipment every three months? Smith gives his computer to Jones, Jones gives his to Miller, Miller gives his to ..., and ... gives his computer to Smith? – gnasher729 Apr 08 '20 at 15:58
  • @PeterMortensen It has to do with warranty too. As software developer working for a large-ish (several hundred IT people) company, we get new computer every time our extended waranty runs out (usually a bit longer, as the bureaucracy or large-ish companies takes time to catch up) in czech republic. I'd say one of the reason is the hassle of not having some part of the hardware not under warranty and risking it failing and the ensuing problems with insurance companies AND the customers. We replace every server (or server part) at the latest when the warranty on it runs out on critical systems. – mishan Apr 08 '20 at 16:02
  • @PeterMortensen in EU it is 3-5 years depending on the country. – fraxinus Apr 08 '20 at 16:47
  • @mishan: extended warranty for 100+ computers? That's a waste of money. Extended warranties are an insurance. Insurance makes sense for small numbers, such as consumers with 1-5 computers. But a company can just self-insure. Accept up front that you'll lose a few once normal warranty runs out, and make sure you have spares yourself. That also improves business continuity as using your own spares is much faster than waiting for a replacement to be sent by the supplier. – MSalters Apr 09 '20 at 08:52
  • @MSalters Just because it is a "waste of money" does not mean that corporations do not use it. However, in my experience, extended warranties were generally used on an individual basis if a piece of equipment was near losing its factory warranty, but a replacement system was not yet in place. This was more for "server-room" based systems rather that desktops or laptops. – Michael Richardson Apr 09 '20 at 13:45
  • 3
    I think we can take these write-off periods (which I can confirm being regulation for Germany) as evidence against the existence of a regulation to change equipment every 3 months (or any other period shorter than the 3 years for laptops/PCs): since annual financial statements and tax declarations include such write-offs and inventory lists, they'd immediately reveal violation of any such regulation. (Besides the fact that it wouldn't make any sense at all) – cbeleites unhappy with SX Apr 09 '20 at 14:55
9

My suspicion is that this is a complete misinterpretation of the Payment Card Industry (PCI) (not EU) security standards that are mandatory (by contract not by statute) for anyone handling payment card data, which require that passwords (not hardware or software) are changed every 90 days (not three months). Although in fact it’s an out-of-date standard, and regular forced password changes are no longer best practice.

Mike Scott
  • 1,432
  • 8
  • 10
  • I thought about this as well, but in the context of visiting a refurbishing shop this makes little sense. I still think it's more plausible that they were talking about the normal 3-year rotation of personal IT equipment that many companies have. – xLeitix Apr 08 '20 at 10:00
  • Can you provide some sources for parts of your answer (by editing your answer, not here in comments)? Including, but not only, for the last sentence. – Peter Mortensen Apr 08 '20 at 14:45
  • 1
    @PeterMortensen I’ve done that, but can’t link directly to the PCI standards, because they’re not available until you accept their end user agreement. – Mike Scott Apr 08 '20 at 15:37
7

As an EU citizen working in IT and frequently for the government (Bulgaria), I can confirm that I sometimes have to deal with equipment still in use as old as 15 years. The usual turnover is something like 3-5 years and is dictated by the needs and/or the available funds and not by some mandated time period.

The deprecation period of the IT equipment for accounting purposes is 3 years and it is more or less consistent over the EU.

fraxinus
  • 1,299
  • 6
  • 10
  • "sometimes have to deal with equipment still in use as old as 15 years": indeed, this seems rather more likely in the government context. I had a job as a trainer between 1996 and 1999 where we were training municipal employees (in a large U.S. city) who were getting GUI systems for the first time; many were getting Windows 95, but a significant number were getting Window 3.1. – phoog Nov 13 '23 at 19:26
1

It's likely that the person has misheard or misunderstood the message or the writ of the law.

As mentioned, when buying IT equipment, you usually calculate a lifespan of about 3-5 years before you start hunting for new software and hardware.

However, in a security context, it's recommended to have an update/patch overhaul at least every three months.

None of those points are directly mentioned or mandated by law, but they are more or less established guidelines.

Tylon Foxx
  • 111
  • 1
0

No, there's no such thing and from a logical stand point is not even worth asking, if you think about it. I do IT for a central european MAN/VW truck repair shop and these guys have computers right around 20 years of age because the equipment they have build into their work enviroment was made around that time and the software for it is mostly very poorly written stuff, so it doesn't work at all on anything after win XP. So imagine a law like that in this particular scenario.

mamradzelvy
  • 1
  • 1
    I'm chemist and we also frequently have measurement instruments with similar aged (or still older) PCs. Not only because of software, but often already the interfacing hardware isn't available in newer PCs. – cbeleites unhappy with SX Apr 09 '20 at 16:15