Quote:

---

Sure they do. They can buy what they bought before JD developed this technology.

---

What????? They were buying JD before.

Do you simply ignore all posts that you don't like? You've been schooled over and over again that JD has well over 50% market share in many key market segments, even 100% in some. Farmers essentially have no choice but to buy JD with its (thankfully formerly) nasty restrictions.

rab79 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

rab79 said:

---

So your argument boils down to "crippleware" is valid IP...

---

I have a ring camera to look at my dogs in the house. I don't pay them for the feature of letting me go back in time to see old recordings. So they cripple that functionality. I am fine with that because I don't want to pay the monthly fee. Is Ring somehow evil because of this?

No.

---

your camera still performs the function you want it to right? so not crippled at all.

---

You got it. I knew you would come around.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Sure they do. They can buy what they bought before JD developed this technology.

---

What????? They were buying JD before.

Do you simply ignore all posts that you don't like? You've been schooled over and over again that JD has well over 50% market share in many key market segments, even 100% in some. Farmers essentially have no choice but to buy JD with its (thankfully formerly) nasty restrictions.

---

So what market segment does JD have 100% in?

And you misspelled "schooling".

Quote:

---

I have a ring camera to look at my dogs in the house. I don't pay them for the feature of letting me go back in time to see old recordings. So they cripple that functionality. I am fine with that because I don't want to pay the monthly fee. Is Ring somehow evil because of this?

---

Key and very important differences that you are conveniently ignoring:

• There are lots and lots of competitors to Ring with lots of different features available. That's not true with the big JD eqpt that's being discussed in this thread.
• Ring devices are not that expensive, so if Ring were to suddenly change its T&Cs, you could easily switch to a competitor without losing hundreds or thousands of dollars in capital expenses.
• Lack of that feature, combined with lack of timely support by Ring, will not cost you millions of dollars.
• You clearly knew up front what features you wanted and were getting. According to actual JD owners on this thread, that was not and is not the case with JD.

aTmAg said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Sure they do. They can buy what they bought before JD developed this technology.

---

What????? They were buying JD before.

Do you simply ignore all posts that you don't like? You've been schooled over and over again that JD has well over 50% market share in many key market segments, even 100% in some. Farmers essentially have no choice but to buy JD with its (thankfully formerly) nasty restrictions.

---

So what market segment does JD have 100% in?

And you misspelled "schooling".

---

You go read the thread. Someone posted it above.

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

You can't keep ignoring me forever.

I have never once signed an agreement with John Deere. I have signed a purchase order and a check. That's it. So again. Your argument is invalid

---

You didn't have to sign this? Just asking, and damn it is long:
JOHN DEERE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES

aTmAg said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Sure they do. They can buy what they bought before JD developed this technology.

---

What????? They were buying JD before.

Do you simply ignore all posts that you don't like? You've been schooled over and over again that JD has well over 50% market share in many key market segments, even 100% in some. Farmers essentially have no choice but to buy JD with its (thankfully formerly) nasty restrictions.

---

So what market segment does JD have 100% in?

And you misspelled "schooling".

---

You don't need 100% market share to be deemed a restraint for trade. The US government kept my previous industry to about a 35% share. Anything over that they wouldn't approve a merger/acquisition due to a perceived restraint of trade. A market with two to three players that control 85%+ of capacity is highly consolidated and subject to careful scrutiny for restraint of trade. Those aren't my words -- they're from US attorneys.

So I don't have to go to the dealership anymore?

richardag said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

You can't keep ignoring me forever.

I have never once signed an agreement with John Deere. I have signed a purchase order and a check. That's it. So again. Your argument is invalid

---

You didn't have to sign this? Just asking, and damn it is long:
JOHN DEERE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES

---

I skimmed that real quickly and couldn't readily find any language restricting the repair of JD goods to JD only, or language that might have that effect. Of course, I probably just missed it. Could you point us to the relevant language?

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

You can't keep ignoring me forever.

I have never once signed an agreement with John Deere. I have signed a purchase order and a check. That's it. So again. Your argument is invalid

---

You need to read all the fine print on the PO. Generally, PO's of any kind that come with T&C's will include a line that you have agreed to them by signing the PO, even though they may be in a separate document. Just because you didn't read them doesn't mean you didn't agree to them.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I'd also say that if JD wants to continue to control these assets, then apply the accounting rules to say they can no longer book all of the revenue of a "sale" at the time of purchase. Make them amortize it over the life of the asset

---

That is an interesting argument, thanks.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

You can't keep ignoring me forever.

