Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Your Rights Online

Colorado Governor Signs Tractor Right-to-Repair Law Opposed by John Deere (arstechnica.com) 115

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
mrflash818 writes: Colorado has enacted the nation's first state law guaranteeing farmers a right to repair tractors and other equipment themselves or at independent repair shops. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, signed the bill yesterday. "I am proud to sign this important bipartisan legislation that saves hardworking farmers and ranchers time and money on repairs, and supports Colorado's thriving agriculture industry... Farmers and ranchers can lose precious weeks and months when equipment repairs are stalled due to long turnaround times by manufacturers and dealers. This bill will change that," Polis said.

The state House voted 46-14 in favor of the bill on April 11, while the Senate voted 21-12 on March 30. "The legislation advanced through long committee hearings, having been propelled forward mostly by Democrats even though a Republican lawmaker co-sponsored the bill," the Associated Press wrote. "The proposal left some GOP lawmakers stuck between their farming constituents pleading for the ability to repair their equipment and the manufacturers who vehemently opposed it." The law's requirements are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2024. Farm equipment manufacturers will have "to provide parts, embedded software, firmware, tools, or documentation, such as diagnostic, maintenance, or repair manuals, diagrams, or similar information (resources), to independent repair providers and owners of the manufacturer's agricultural equipment," according to the legislature's summary of the Consumer Right To Repair Agricultural Equipment bill.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Colorado Governor Signs Tractor Right-to-Repair Law Opposed by John Deere More

Colorado Governor Signs Tractor Right-to-Repair Law Opposed by John Deere

Comments Filter:

  • One of the main proponent is really pleased (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @01:29PM (#63481018)

    Louis Rossmann. Check him out: it's a pleasure to see him this stoked :)

    Louis Rossmann - We won [youtube.com]

    • Louis has put a lot of work into this even though it's only tangential to his own line of work. He deserves to be stoked and I hope he becomes emboldened to continue the fight. Hopefully this legislation will get picked up in other states and expanded to include other industries.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by irving47 ( 73147 )

      You spelled his name.... RIGHT! Good on you!

      Seriously, though, I'm all-for his endeavors in this arena. I wish right-leaning politicians would understand that "conservatism" includes repairing and re-using, not just buying a new one or sitting still while someone like Deere abuses their monopoly and DMCA laws.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BigFire ( 13822 )

        After finding out State of New York screwed him for over 7 years with an tax lien send to New Hampshire where he's never been to (thus denying him the ability to actually get business loan), he now search his name and his businesses including misspelling to make sure there are no more liens. He made sure that his current business is 100% new and not related in anyway to the old business (he knew State of New York will want to collect even after he closed the old one and start anew). The brother is free!

  • Vote them out! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Puls4r ( 724907 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @01:31PM (#63481030)
    Every elected official who voted against this has a clear conflict of interest against their constituents and should be thrown out of office.

    But voters are stupid and are more ideologically driven than logically driven, so the same money taking assholes will get re-elected. And the idiots that elect them will get exactly what they deserve.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by lsllll ( 830002 )
      That's what I was going to say. It's scary that 25% or the house and 33% of the senate voted against this.
      • I'd wager John Deere made significant contributions to their campaigns.

        • My first thought was "damn, is it election season already?"
          It's that time of year where they count on America's VERY short short term memories to get them reelected, just like it has for many years now.
          This bill is great and all but there's still most of a year to get the teeth knocked out of this thing for $1000/tooth. Don't worry, they'll pay. They'll pay, we'll get fucked and the politicians get rich. Everyone important wins.

          Maybe in my lifetime I'll see us finally get tired of the masochistic tango we'v

    • ^^^ Exactly!

    • Exactly! Even if the democrats vote on issue issues that do not align with their constituents!
      Sheesh - you act like there is only one issue that people care about.
      But not to worry, 46 democrats and 19 republicans

    • It'd be nice (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @04:19PM (#63481560)
      but people have lots of different issues they vote on. Gun control & abortion & Trans Kids in sports, etc, etc. There's a major moral panic & culture war being waged too, driving by 24 hour cable news & daily talk radio. So economics often get sidelined.

