Deere Will Allow Farmers To Repair Their Own Equipment (reuters.com) 54
The American Farm Bureau Federation and machinery manufacturer Deere signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday that ensures farmers have the right to repair their own farm equipment or go to an independent technician. From a report: As the agriculture sector accelerates its adoption of technology, the reliance on high-tech machinery such as GPS-guided combines and tractors has become more common-place.
But equipment makers such as Deere have generally required customers to use their parts and service divisions for repairs and until recently, only allowed authorized dealers the means and tools to access the complex computerized systems of their tractors and other machinery. The Farm Bureau's memorandum of understanding with Deere "will ensure farmers everywhere are able to repair our own equipment," Farm Bureau president Zippy Duvall said, speaking at the federation's convention in Puerto Rico.
But equipment makers such as Deere have generally required customers to use their parts and service divisions for repairs and until recently, only allowed authorized dealers the means and tools to access the complex computerized systems of their tractors and other machinery. The Farm Bureau's memorandum of understanding with Deere "will ensure farmers everywhere are able to repair our own equipment," Farm Bureau president Zippy Duvall said, speaking at the federation's convention in Puerto Rico.
Good!! One less right to repair opponent (Score:3)
So they no longer have a reason to oppose right-to-repair laws. But we still need the laws.
Re:Good!! One less right to repair opponent (Score:5, Insightful)
It appears that Right to Repair has gained enough traction to scare John Deere's leadership. This is nothing more than an attempt to get in front of what they perceive as inevitable future legislation.
They will absolutely continue to oppose Right to Repair laws, and will use this as ammunition: "See, there is no need for Right to Repair laws. We already allow it."
And that's the main problem. They want Right to Repair to be a gift from them that can be revoked at any future date. If it's law, though, they will have no power to dictate terms (unless they buy those terms from our corrupt Congresscritters).
pull an apple with high priced repair parts tools (Score:3)
pull an apple with high priced repair parts tools (that uses can self repair)
Re: (Score:2)
pull an apple with high priced repair parts tools (that uses can self repair)
True - we need a repair for free law.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for free but
Ban stuff like you must use our battery at X2 the cost of an 3rd party one.
Ban forcing you to rent / buy our software that just pairs the part to the system.
Ban BS like Air Filters that have serial numbers and can only be gotten from an limited list of places.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for free but Ban stuff like you must use our battery at X2 the cost of an 3rd party one. Ban forcing you to rent / buy our software that just pairs the part to the system. Ban BS like Air Filters that have serial numbers and can only be gotten from an limited list of places.
So not a repair for free law, but government enforced one product to rule them all. All things must use the same parts.
And while we are at it - we need to settle on one and only one operating system, because an os is something used every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you see that your strawman is precisely the opposite of what you replied to?
The entire point is to end the practice of tying [wikipedia.org] which has become so common in high-tech markets.
Re: (Score:2)
How about no choking out the market for 3rd party parts and services? You seem like you might support the idea of a market economy.
Also, no artificially raising the cost of repair.
Re:Good!! One less right to repair opponent (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. And they expect people will be short-sighted enough to stop fighting.
I think my comment represents the refutation to their argument. If there is no problem because they already allow it; what possible reason could they have to object to the law?
What this also does is undermine standing. Avoiding anyone having standing is becoming an increasingly common strategy among wrongdoers in court. Want to do something wrong, evil, even illegal or unconstitutional? Apparently it is all good as long as you can avoid anyone having direct tangible damages. It also seriously delays striking down unconstitutional legislation/executive orders/executive agency policy.
There are a few high profile cases in the supreme court docket right now where the legal rationale is ridiculously thin... so far the supreme court has let standing win the day. It is my hope they'll take one of these and use it as an excuse to change a number of fundamental things with regard to standing. When something is anti-consumer all consumers should have standing, when something is unconstitutional all citizens should have standing. The standing loophole should be closed. Anyone who wants to advocate for these groups and has the means should be able to do so. There are already protections against frivolous lawsuits and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking it to the extreme, why should murder be illegal if so far people have decided to allow you to live?
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that Right to Repair has gained enough traction to scare John Deere's leadership. This is nothing more than an attempt to get in front of what they perceive as inevitable future legislation.
They want this on their own terms, just like Apple.
You wanna repair that? We can rent you the special equipment by the hour...
Re: (Score:2)
They will absolutely continue to oppose Right to Repair laws, and will use this as ammunition: "See, there is no need for Right to Repair laws. We already allow it."