I have never once signed an agreement with John Deere. I have signed a purchase order and a check. That's it. So again. Your argument is invalid

---

You need to read all the fine print on the PO. Generally, PO's of any kind that come with T&C's will include a line that you have agreed to them by signing the PO, even though they may be in a separate document. Just because you didn't read them doesn't mean you didn't agree to them.

---

True, but there's a bit more to it than that. The PO has to at least reference the T&Cs. I'd be shocked, though, if JD's didn't. They've got too many very good lawyers on staff to let something like that slip through.

The question is what do the T&Cs actually say. aTmAg seems to assume that they give JD the power they've been using. They may, but they may not. It's not unheard of for giant corporations to get full of themselves and start exercising powers that they do not contractually possess.

richardag said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

You can't keep ignoring me forever.

I have never once signed an agreement with John Deere. I have signed a purchase order and a check. That's it. So again. Your argument is invalid

---

You didn't have to sign this? Just asking, and damn it is long:
JOHN DEERE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES

---

A quick scan of that seems to indicate it is Deere's contract for the people they buy from, not the people they sell to.

richardag said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

You can't keep ignoring me forever.

I have never once signed an agreement with John Deere. I have signed a purchase order and a check. That's it. So again. Your argument is invalid

---

You didn't have to sign this? Just asking, and damn it is long:
JOHN DEERE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES

---

That reads to me like John Deere's agreement for purchasing good and services, not the other way around. They are listed as the buyer under the definitions section.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

I have a ring camera to look at my dogs in the house. I don't pay them for the feature of letting me go back in time to see old recordings. So they cripple that functionality. I am fine with that because I don't want to pay the monthly fee. Is Ring somehow evil because of this?

---

Key and very important differences that you are conveniently ignoring:

• There are lots and lots of competitors to Ring with lots of different features available. That's not true with the big JD eqpt that's being discussed in this thread.
• Ring devices are not that expensive, so if Ring were to suddenly change its T&Cs, you could easily switch to a competitor without losing hundreds or thousands of dollars in capital expenses.
• Lack of that feature, combined with lack of timely support by Ring, will not cost you millions of dollars.
• You clearly knew up front what features you wanted and were getting. According to actual JD owners on this thread, that was not and is not the case with JD.

---

There is an important feature you are conveniently ignoring:

JD spent over $1.9B in R&D just LAST YEAR. Add that to the many other years that they spent on R&D. That is a crap-ton of money. Clearly the results of that IP is very valuable as people buy JD equipment in droves. They would never endeavor to do that R&D if they didn't benefit from it. Allowing IP into the hands of 3rd parties puts that IP at huge risk. Hell we consider it a huge risk at my employer, even though such leaks risk life imprisonment.

PO doesn't have to reference terms. Accepting terms sent with acknowledge as a counter offer work, if they're not rejected. Hence "battle of the forms".

MemphisAg1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

Sure they do. They can buy what they bought before JD developed this technology.

---

What????? They were buying JD before.

Do you simply ignore all posts that you don't like? You've been schooled over and over again that JD has well over 50% market share in many key market segments, even 100% in some. Farmers essentially have no choice but to buy JD with its (thankfully formerly) nasty restrictions.

---

So what market segment does JD have 100% in?

And you misspelled "schooling".

---

You don't need 100% market share to be deemed a restraint for trade. The US government kept my previous industry to about a 35% share. Anything over that they wouldn't approve a merger/acquisition due to a perceived restraint of trade. A market with two to three players that control 85%+ of capacity is highly consolidated and subject to careful scrutiny for restraint of trade. Those aren't my words -- they're from US attorneys.

---

And my point is that the USG is STUPID for enacting such policies. Things like this are why we have lost our manufacturing base. The only monopolies that have ever sustained themselves were propped up by government. Even the poster boy case of Standard Oil has proven to be bogus. Rockefeller's competitors used the government to break him up because they could not compete with him on price. He had lower prices than anybody, and the government screwed over consumers rather than help them. The whole anti-trust nonsense is a scam. We are hampering the crap out of our economy on this crap and taxing the crap out citizens to boot.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

richardag said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

You can't keep ignoring me forever.

