Lots of labs don't need the highest end equipment, and the ones that do could sell the old ones.
That would work if we didn't have everything set up to throw out, which is a different problem all together. I've worked in IT procurement for a fairly big corporation, and I've seen dumpsters filled with slightly old iPhones because it made more sense to accounting.

That sort of thing already happens in the enterprise world. If it gets maintained because a customer wants to pay for that entirely, it happens.

But if they abandon it, even unintentionally, then it needs to become public domain.

In many cases, discontinuing support is in fact breaking it, especially when (as the original post describes) the company deliberately architects things so that they cannot be maintained and arbitrarily cuts support. As the post describes, this is going to turn perfectly functioning equipment into landfill fodder, even though the company and thus their interest, may have gone out of business and gains nothing from the device artificially being forced into a state of obsolescence. Another obvious example, though much lower stakes, would be things like single-player games requiring a server component.

Second, this assumes that this is the only possible model that keeps new R&D happening and better microscopes being made. Many companies with specialized equipment support it through things like support contracts and the like. That they don't support them and design in them in a way that arbitrarily makes it so they can't be self supported does suggest they are driven by profit motive and wish to increase sales not through making a better project thanks to their model support generous R&D, but by forcing more frequent purchases of equipment or in the case of like John Deere, making it significantly more costly to repair and charging exorbitant rates which you now have no choice to pay as all other avenues of repair have been now locked out.

And I make no claims about the moral intent of capitalism as it can't really have any. There are benefits to extremely well-regulated capitalism which is what my post suggests. I'll also toss in that unregulated pure capitalism is a recipe for disaster and that while I do believe it's possible to have an ethical business in capitalism, the reality shows over and over that the best of us aren't likely to prevail and ethics are unlikely to win out. This is why we've regulated so much of capitalism whether through antitrust, labor laws, specific industry standards like food code (and even then we can see quite a lot of negative outcomes for the US compared to other countries which have stricter regulation.) Or, in a few cases simply replaced with socialist endeavors through the government (military, social security, medicare, education, etc.)

Funding for research is extraordinarily difficult under socialism for example. The inherent sink or swim mandate of capitalism ensures productive research.

I'd say evidence is to the contrary. The internet, for example, is essentially a socialist or even communist endeavor depending on which layer we're talking about. Of course, the original invention of the WWW stemming from ARPAnet, which was a non-capitalist endeavor. The development of broadband infrastructure across the country is also the result of heavy regulation and significant taxpayer subsidy. Then we get to the servers, which are about 99% likely to be running on or relying on open-source software. We're having this discussion on a server running an open source OS running open source software. Also worth noting that significant amounts of research happens through publicly funded state universities.

Last, I want to address this in a little more detail:

a socialist approach would also be wasteful because there’s no motivation for efficient research and development.

This is quite simply one of the most pervasive myths of capitalism, that somehow humans need to the fear of starvation or the pull of greed to do anything "productive." Although I am sure there are some that would just as easily turn to full on hedonism, many of us not forced to labor in a capitalist society would find more beneficial things for ourselves and humanity in general because many of us have a driven curiosity. Like those opensource projects I mentioned above - I'd love to contribute, but in my regular capitalist job (which tbh is probably a net-loss for humanity if I'm being honest) means I work 9+ hours a day, am stuck with an additional 1.5 hours of commute each day, and so on, such that I'm not left with the time to pursue projects like this that I'd consider beneficial. But even forgetting me, the whole open source software movement and the millions of person-hours donated to research and development is nearly entirely evidence to contrary of your thesis. What is perhaps wasteful in this case is that under capitalism, those people developing software like the one that's allowing us to have this conversation, can't spend the effort they'd often like to.

It is sociality absolutely equivalent to software.

You don't have to continue adding to a book, just like a company wouldn't have to continue development of the software involved. You let the owner of the hardware write their own fanfiction to keep the hardware alive.

And, yeah, actually, giving away free copies is absolutely denying a future sale of that publication.

However, that's not even the point. You said nobody downvoting would do that, give away the software that was no longer being maintained. I absolutely would do so. You can debate equivalency all you want, but that has nothing to do with my statement that I absolutely would at least open source any deprecated software like the post is discussing. As you may have noticed, other people have stated that they would act based on their principles as well. If you don't want to believe any of us, that's on you, but calling that many people liars tends to be dumber than dammit if you don't have a good reason to do so.

Again, me, the unnamed person behind the screen, would 100% either open source the software in question, or otherwise make it available to previous customers. That's my principle, I fully support the right to repair.

See, the idea that planned obsolescence via lack of service and support is a good thing isn't accepted by everyone. That theoretical future sale is only possible, and unless I held a monopoly on whatever thing I'm selling, there's a significant chance of losing sales to competitors that give better customer service. I'd much rather have repeat customers that know they can invest in my product without worry.

I'd also much rather know that my product was doing good work, advancing research and human knowledge, than sell another and waste the previous one.

Maybe you don't think that way. Maybe you want to maximize profits over any other concern. That's your karma, your decision, not mine.

But generally, you can find car parts, either OEM or aftermarket, for decades after you buy it.

Haha yes, apple totally doesn't put DRM in their computer parts...