    • "And the idiots that elect them will get exactly what they deserve."

      And the rest of us will get the same, whether we deserve it or not.

      • Hard to defend democracy when most voters are stupid. Maybe there is a better way to choose our rulers.

  • Party Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by coopertempleclause ( 7262286 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @01:32PM (#63481038)

    having been propelled forward mostly by Democrats

    The proposal left some GOP lawmakers stuck between their farming constituents pleading for the ability to repair their equipment and the manufacturers who vehemently opposed it.

    Well, that should tell you all you need to know about whose side each party is actually on...

    • Re:Party Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, 2023 @01:34PM (#63481054)

      Like the farmers complaining about socialism and welfare queens while cashing those subsidy checks

    • Re:Party Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @01:43PM (#63481086)
      Neither side is particularly great on right to repair. There was a bill in New York that was essentially gutted by the Governor [arstechnica.com]. Will you also generalize her behavior to the entirety of her political party?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

        Neither side is particularly great on right to repair. There was a bill in New York that was essentially gutted by the Governor. Will you also generalize her behavior to the entirety of her political party?

        Once side is mediocre, the other side is awful.

    • Re:Party Priorities (Score:5, Informative)

      by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @02:39PM (#63481308)
      I cross references the house vote [colorado.gov] with the list of representatives [colorado.gov] and tallied it.

      Democrat: 40 yes, 2 no, 4 abstain
      Republican: 6 yes, 12 no, 1 abstain

      So 2/3 republicans didn't want this.
    • Or,alternately, the spin being placed upon this by reporting. Imagine the other spin possible: "Mostly democratic lawmakers push bill allowing dangerous repair rights for untrained users". Because really--that line didn't need to be put in, every bill involves elected officials making compromises of some sort.
      That high horse can apply to everyone.
      • They aren't any more dangerous than any other vehicle repair that these farmers perform on their other equipment. Maybe try engaging your brain and viewing politics as a matter of philosophy instead of treating it like a team sport.

        • They aren't any more dangerous than any other vehicle repair that these farmers perform on their other equipment.

          Indeed. Not only that, most of this farm equipment never leaves the farm (some will be driven at low speed on public roads between fields), so it is not like these repairs are a threat to the public at large in any case.

    • Campaign to the farmers (and working class) but take campaign donations from big business. That's the new Republican party. But this strategy only works by bamboozling the voters. Which politics has known how to do for centuries.

  • Not enough (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @01:44PM (#63481096) Homepage

    You know what is bullshit about this? It is bullshit because it is limited to only agricultural equipment. Fixing anything yourself or from third party shops should be inherent in EVERYTHING. Artificial lockouts by the companies that try to force you stay in their small tightly controlled and expensive ecosystem should be illegal.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      So, because they didn't start with whatever toy you want to be able to break pretending you're fixing it, they shouldn't even try?

      • No while its good it happened for farmers, they could have just done it for everything if they where not corrupt and catering to companies like apple.

        It should be a simple concept, my possession my choice if I want to break it, or even endanger my life by fixing it well that's my problem. And a company should not intentionally make it harder for me.

        But we should wait for another 20 year, possibly have legislation that reverses these decisions, all the while paying senators to take the smallest possible step

    • Re:Not enough (Score:5, Interesting)

      by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @02:03PM (#63481154) Homepage

      Time to get creative then. The definition of agricultural equipment in the law:

      "AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT" INCLUDES:
      (I) A TRACTOR, TRAILER, COMBINE, SPRAYER, TILLAGE IMPLEMENT,
      BALER, AND OTHER EQUIPMENT USED TO PLANT, CULTIVATE, OR HARVEST
      AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OR TO RANCH;

      Let's see. Farmers used a smartphone (read: "other equipment") to check the weather and see if tomorrow is suitable for planting. It's now agricultural equipment per the definition in the law.