Cooperation is the best outcome, this isn't something that can realistically be won legislatively. The best you'll get are feel good measures with giant loopholes. The only way to close all the loopholes is by telling people specifically how to make all the things.
I applaud the fight, it provided the necessary leverage to get Deere to sort of play ball, but ultimately you need them to want to play ball with you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently in Russia:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/b... [entrepreneur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This time it was for theft.
Next time it is for "wrongful repair".
Sorry, it's "because your repair was sub-standard and now for whatever reason that tractor curiously doesn't work anymore. Could be that you're just too stupid to repair our highly sophisticated machine, you redneck hick!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Good!! One less right to repair opponent (Score:1)
I haven't even seen combines approach this price point
yet
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Good!! One less right to repair opponent (Score:1)
Hell, the newest CAT tracked monstrosities were $250-350k at the last farm expo I attended in the late 90s.
But $5,000,000 is still not a realistic number
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, not good. (Score:2)
>>So they no longer have a reason to oppose right-to-repair laws.
Actually, they probably realized that they would lose; both in court (which sets precedents for right-to-repair cases against other companies like Apple) and in the court of public opinion (farmers rank pretty high on the likeability scale, right after veterans and first responders). The memorandum of understanding is non-binding and can be modified or revoked at a later date when public attention has lapsed, and without this high-profi
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true.
But the rules need to be carefully written.
For examples if you had repaired one part yourself with GASP 3rd party parts. It shouldn't void the warranty for an unrelated issue. However if you break your product further when trying to repair it, you shouldn't necessarily expect the company to fix the issue for free.
So if you were to say update the software on your car, with someone elses product, the Car shouldn't be bricked, and mechanical issues should be covered. But we shouldn't expect issues
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. With an exception for anything de facto fails by virtue of third party/self repair like the 4th gen kindles which were designed to be impossible to open and swap the battery without cracking the screen. In such cases they should be on the hook for the repair and some fairly low bar should be included such as the design being 'reasonably suspicious under skeptical review' so manufacturers go out of their way to make things credibly serviceable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need an OSS engine for that. All we actually "need" is mandatory and Open (i.e. accurately documented and followed, and also not patent encumbered) protocols between controls, clusters, and PCMs. We can make our own engine mounts, bell housing adapters, etc. And frankly, we don't need any of that, either. When there is demand, someone will come up with a swap solution. What's needed most is the legal right to do it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen small farms still using classic American-built (e.g. Ford) tractors, but the average size of farms has increased throughout history so the average size of farm equipment has tended to do so as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? I was told by an American FORD means "fix or replace daily"
I like Driver Returned On Foot the best, because if you're returning, it's backwards. But Ford made pretty great tractors way back in the way back, and today they are actually collectibles. It's a pretty simple recipe, small durable engine, big durable transmission, big durable axle.
Another thing FORD is reputed to mean is "Found On Road, Dead" but mine is dead in my driveway
Re: (Score:2)
I've only had a few vehicles, but by far my most reliable was my 1999 Mustang. Sold it with 250,000 miles, and the only repairs were two alternators ($100 and replaced by me), a fuel pump (didn't have time so had to pay $800 for a shop to put it in), and then finally when I sold it the radiator fan had failed due to so much gunk clogged in it (the fan still functioned fine once cleaned out).
My LEAST reliable vehicle was my (purchased used) 1989 Mustang. It had all sorts of random problems with it, and I
Re: Belarus Tractors (Score:2)
Hell, when I was pricing starting my own farm, the tractor inventory I had selected was mostly models from pre-1970, because the amount of field repairable bits was much higher than newer vehicles.
I gotta say, farmer John saw this coming a mile away,I left the farm in 2000 and he was already talking about how ag devices were headed the way of cars, vis-a-vis repairabil
Re: (Score:3)
When visiting the USA, I was astonished to find a farmer still using an old Soviet made Belarus brand tractor. It was beautiful in its simplicity and just worked. The farmer had to do a lot of work to it, but it kept running after forty years. And you can still get parts for it.
Farms will have my different types of tractors because they have different jobs. Many times they keep those old tractors around for smaller jobs, but they aren't used for the primary tasks such as planting and harvesting. Personally I hate the fact that we have to have Right To Repair legislation, but the manufactures have shown time and time again that they simply can't be given the latitude in this area. I really fear the outcome of the legislation that gets passed because so many of the legislatures just
Re: Belarus Tractors (Score:1)
The USA hasn't been "purely capitalist" in over 100 years, as you can see with nearly every industry. Funny that we're discussing farming, an industry that has been socially subsidized in this country for quite a long time.