I have never once signed an agreement with John Deere. I have signed a purchase order and a check. That's it. So again. Your argument is invalid

---

You didn't have to sign this? Just asking, and damn it is long:
JOHN DEERE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES

---

That reads to me like John Deere's agreement for purchasing good and services, not the other way around. They are listed as the buyer under the definitions section.

---

Opps, pardon my mistake.

I will go sit in the corner.

aTmAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

So exactly how much money should I pay to be able to own the software in the machine that I never signed an agreement to use? Apparently the answer is more than $970,000. Is $1.5M enough to say that I own my machine?

---

What ever both sides agree too. That's the nature of mutually beneficial exchange.

My employer sells aircraft that cost $78 million each. Yet our customers don't get the rights to everything either. If they wanted the rights to everything, we would have charged more. But paying that extra cost wasn't worth it to them. So they agreed to a reduce delivery and costs. That's the way it should work.

---

yes, because selling $78M airplanes to the government is the same as a private party purchase of a tractor.

---

This applies to TONS of things. I worked for a company that provided a multimillion dollar piece of equipment to Intel. Same applied there too. You can't have it both ways... you can't claim "but these tractors are EXPENSIVE" as a reason why JD should just hand over their private technical data, and then say the same thing when things that are more expensive also have the same practice.

---

They don't have to hand over anything related to source code. They just need to stop firmware locking everything. Why can't I put a part from a scrap tractor into another tractor and have it run right away without having the dealer plug into it and approve it?

aTmAg said:

---

javajaws said:

---

aTmAg does make some valid free-market points, even if you don't like the results. BUT, what seems to be missing from most of his arguments is JD's near-monopoly they hold in certain market segments. When a company holds a monopoly they typically abuse that to make more money. That additional profit can then be used to expand their monopoly in other markets or to increase their monopolistic hold on the one(s) they have.

This is when it is OK for the courts/government to step in and slap them down a bit. Continue with that behavior and your looking at the Sherman act...

I'm sure JD settled this willingly after they judged the water and decided is was getting a little too warm for their liking...

---

Again, JD has a 53% market share of tractors and 60% of combines. That's not close to a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing holding competitors from developing their own versions of this technology.

In fact, I could easily argue that the constant government threat against JD has kept competitors from jumping into the pool sooner. Why spend that expense if government is going to force you to divulge it to 3rd parties anyway? This is exactly what happened when Bush Sr. imposed a system of "hypercompetition" on defense contractors (where designs were released to each other). Rather than speed up development, it slowed it down as companies feared of divulging their long developed IP to competitors. And they figured, why not just wait for competitor X to develop that, and we'll get it for free anyway.

---

Looks like several others have said similar, but I also have to disagree with the bolded. Using those numbers, the tractor market and combine market have HHIs of at least 2809 and 3600, respectively - and that's before considering JD's other competitors' market shares in the space. For reference, any market with a score over 2500 is considered highly concentrated and have a high potential for anti-competitive behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl%E2%80%93Hirschman_index

Zobel said:

---

PO doesn't have to reference terms. Accepting terms sent with acknowledge as a counter offer work, if they're not rejected. Hence "battle of the forms".

---

I don't think that's correct.

If you sign a PO without it referencing terms, and they're sent to you only later after the PO is signed, the terms are not part of the contract.

The battle of the forms is the exchange of terms prior to the PO being signed.

aTmAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

So exactly how much money should I pay to be able to own the software in the machine that I never signed an agreement to use? Apparently the answer is more than $970,000. Is $1.5M enough to say that I own my machine?

---

What ever both sides agree too. That's the nature of mutually beneficial exchange.

My employer sells aircraft that cost $78 million each. Yet our customers don't get the rights to everything either. If they wanted the rights to everything, we would have charged more. But paying that extra cost wasn't worth it to them. So they agreed to a reduce delivery and costs. That's the way it should work.

---

yes, because selling $78M airplanes to the government is the same as a private party purchase of a tractor.

---

This applies to TONS of things. I worked for a company that provided a multimillion dollar piece of equipment to Intel. Same applied there too. You can't have it both ways... you can't claim "but these tractors are EXPENSIVE" as a reason why JD should just hand over their private technical data, and then say the same thing when things that are more expensive also have the same practice.

---

. The reason so many disagree with you is because your reading comprehension is terrible. Also, your wrong a lot but dig you heels in, refuse to concede then move the goal posts. You're the right wing version of KeithDB.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

So exactly how much money should I pay to be able to own the software in the machine that I never signed an agreement to use? Apparently the answer is more than $970,000. Is $1.5M enough to say that I own my machine?

