https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64206913

I happened to see this on the BBC scroll. This is very important though not flashy news.

Searched for other sources and they all credit & quote the BBC story. Great job FOX/CNN... US "news" is an embarrassment.

This is indeed A Very Big Deal Deere has not been willing to let farmers and independent shops access the engine control computers to diagnose and repair their own equipment

CanyonAg77 said:

---

This is indeed A Very Big Deal Deere has not been willing to let farmersi and independent shops access the engine control computers to diagnose and repair their own equipment

---

That there is some bull***** I did not know that was their practice.

Auto makers take note.

"President Biden signed an executive order in 2021 calling on the Federal Trade Commission to draw up a countrywide policy allowing customers to repair their own products, particularly in the technology and agriculture sectors."

"Right to Repair" is a big deal. Everything is morphing to the "software is a service" model b/c it's a cash cow. We must win the battle. Otherwise, we don't own what we buy.

Bird Poo said:

---

"President Biden signed an executive order in 2021 calling on the Federal Trade Commission to draw up a countrywide policy allowing customers to repair their own products, particularly in the technology and agriculture sectors."

---

iirc, Deere and other companies have fortified their IP to an extent that customers do not own the equipment, they merely lease it indefinitely. "You will own nothing and be happy" kinda kicked off in the legal strata due to IP.

Is John Deere required to give away their software and equipment to farmers?

It seems to me that the farmers can now take their equipment to other mechanics or do it themselves with their own equipment and software.

I don't know about John Deere, but there have been instances of manufacturers having a stranglehold on their customers even though there are other companies who have independently developed their own equipment to test and repair faulty and broken machines.

My understanding is this isn't just "farmers." Even small independent shops were not allowed to access or purchase the software to diagnose and service the equipment. ONLY the big JD dealerships could work on your equipment.

Imagine ONLY being able to take your F150 to the dealership because you can't even reset the oil life indicator.

Quote:

---

When I rent a car, I'm not buying the ability to set it on fire. I'm merely buying the privilege of driving it for a few days.

---

What if I bought the car? Could I set it on fire then?

eric76 said:

---

Is John Deere required to give away their software and equipment to farmers?

---

From the article:

Quote:

---

"It addresses a long-running issue for farmers and ranchers when it comes to accessing tools, information and resources, while protecting John Deere's intellectual property rights and ensuring equipment safety," AFBF President Zippy Duvall said.

---

John Deere did not want to divulge their IP, and government is now going to force them to while pretending they will protect John Deere's IP.

aTmAg would have made a great Supreme Court Justice for the Lochner era.

eric76 said:

---

Is John Deere required to give away their software and equipment to farmers?

It seems to me that the farmers can now take their equipment to other mechanics or do it themselves with their own equipment and software.

I don't know about John Deere, but there have been instances of manufacturers having a stranglehold on their customers even though there are other companies who have independently developed their own equipment to test and repair faulty and broken machines.

---

Those other mechanics are being provided John Deere IP (by force of government) in order know how to fix them.

And the "stranglehold" was something the customers agreed to when they purchased the equipment. Now they want the government to force John Deere more than they originally agreed to. It's government assisted theft, plain and simple.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

When I rent a car, I'm not buying the ability to set it on fire. I'm merely buying the privilege of driving it for a few days.

---

What if I bought the car? Could I set it on fire then?

---

Yes. When you buy the car you are purchasing the right to do whatever you want with the car including setting it on fire. That's why that costs $30K vs a few $100.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that if a physical good is purchased for ownership then the ability to maintain it in safe operating condition is implied. It's different if something is rented or a software is licensed but the implication with a capital item is generally that you own the item and ought to at least be able to keep it working yourself if you chose, and should not be subject to an arrangement where all maintenance and repairs must come from that same manufacturer instead of self repair or competitive third party repair options. It is a complicated subject but I really dislike the idea of paying property tax on something and then still having to "rent" the ability to use it long term, unless the model is a rental/subscription model.

Good Biden!

It's almost the equivalent of forcing a customer to buy a very expensive extended warranty.

tremble said:

---

aTmAg would have made a great Supreme Court Justice for the Lochner era.

---

There is a reason we had an unprecedented boom during the industrial revolution. People back then understood that freedom was the key to prosperity. Unlike moronic politicians today who buy the votes of constituents with other peoples' money. In this case, they are buying the votes of farmers with John Deere's money. It's corruption under the guise of "caring" plain and simple.

Where in the article in the OP does it say the government forced John Deere to do anything? It looks like John Deere voluntarily agreed to do this after negotiations with a private Federation.

And even if the government was involved, isn't one of the primary purposes of government to keep free markets free? The anti-trust laws are designed to do just that. In some segments of the industry, John Deere has close to Monopolistic power. It can impose its will on consumers in defiance of free market forces.

RAB91 said:

---

Good Biden!

It's almost the equivalent of forcing a customer to buy a very expensive extended warranty.

