Right-To-Repair Advocates Question John Deere's New Promises (wired.com) 39
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Early this week, tractor maker John Deere said it had signed a memorandum of understanding with the American Farm Bureau Federation, an agricultural trade group, promising to make it easier for farmers to access tools and software needed to repair their own equipment. The deal looked like a concession from the agricultural equipment maker, a major target of the right-to-repair movement, which campaigns for better access to documents and tools needed for people to repair their own gear. But right-to-repair advocates say that despite some good points, the agreement changes little, and farmers still face unfair barriers to maintaining equipment they own.
Kevin O'Reilly, a director of the right-to-repair campaign run by the US Public Interest Research Group, a grassroots lobbying organization, says the timing of Deere's deal suggests the company may be trying to quash recent interest in right-to-repair laws from state legislators. In the past two years, corn belt states including Nebraska and Missouri, and also Montana, have considered giving farmers a legal right to tools needed to repair their own equipment. But no laws have been passed. "The timing of this new agreement is no accident," O'Reilly says. "This could be part of an effort to take the wind out of the sails of right-to-repair legislation." Indeed, one section of the memorandum takes direct aim at proposals to enshrine the right to repair into law. It states that the American Farm Bureau Foundation "agrees to encourage state Farm Bureau organizations to recognize the commitments made in this MOU and refrain from introducing, promoting, or supporting federal or state Right to Repair legislation that imposes obligations beyond the commitments in this MOU."
Walter Schweitzer, a Montana-based cattle farmer and right-to-repair advocate, calls the new agreement "a Groundhog Day sort of thing" -- a repeat of something he has seen before. The memorandum is similar to one signed in 2018 by the California Farm Bureau, the state's largest organization for farmers' interests, and the Equipment Dealers Association, which represents Deere, he says. But little changed afterward, in his view. [...] The new agreement isn't legally binding. It states that should either party determine that the MOU is no longer viable, all they have to do is provide written notice to the other party of their intent to withdraw. And both US PIRG and Schweitzer note that other influential farmers groups are not party to the agreement, such as the National Farmers Union, where Schweitzer is a board member and runs the Montana chapter. Schweitzer is also concerned by the way the agreement is sprinkled with promises to offer farmers or independent repair shops "fair and reasonable terms" on access to tools or information. "'Fair and reasonable' to a multibillion-dollar company can be a lot different for a farmer who is in debt, trying to make payments on a $200,000 tractor and then has to pay $8,000 to $10,000 to purchase hardware for repairs," he says.
Kevin O'Reilly, a director of the right-to-repair campaign run by the US Public Interest Research Group, a grassroots lobbying organization, says the timing of Deere's deal suggests the company may be trying to quash recent interest in right-to-repair laws from state legislators. In the past two years, corn belt states including Nebraska and Missouri, and also Montana, have considered giving farmers a legal right to tools needed to repair their own equipment. But no laws have been passed. "The timing of this new agreement is no accident," O'Reilly says. "This could be part of an effort to take the wind out of the sails of right-to-repair legislation." Indeed, one section of the memorandum takes direct aim at proposals to enshrine the right to repair into law. It states that the American Farm Bureau Foundation "agrees to encourage state Farm Bureau organizations to recognize the commitments made in this MOU and refrain from introducing, promoting, or supporting federal or state Right to Repair legislation that imposes obligations beyond the commitments in this MOU."
Walter Schweitzer, a Montana-based cattle farmer and right-to-repair advocate, calls the new agreement "a Groundhog Day sort of thing" -- a repeat of something he has seen before. The memorandum is similar to one signed in 2018 by the California Farm Bureau, the state's largest organization for farmers' interests, and the Equipment Dealers Association, which represents Deere, he says. But little changed afterward, in his view. [...] The new agreement isn't legally binding. It states that should either party determine that the MOU is no longer viable, all they have to do is provide written notice to the other party of their intent to withdraw. And both US PIRG and Schweitzer note that other influential farmers groups are not party to the agreement, such as the National Farmers Union, where Schweitzer is a board member and runs the Montana chapter. Schweitzer is also concerned by the way the agreement is sprinkled with promises to offer farmers or independent repair shops "fair and reasonable terms" on access to tools or information. "'Fair and reasonable' to a multibillion-dollar company can be a lot different for a farmer who is in debt, trying to make payments on a $200,000 tractor and then has to pay $8,000 to $10,000 to purchase hardware for repairs," he says.