---

What ever both sides agree too. That's the nature of mutually beneficial exchange.

My employer sells aircraft that cost $78 million each. Yet our customers don't get the rights to everything either. If they wanted the rights to everything, we would have charged more. But paying that extra cost wasn't worth it to them. So they agreed to a reduce delivery and costs. That's the way it should work.

---

yes, because selling $78M airplanes to the government is the same as a private party purchase of a tractor.

---

This applies to TONS of things. I worked for a company that provided a multimillion dollar piece of equipment to Intel. Same applied there too. You can't have it both ways... you can't claim "but these tractors are EXPENSIVE" as a reason why JD should just hand over their private technical data, and then say the same thing when things that are more expensive also have the same practice.

---

They don't have to hand over anything related to source code. They just need to stop firmware locking everything. Why can't I put a part from a scrap tractor into another tractor and have it run right away without having the dealer plug into it and approve it?

---

There is a lot more to technical data than just source code.

And a possible answer to your question (though I would direct it to JD for the official answer) I have worked for a company that did not allow non-certified people to repair our equipment. Our reasoning is that they screw it up and publicly blame us for a "defective product". That harms our product and name brand reputation when it wasn't our fault.

This is even more important for equipment that can kill people. There are plenty of juries out there who would reward millions to bereaved families, even if the dead idiot disabled safety features before killing himself.

I work for a company with 60% market share of our category. We constantly bend over backwards to avoid anti-trade issues. Seemingly innocuous behavior can get you in hot water, so we are constantly training our customer-facing teams. It certainly does not require an actual monopoly for anti-competitive practices to get hammered

I don't have time to read everything right now but a lot of the products are CAN based where you need to program the parts to have a specific node address. If you don't the part doesn't work. Also they use the same part on several machines that have different programs written on them

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

So exactly how much money should I pay to be able to own the software in the machine that I never signed an agreement to use? Apparently the answer is more than $970,000. Is $1.5M enough to say that I own my machine?

---

What ever both sides agree too. That's the nature of mutually beneficial exchange.

My employer sells aircraft that cost $78 million each. Yet our customers don't get the rights to everything either. If they wanted the rights to everything, we would have charged more. But paying that extra cost wasn't worth it to them. So they agreed to a reduce delivery and costs. That's the way it should work.

---

yes, because selling $78M airplanes to the government is the same as a private party purchase of a tractor.

---

This applies to TONS of things. I worked for a company that provided a multimillion dollar piece of equipment to Intel. Same applied there too. You can't have it both ways... you can't claim "but these tractors are EXPENSIVE" as a reason why JD should just hand over their private technical data, and then say the same thing when things that are more expensive also have the same practice.

---

. The reason so many disagree with you is because your reading comprehension is terrible. Also, your wrong a lot but dig you heels in, refuse to concede then move the goal posts. You're the right wing version of KeithDB.

---

So what did I "misread"? You guys acted like JD combines are special because they are expensive. So I provided an example that was far more expensive. Then you guys said that was different because it was government. So I provided another example of one that was sold privately.

Just because you don't have a good retort doesn't mean I lack reading comprehension.

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

PO doesn't have to reference terms. Accepting terms sent with acknowledge as a counter offer work, if they're not rejected. Hence "battle of the forms".

---

I don't think that's correct.

If you sign a PO without it referencing terms, and they're sent to you only later after the PO is signed, the terms are not part of the contract.

The battle of the forms is the exchange of terms prior to the PO being signed.

---

You can send order acknowledgement with additional t&cs. Last man response wins. Have to deal with this daily in our business. There is no contract until the order is accepted, and the new terms being sent with order acknowledgment are considered a counter offer.

We may be saying the same things in terms of signing a PO. But when we receive POs from customers we acknowledge them with our terms regardless of what their PO says. If they don't counter our counter, they have accepted our terms and the contract is formed. It's no different than them sending terms with their PO different than the ones on our proposal

This "code is protected IP" argument is for the birds.