---

Nobody is being forced to do anything. Then know exactly what they are buying when they make the purchase. It's not like John Deere promised them something and then reneged on it.

aTmAg said:

---

Against this. Let the free market handle it. Government always makes things worse.

Just because I bought and physically possess a product, does not mean I own every possible use of that product. When I rent a car, I'm not buying the ability to set it on fire. I'm merely buying the privilege of driving it for a few days. If I wanted to be able to set it on fire, then I would need to spend a LOT more for that car than I spend to rent it. When I buy a copy of MS Windows, I'm not buying the source code, I'm buying the ability to install a copy of it on my own computer. If there is a bug in the software, I don't get to demand the source code and internal documentation so that I can fix it myself. If I wanted to buy THAT privilege, then I would probably need to spend a billion dollars.

Likewise, when you buy a John Deere you aren't buying access to all their software or detailed plans. If you were, then they would be a LOT more expensive. By government forcing John Deere to provide more value than the customers bought, they are stealing from John Deere and giving it to others. Now what will likely happen is John Deere tractors will go way up in cost. Then you will hear these dumbass farmers whine that they are too expensive.

---

they are asking for the right to fix their own tractors, like farmers have done for 100 years.

Everything is firmware locked now. If you replace a broken part by yourself, the tractor will not start. You still have to call a John Deere dealer to come out, hook up a laptop and authorize the new part on the tractor's computer. They will charge you a premium for this. They did this intentionally to stop people from working on their own equipment, and to drum up more money for the dealerships.

aTmAg said:

---

Against this. Let the free market handle it. Government always makes things worse.

Just because I bought and physically possess a product, does not mean I own every possible use of that product. When I rent a car, I'm not buying the ability to set it on fire. I'm merely buying the privilege of driving it for a few days. If I wanted to be able to set it on fire, then I would need to spend a LOT more for that car than I spend to rent it. When I buy a copy of MS Windows, I'm not buying the source code, I'm buying the ability to install a copy of it on my own computer. If there is a bug in the software, I don't get to demand the source code and internal documentation so that I can fix it myself. If I wanted to buy THAT privilege, then I would probably need to spend a billion dollars.

Likewise, when you buy a John Deere you aren't buying access to all their software or detailed plans. If you were, then they would be a LOT more expensive. By government forcing John Deere to provide more value than the customers bought, they are stealing from John Deere and giving it to others. Now what will likely happen is John Deere tractors will go way up in cost. Then you will hear these dumbass farmers whine that they are too expensive.

---

You lost me when you said dumbass farmers.

You should lose your ag tag for that.

aTmAg said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Good Biden!

It's almost the equivalent of forcing a customer to buy a very expensive extended warranty.

---

Nobody is being forced to do anything. Then know exactly what they are buying when they make the purchase. It's not like John Deere promised them something and then reneged on it.

---

That may or may not be true. It is my impression that John Deere change standard industry practices without adequately notifying consumers. For decades, consumers and small independent shops could freely work on John Deere equipment. John Deere change that customer practice without adequate notice.

And in some market segments, consumers may not have many real alternatives to John Deere equipment.

Finally, what happens when all manufacturers engage in this horrible practice? What choice do consumers have then?

atmAg must work for Deere, or own a lot of Deere stock

aTmAg said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Good Biden!

It's almost the equivalent of forcing a customer to buy a very expensive extended warranty.

---

Nobody is being forced to do anything. Then know exactly what they are buying when they make the purchase. It's not like John Deere promised them something and then reneged on it.

---

If you are restraining competition, you could be in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, even if some of your customers agree with you. See Microsoft and their issues with browsers where the US and EU made them unbundle it so that consumers could have more choices.

I'm not a legal expert, and I don't have a firm opinion on this issue either way, but there might be more to consider than meets the eye.

Username.

Car fire.




Hmmmmmm..............yeah, that works!!!

Jabin said:

---

Where in the article in the OP does it say the government forced John Deere to do anything? It looks like John Deere voluntarily agreed to do this after negotiations with a private Federation.

And even if the government was involved, isn't one of the primary purposes of government to keep free markets free? The anti-trust laws are designed to do just that. In some segments of the industry, John Deere has close to Monopolistic power. It can impose its will on consumers in defiance of free market forces.

---

"Voluntarily". After government has been threatening them for decades.

This is not keeping free markets "free". This is government sponsored theft plain and simple. It's like renting a car, and then getting government to allow me to do stuff with the car that I never agreed to when I made the purchase.

And anti-trust laws are anything but "free market." They have been used by subpar firms to squash superior competitors for 100 years. Read Thomas Sowell. He exposes the anti-trust laws with all the citations and facts you could imagine.

aTmAg said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Where in the article in the OP does it say the government forced John Deere to do anything? It looks like John Deere voluntarily agreed to do this after negotiations with a private Federation.

And even if the government was involved, isn't one of the primary purposes of government to keep free markets free? The anti-trust laws are designed to do just that. In some segments of the industry, John Deere has close to Monopolistic power. It can impose its will on consumers in defiance of free market forces.

---

"Voluntarily". After government has been threatening them for decades.