      A rancher over here just ordered some animal feed online using their laptop. So if they're using this "other equipment" "to ranch" then they are using agricultural equipment to do so.

      It's not my fault the law didn't specify that it had to be the primary or sole use of the item or that it only applies when used for agriculture (except aircraft - which is named as excluded if not used for agriculture in this law).

      • Time to get creative then. The definition of agricultural equipment in the law:

        "AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT" INCLUDES: (I) A TRACTOR, TRAILER, COMBINE, SPRAYER, TILLAGE IMPLEMENT, BALER, AND OTHER EQUIPMENT USED TO PLANT, CULTIVATE, OR HARVEST AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OR TO RANCH;

        Let's see. Farmers used a smartphone (read: "other equipment") to check the weather and see if tomorrow is suitable for planting. It's now agricultural equipment per the definition in the law.

        A rancher over here just ordered some animal feed online using their laptop. So if they're using this "other equipment" "to ranch" then they are using agricultural equipment to do so.

        It's not my fault the law didn't specify that it had to be the primary or sole use of the item or that it only applies when used for agriculture (except aircraft - which is named as excluded if not used for agriculture in this law).

        Nice try, but none of those are used to "PLANT, CULTIVATE, OR HARVEST." They may be used to obtain materials or information used in that process but they are not used in teh actual "PLANT, CULTIVATE, OR HARVEST" steps. I suspect a court would not include them in the R2R list of covered equipment.

        • they are not used in teh actual "PLANT, CULTIVATE, OR HARVEST" steps

          Neither is a tractor. Whatever they're pulling behind them might be, but they don't do any of it. So it's very clear that in order for it to apply to tractors it has to be less pedantic than actually putting the seed in the hole to count as planting.

          • they are not used in teh actual "PLANT, CULTIVATE, OR HARVEST" steps

            Neither is a tractor. Whatever they're pulling behind them might be, but they don't do any of it. So it's very clear that in order for it to apply to tractors it has to be less pedantic than actually putting the seed in the hole to count as planting.

            Well, they specifically call out tractors as covered, and I suspect a court, looking at that sentence and its intent, probably would not include a laptop or smartphone as part of "other equipment." It will be interesting to see how much impact this has on the issues raised.

            • Courts and lawyers can only do a very small amount regarding intent. A lot of it really is literally semantics. Tractors are specifically called out. And because of the Oxford comma are included even if they're not used for planting, cultivating, or harvesting.

              If planting only includes the exact step of the seed going into the hole, then there is a lot of legitimate farming equipment excluded. If they determine it to mean the whole process, then my argument applies. Cultivate is a much less specific te

              • However, your argument requires ambiguity in the law, which raises the issue of legislative intent. I doubt a court would say anthing remotely and in passing used is included

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nucrash ( 549705 )

      It's a chink in the armor. Getting agricultural right to repair can be expanded to other things in due time.

      We must keep pushing.

    • Another problem with limiting outside repairs is land-fill. If it's easier to repair things, then we don't have to dump away our gizmos every 4 years.

  • Or???? (Score:3)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @02:00PM (#63481142)

    Farm equipment manufacturers will have "to provide parts, embedded software, firmware, tools, or documentation, such as diagnostic, maintenance, or repair manuals, diagrams, or similar information (resources), to independent repair providers and owners of the manufacturer's agricultural equipment,"

    What's that ", or documentation" doing in there? So, they can provide any single thing in the list but not the rest? Should be ", and documentation"

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rgmoore ( 133276 )

      The list of things the manufacturer is supposed to provide is from the legislation, but the legislation says they must provide "any" of those things the repairer needs. If you read the actual legislation rather than the summary, it's clear the company has to provide whatever the person performing the repair needs. For example:

      For the purpose of providing services for equipment in the state, an original equipment manufacturer shall, with fair and reasonable terms and costs, make available to an independent