I know this won't be a popular idea here. But think back 50-100 years ago when we were putting in electrical lines across the US for widespread domestic use. Now think about how insane and complicated it would be if each individual company had their own voltages and phases they were using, and you had to buy that company's special plug outlet and then a special adapter to use your appliance. Why do we allow technology companies this complication? I'm all for new R&D, but this is an instance where people need to come together and standardize. I shouldn't have to enslave my self to John Deere products in order to comply with their software. Same with Apple, Google, or any car company pushing this idea. The software should be enslaved to what makes sense domestically for the most people, and everyone should be free to use the manufacturer they like best.

It will likely take a different version of the internet though for this ever to become reality.

Zobel said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

PO doesn't have to reference terms. Accepting terms sent with acknowledge as a counter offer work, if they're not rejected. Hence "battle of the forms".

---

I don't think that's correct.

If you sign a PO without it referencing terms, and they're sent to you only later after the PO is signed, the terms are not part of the contract.

The battle of the forms is the exchange of terms prior to the PO being signed.

---

You can send order acknowledgement with additional t&cs. Last man response wins. Have to deal with this daily in our business. There is no contract until the order is accepted, and the new terms being sent with order acknowledgment are considered a counter offer.

We may be saying the same things in terms of signing a PO. But when we receive POs from customers we acknowledge them with our terms regardless of what their PO says. If they don't counter our counter, they have accepted our terms and the contract is formed. It's no different than them sending terms with their PO different than the ones on our proposal

---

First, a disclaimer: I am not your lawyer and am not giving legal advice.

Now, back to the discussion.

Your facts state a key difference, and one that I assume that is spelled out in the PO? My guess is that there are lots of other details of the transactions you are familiar with that make them unique.

The standard for contract formation is when someone makes an offer and the other party accepts. If I make an unconditional offer, and you accept, I can't then send you new terms and expect you to be bound by them.

If however, my offer has language expressly making it conditional on my final acceptance of the contract, then the parties have, by agreement, shifted the point of contract formation. My offer is not really an offer, but a request for an offer from you on the terms set out in the PO. Your "acceptance" is, in essence, an offer.

If new terms are sent are sent out after an unconditional offer has been accepted, then, on those facts alone, there is no new consideration for those new terms and are unenforceable. Otherwise, vendors could be sending out new terms for years after the purchase.

Finally, there's been no evidence at all so far in this thread what JD's actual terms are and when they were presented to the buyers.

C@LAg said:

---

this thread...holy crap.

just one big giant combine fire.

---

Probably a Case combine!

Yes, we're saying the same thing, you with more precision. That's why we don't "accept" orders, we "acknowledge" them, and our acknowledgment refers to either our terms or some master T&C doc.

At any rate your point is correct. The terms seem to be the whole game. Without knowing what the terms of sale were the whole thing is a big assumption.

aTmAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

So exactly how much money should I pay to be able to own the software in the machine that I never signed an agreement to use? Apparently the answer is more than $970,000. Is $1.5M enough to say that I own my machine?

---

What ever both sides agree too. That's the nature of mutually beneficial exchange.

My employer sells aircraft that cost $78 million each. Yet our customers don't get the rights to everything either. If they wanted the rights to everything, we would have charged more. But paying that extra cost wasn't worth it to them. So they agreed to a reduce delivery and costs. That's the way it should work.

---

yes, because selling $78M airplanes to the government is the same as a private party purchase of a tractor.

---

This applies to TONS of things. I worked for a company that provided a multimillion dollar piece of equipment to Intel. Same applied there too. You can't have it both ways... you can't claim "but these tractors are EXPENSIVE" as a reason why JD should just hand over their private technical data, and then say the same thing when things that are more expensive also have the same practice.

---

. The reason so many disagree with you is because your reading comprehension is terrible. Also, your wrong a lot but dig you heels in, refuse to concede then move the goal posts. You're the right wing version of KeithDB.

---

So what did I "misread"? You guys acted like JD combines are special because they are expensive. So I provided an example that was far more expensive. Then you guys said that was different because it was government. So I provided another example of one that was sold privately.

Just because you don't have a good retort doesn't mean I lack reading comprehension.

---

Government contracts to buy an airplane, hell private party contracts to buy airplanes for that matter, are far more complex than buying a tractor. You think that the United Airlines contract to buy a 737 from Boeing is the same as G. hirsutum Ag buying a tractor from JD? The fact that you can't understand that, or even better, continue to double down tells me, and everyone else, your reading comprehension is terrible. They are in no way shape of form the same. Do you think the government buying a single car is the same as me going to buy a car? I guess you do based on your statements. Tell me you think you know government contracting with out telling us you don't actually know anything about government contracting.

