指令中的制造商定义是欧盟境内的

带灯的床定义为EEE，2002/95/EC有说看主要功能

当然，讲师也不一定是对的。

如果抛却了主要功能的话，感觉太扩大化了。还是期待欧盟官方发布的指南里对此给出明确的解释。

http://bbs.instrument.com.cn/shtml/20120409/3969430/该路径能找到附件，可以仔细研读下

不知环保兄讲的泰迪熊的例子是不是下面这个：
Example: A talking teddy bear is still a teddy bear and can fulfil its main purpose as a comfort toy in the eyes of a child, even with the batteries removed; it doesn't require electricity to provide its main purpose and is outside scope of the Regulations

在FAQ里找了这段话，希望对你理解有帮助：

多谢提供FAQs下载，要研究研究。

ian.cheng(chengxiaojun) 发表:在FAQ里找了这段话，希望对你理解有帮助：

罪过，搞错了，请忽略

今天最好被问到这个问题。

在FAQ里还有下面这个例子：

For the example of a wardrobe with lights, even if sold as a single unit, a distinction between the piece of furniture and the electric/electronic device the piece is or can be equipped with has to be drawn. If the lighting is EEE in itself and both the lighting and the wardrobe can be separated and used as fully functional separate products, only the electric/electronic equipment (the lighting) is in the RoHS 2 scope. The furniture itself would then be outside the scope.

应是说，如果灯是完整可移出的，则灯属于ROHS 2，家具不属于。

在BIO的“Furniture with secondary electrical functions ”中有看到这段：
Furniture with electrical functions was not in scope of RoHS I as long as its primary function of being a piece of furniture could be fulfilled without the electrical function. Because of the new definition of ‘dependent’ in RoHS II, furniture with any electrical
function, whether primary or secondary, falls in scope of the Directive.
正纳闷呢，下面又有一段提到了FAQ中的这个例子：
The Draft Final RoHS 2 FAQ document of 15 May 2012 details that for a product to be EEE, its dependent electrical functions must in principle be integrated. Regarding furniture, the document provides an example of a wardrobe with lights, saying that “[…] components that could be removed as functional EEE, in which case the furniture would be out of scope but the removable electrical part in scope.

这样，咱是不是就理解为：
床与灯可以完全移开的，灯符合ROHS；床不需要符合；
灯与床不可分开（貌似这种情况比较少），两者都要符合。

个人理解，应该是这个意思，床和灯能完全分开，各自功能互不影响时，灯需要符合，而床可以不符合。