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • If You Can't Fix It, Do You Really Own It? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Thursday April 27, 2023 @02:24PM (#63481246)
    I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but if you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for farm equipment and the only way to fix it when it breaks is to wait for the manufacturer to get around to sending someone to your farm and charging you whatever they feel like for the repairs, do you really own the equipment? You're basically paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars to reserve the right to bend you over whenever that equipment needs basic repairs. At that point, the company should be either leasing the equipment to farmers and performing all repairs in a timely manner for free or allowing them to fix the equipment themselves. But greedy corporations wanted it both ways: you have to pay for the equipment in its entirety and you have to pay whatever they feel like charging if you want to keep using the equipment when it inevitably requires repairs.

    I'm so happy for the many people who have dedicated so much of their time to get this legislation passed. This has been years in the making, and despite several promising attempts, the corrupt lobbyists have managed to get the politicians to take their side every step of the way up until now. The good news is that now that right-to-repair is required for farm equipment in Colorado, other states, and even other countries, will likely follow suit. The hardest one to win was the first one because the equipment companies kept pushing the false narrative that allowing right-to-repair would force them to irreparably harm their bottom line. Once that proves to be false in Colorado, they'll have a tougher time pushing that lie in other jurisdictions.

    We rarely get to celebrate victories over corporate greed! Everyone take a moment to enjoy this win!

    • I think this is partly the reason why so many industries are pushing for a subscription and/ or leasing model. Even in their attempts to lock down their hardware and content in the name of intellectual property protection, there's still a chance of push back, with legislation such as this one. If you're only subscribing or leasing, and you don't even own it, then they can bypass even this question.

      This is also why I'm not a big fan of the widespread Cloud adoption and evangelism in the IT industry.

  • In engineering. Sheez. Now I understand manufacturers making some things seemingly more difficult to repair/replace, but until you understand manufacturing engineering then you need to just shut the fuck up and learn how to fix what is in front of you. Or else get a cow and do it the old fashioned way before we had machinery.

  • Will this bill genuinely force John Deere to provide EVERYTHING needed to repair their equipment? Are there any loopholes that would let John Deere not provide everything?

    Could John Deere point to federal laws (the DMCA, federal emissions/safety/etc standards that apply to farm equipment or other federal laws) and claim that federal law trumps state law and refuse to provide stuff? Will we see John Deere challenge this law in court?

  • Let's hope this is a catalyst for all right to repair every where. Fuck John Deere and Fuck the Farm Bureau.
  • is warranted when it's mainly republican voting farmers

  • All I can see in the bill is "manufacturers shall ...". But what if they don't?
    Will they get banned from manufacturing inside Colorado?
    Will they get banned from selling equipment inside Colorado?
    Will they get banned from providing any services inside Colorado associated with equipment they manufactured?
    Will it become illegal to import their equipment to Colorado?
    Will it become illegal to operate their equipment in Colorado?

    My guess is that they will just no longer be allowed to sell inside Colorado and deal

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Colorado courts will have the right to try cases filed by the customers residing within their jurisdiction. Expect those courts to be very sympathetic to the plaintiffs. And generous.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djgl ( 6202552 )

        "Your honor, this tractor was never supposed to be used inside Colorado. According to our documents it was manufactured for a buyer in Kansas."

  • "The proposal left some GOP lawmakers stuck between their farming constituents pleading for the ability to repair their equipment and the manufacturers who vehemently opposed it."

    The constituents are, well, constituents. The manufacturers, being companies, are very definitely NOT constituents, because a company doesn't get to vote come election time. There should be no "stuck between" here on the part of lawmakers, either in fact or in perception. That this state of supposed conflict is taken for granted, instead of being treated as a crime, is a fundamental problem and we need to fix it.

    • > That this state of supposed conflict is taken for granted, instead of being treated as a crime, is a fundamental problem and we need to fix it.

      True, and these old-school Republicans are a special kind of retarded if they think a Fortune 500 company working for its ESG score is actually on their side.

  • and what John Deere should be forced by law to abandon their overreach on repair policy,

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.

Close