You can't even acknowledge that your car rental example was ridiculous because renting is not the same as purchasing a product.

Multiple people, who actually buy and use JD equipment and work in the industry have provided real world examples of why purchasing JD equipment and JD's business practices are anti-competitive and hurting consumers and those consumers USED LEGAL MEANS to remedy their grievance (which the constitution allows for) and you still continue to tell everyone they are wrong.

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

PO doesn't have to reference terms. Accepting terms sent with acknowledge as a counter offer work, if they're not rejected. Hence "battle of the forms".

---

I don't think that's correct.

If you sign a PO without it referencing terms, and they're sent to you only later after the PO is signed, the terms are not part of the contract.

The battle of the forms is the exchange of terms prior to the PO being signed.

---

You can send order acknowledgement with additional t&cs. Last man response wins. Have to deal with this daily in our business. There is no contract until the order is accepted, and the new terms being sent with order acknowledgment are considered a counter offer.

We may be saying the same things in terms of signing a PO. But when we receive POs from customers we acknowledge them with our terms regardless of what their PO says. If they don't counter our counter, they have accepted our terms and the contract is formed. It's no different than them sending terms with their PO different than the ones on our proposal

---

First, a disclaimer: I am not your lawyer and am not giving legal advice.

Now, back to the discussion.

Your facts state a key difference, and one that I assume that is spelled out in the PO? My guess is that there are lots of other details of the transactions you are familiar with that make them unique.

The standard for contract formation is when someone makes an offer and the other party accepts. If I make an unconditional offer, and you accept, I can't then send you new terms and expect you to be bound by them.

If however, my offer has language expressly making it conditional on my final acceptance of the contract, then the parties have, by agreement, shifted the point of contract formation. My offer is not really an offer, but a request for an offer from you on the terms set out in the PO. Your "acceptance" is, in essence, an offer.

If new terms are sent are sent out after an unconditional offer has been accepted, then, on those facts alone, there is no new consideration for those new terms and are unenforceable. Otherwise, vendors could be sending out new terms for years after the purchase.

Finally, there's been no evidence at all so far in this thread what JD's actual terms are and when they were presented to the buyers.

---

if someone sends me a signed contract with the T&C's attached, they can't later send me a new set of T&C's and say "last man wins". Not sure in what industry that's acceptable (in the US anyway, dealing with some foreign countries, a fully signed and executed contract is called the 1st draft).

aTmAg said:

---

Jabin said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

agracer said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

G. hirsutum Ag said:

---

So exactly how much money should I pay to be able to own the software in the machine that I never signed an agreement to use? Apparently the answer is more than $970,000. Is $1.5M enough to say that I own my machine?

---

What ever both sides agree too. That's the nature of mutually beneficial exchange.

My employer sells aircraft that cost $78 million each. Yet our customers don't get the rights to everything either. If they wanted the rights to everything, we would have charged more. But paying that extra cost wasn't worth it to them. So they agreed to a reduce delivery and costs. That's the way it should work.

---

yes, because selling $78M airplanes to the government is the same as a private party purchase of a tractor.

---

This applies to TONS of things. I worked for a company that provided a multimillion dollar piece of equipment to Intel. Same applied there too. You can't have it both ways... you can't claim "but these tractors are EXPENSIVE" as a reason why JD should just hand over their private technical data, and then say the same thing when things that are more expensive also have the same practice.

---

You're right, as long as there is truly an open and free market and both sides have equal bargaining power.

In the case of JD vs. the farmers, neither is true.

---

Sure they do. They can buy what they bought before JD developed this technology.

That's like saying that the day after Apple introduced the iphone that they had a "monopoly" on smart phones and therefore needed to publish their technical data to allow others to compete and repair. It's nonsense. Why would anybody innovated and develop anything new under such a stupid system?

---

Ahh yes, the old "just go buy something else!" mentality.

Never mind that in most cases, that product that existed before the new product isn't around anymore, parts aren't available for them when they break (which farm equipment does, no matter what color paint it has) or regulations prevent it from being used, or farmers that do have them aren't letting them go because they see the BS that is involved with the newer equipment, etc.

Not to mention that the dude you are telling to just go buy old worn out equipment also has all of his capital wrapped up in the new equipment sitting on the ground that wont' operate because of a stupid mentality by JD that they should have to come unlock the computer because one of the 10 tires on it needed more air.