But then, this *is* the Internet, where folks are not known for nuance and introspection.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment about how the agricultural industry is subsidized (and it is so please don't think I am disagreeing with that statement) hits a sore spot with me. Typically I am of the belief that an industry really needs to be able to stand on its own, and if it can't, well...yeah. With that, I I do see where agriculture is a different animal which points to your comment about topics being nuanced and such. One of the major strengths of the US is that we have an extremely stable and productive food supply. Hi
Re: Belarus Tractors (Score:1)
They'll Find Another Way (Score:1)
forced to use there software? there parts? (Score:2)
forced to use there software? there parts?
Re: (Score:2)
You're definitely going to have to keep using their software for the foreseeable future, but perhaps they will make it available at a reasonable price. Depending on capabilities, aftermarket scanners cost anywhere from hundreds to thousands though, so don't expect it to be cheap.
Parts are the real question, they have a bunch of DRM to prevent third party equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
well the DMCA let's you bypass that DRM for repair.
Re: (Score:3)
forced to use there software? there parts?
Their
Nice ... (Score:2)
Deere Will Allow Farmers To Repair Their Own Equipment
How gracious and kind of John Deere to negotiate with their customers and bestow upon their customers permission repair the John Deere crap their customers paid John Deere good money for.
It's a start, but not even half the battle (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who's work touched on the 3'd party agg equipment sales market - primarily working with AGCO - this is not as good as it seems. You might be surprised to hear that these machines are as locked down as apple devices.
So for one, they control the parts. This means that you still need to go through them to get authentic parts because they may even have software blocking non-authentic parts (there is a big market in used authentic parts). In fact, when it comes to software locks, almost anything, even part replacement, requires re-activation.
That software is a second bit. Think of it like this: if any of your idiot lights on your car dashboard turns on, your car will stop, and you'll need a dealer to come to the car to re-enable it - though I hear some of this can be done remotely now. They say they will make the diagnostics available - but that doesn't necessarily include the "authorize third party parts" functionality will be added, or heck, even if the soft unlock is part of it.
Now, they'll make things available "at a fair and reasonable price." Here's what that sounds like to me: ... etc
- Users need to pay an annual fee to register and get a "John Deere Independent Owner Repair" authorization, probably for a single machine.
- Users will still need to purchase authentic parts directly from JD or an authorized reseller
- Users will have to pay a fee to purchase the diagnostic (and other) software, plus any additional security mechanisms such as dongles
- Users will not be allowed to modify or repair certain wide swaths of the product, likely relating to core functionality, under the names of 'safety' or the claim that people altering these parts will result in equipment that does not meet legal/regulatory standards (they already included this in their statement)
- Once repaired, other functionality will be disabled until official repairmen show up to check things over
- They're not going to let users modify their software, which means no adding functionality like remote access, third party gps modules, etc.
Most of these points are assumptions, but you need to understand the iron grasp they've had on these guys balls, completely unopposed, for decades. They're not going to just let go. They've been squeezing for as long as they've existed, and as you can see in the article, they're not letting go - they're just changing their grip and monetizing it while they're at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, pointed out by many, this is also not coming from a good place. They're making these statements to blunt the impact of folks calling for the right to repair to be enshrined in law.
There's also no guarantee they'll abide by what is basically just a press statement, or whether they will actually allow ANY repairs. They could easily block users by any one of a million processes that they can effectively deny access to even if technically a process exists. This technique is used by lots of folks with a
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently this limiting software can be ripped out, and this is being done in Russia and elsewhere. And replacement ROMs are reportedly being shared.
Not good enough. (Score:2)
Without legislation to ensure the force of law back this memo, this is a meaningless gesture.
We've gone from denial that it's a problem, to anger toward legislative solutions, to bargaining using a memo. We need to help them along to acceptance by getting legislation passed.
What farmers? (Score:2)
Which ones are those? Certainly, my close friends who have a small farm in Indiana don't have a computer-controlled John Deere.
Datum: as of the 1990 Census, "family farmer" was no longer a recognized occupation, since it was less than 1.5% of the population. And there are still fewer now. It's 99% multinational agribusiness.
Too little, way too late (Score:2)
In the medium to large family farming community there is a movement to start a CO-OP manufacturer that will mandate as part of the corporate charter that all hardware and software be Open Source, likely under the GPL V.3 for software and a similar framework for the hardware.
B S (Score:2)