This is not keeping free markets "free". This is government sponsored theft plain and simple. It's like renting a car, and then getting government to allow me to do stuff with the car that I never agreed to when I made the purchase.

And anti-trust laws are anything but "free market." They have been used by subpar firms to squash superior competitors for 100 years. Read Thomas Sowell. He exposes the anti-trust laws with all the citations and facts you could imagine.

---

Oh, another guy that doesn't know what he's talking about but responds to each point by "go read a book".

And your analogy to renting shows how little you understand the situation or the farmers' complaints. That is exactly what they are complaining about. John Deere has used its market power to force the farmers to accept a transaction that used to be a sale and is now merely and essentially a rental.

Jabin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Good Biden!

It's almost the equivalent of forcing a customer to buy a very expensive extended warranty.

---

Nobody is being forced to do anything. Then know exactly what they are buying when they make the purchase. It's not like John Deere promised them something and then reneged on it.

---

That may or may not be true. It is my impression that John Deere change standard industry practices without adequately notifying consumers. For decades, consumers and small independent shops could freely work on John Deere equipment. John Deere change that customer practice without adequate notice.

And in some market segments, consumers may not have many real alternatives to John Deere equipment.

Finally, what happens when all manufacturers engage in this horrible practice? What choice do consumers have then?

---

Your impression is wrong. John Deere developed capabilities that nobody else was able to provide at great expense. They want to protect their IP and not tive it away for free to competitors. Which is exactly what will happen now.

Good job big government. Anybody who falls for this needs to read more about ecomoics.

Is someone stealing the software? Nope. They're just replacing parts that require calibration using the software and JD wants to charge non-competitive service fees to basically update some data fields in the software. Nobody is copying and stealing the software without having purchased a license when they bought the equipment.
It would be one thing if these were structured as equipment leases within the contract and Deere paid the property taxes on the gear and the projected term of service repair cost was included in the lease price like an auto lease, but these are long term capital goods equipment purchases, and the exclusive service model via operating software lockout seems a strange legal fit for that model of purchase and ownership.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Good Biden!

It's almost the equivalent of forcing a customer to buy a very expensive extended warranty.

---

Nobody is being forced to do anything. Then know exactly what they are buying when they make the purchase. It's not like John Deere promised them something and then reneged on it.

---

If you are restraining competition, you could be in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, even if some of your customers agree with you. See Microsoft and their issues with browsers where the US and EU made them unbundle it so that consumers could have more choices.

I'm not a legal expert, and I don't have a firm opinion on this issue either way, but there might be more to consider than meets the eye.

---

LOL. The Microsoft browser that lost the market share fight to Firefox, Chrome, etc.? That is a perfect case study on how stupid anti-trust laws are. Not the other way around.

aTmAg said:

---

Jabin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

Good Biden!

It's almost the equivalent of forcing a customer to buy a very expensive extended warranty.

---

Nobody is being forced to do anything. Then know exactly what they are buying when they make the purchase. It's not like John Deere promised them something and then reneged on it.

---

That may or may not be true. It is my impression that John Deere change standard industry practices without adequately notifying consumers. For decades, consumers and small independent shops could freely work on John Deere equipment. John Deere change that customer practice without adequate notice.

And in some market segments, consumers may not have many real alternatives to John Deere equipment.

Finally, what happens when all manufacturers engage in this horrible practice? What choice do consumers have then?

---

Your impression is wrong. John Deere developed capabilities that nobody else was able to provide at great expense. They want to protect their IP and not tive it away for free to competitors. Which is exactly what will happen now.

Good job big government. Anybody who falls for this needs to read more about ecomoics.

---

No, your impression is wrong. John Deere is trying to figure out more ways to monetize the transaction beyond the proceeds it gets from the initial sale.

There are lots of other ways to protect IP. Patent Laws have done a pretty Good job of that for a long long time. Provide one example of a farmer stealing John Deere's IP. And if you can provide that example, provide evidence that there were not plenty of other ways for John Deere to stop that theft and protect itself from that theft.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

"Right to Repair" is a big deal. Everything is morphing to the "software is a service" model b/c it's a cash cow. We must win the battle. Otherwise, we don't own what we buy.

---

"You will own nothing and you will like it." -WEF

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Auto makers take note.

---

Ii think right to repair lawsuits have been attempted before with automakers. ( If my memory serves). However the issue came down to public safety. The automakers were able to use scare tactics like " do you really want open source code on HCU's for anti-lock brakes"?

Now it could be even more difficult with another tactic " do you really want people running around with 11:1 A/F ratios damaging our planet?"

GPS navigation is not some unique market conquering technology. Boats do it all the time. I do understand they don't want competitors copying methods of implementation but I don't think that's the issue here. I think they're selling equipment but wanting to maintain exclusive rights to then maintain and repair it where they can monopolize the service pricing structure.

lol "renting." A cotton picker is over $600,000. You don't put your farm down as capital on a rental.

you want to say that it voids the warranty, fine, but let 3rd parties work on it.