Time to send them an Dear John and shop for an dif (Score:2)
Time to send them an Dear John and shop for an different brand
Re:Time to send them an Dear John and shop for an (Score:4, Informative)
It's never quite that simple. I have several Deere tractors that have served me well for years. The oldest is 15 years old now. If I can repair the electrical stuff myself, they can last for many more years. At this point they are fully depreciated. To trade off on a tractor of a different brand (and hopefully newer with more life left), would cost me between $400 and $500k CAD.
I laughed at the summary where the farmer was quoted talking about a $200k tractor. Maybe five years ago. Not today. In fact we're looking at a new-to-us tractor of a different brand and the asking price is $300k CAD for a four-year-old machine with 1000 hours on it, which in the current market is a pretty decent price.
Re:Time to send them an Dear John and shop for an (Score:4, Informative)
I should add that the tractor we're looking to buy is not a replacement for one of my John Deere's. Totally different class and size of tractor, hence the price difference, $500k vs $300k. All colors are expensive and right to repair is not much better on any other brand.
Re: (Score:3)
No manufacturer of this kind of machinery on the planet allows full independent (or owner) repair of their equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do. Once it's sold and outside of warranty it's the owner's problem and the manufacturer has no say over it. It's just that they are choosy who they sell their parts too and who they give out the diagnostic information to, and that's what we're trying to change.
Re: (Score:2)
No manufacturer of this kind of machinery on the planet allows full independent (or owner) repair of their equipment.
Huh? I work for an airline. We don't go to Boeing or Airbus to repair our aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
By "this kind of machinery" I meant farm equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
and the FAA controls the repair process as well as the software.
I think that they will not let Boeing or Airbus add an must be online 24/7 or X is disabled to any aircraft.
Also they forced boeing to make that DLC on max-8 be added to the basic package for both new and old aircraft
You can't be allowed (Score:4, Informative)
They can't allow you to do anything to something that you own. It's like me saying you can't wear the color blue. Once it's yours they have absolutely no fucking say in the matter. I hate how they are even playing this game like it is being asked. If a farmer owns it, they say what happens to it and how it happens, not John Deere.
if they want to rent it then the landlord pays rep (Score:2)
if they want to rent it then the landlord needs pays to repair costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You can't be allowed (Score:4, Informative)
Well, not quite. The problem is injectors are not spark plugs, and they are driven from a common fuel rail, using computer-controlled actuators to drive the timing. The computer learns the characteristics of the injectors and makes subtle adjustments based on that and the demands placed on the engine. When you change the injectors, it does require a laptop to tell the engine to relearn the brand new injector parameters, and sometimes to tweak things a bit. This is not unlike how a car mechanic has to tell the car ECU to relearn things like the mass air sensor characteristics. The difference is that anyone can buy a fancy car computer and work with all kinds of cars, but for tractors (and big trucks) you have to have the software and diagnostic software from that company and they don't sell it to just anyone.
There are many things you can easily do yourself and the tractor or Deere has no problem. Provided you could identify the problem from the codes, you can easily change out sensors, actuators, filters, valves, etc. They are just analog devices anyway. I recently changed two leaky valves on my transmission, for example. But when it comes to the smarter components that embed an ECU that talks on the CAN bus, there Deere (and all the companies) get kind of paranoid, which is so strange. Maybe they are worried we'll discover how bad their software is. I dunno.
Re:You can't be allowed (Score:4, Insightful)
it does require a laptop to tell the engine to relearn the brand new injector parameters
Given how all of the touchscreens and computers already built into the tractor, there is zero technical reason to have to connect a laptop to tell the tractor to relearn injectors. Hell, my car from 20 years ago could relearn certain components just by doing a specific sequence of button presses on the existing console.
But when it comes to the smarter components that embed an ECU that talks on the CAN bus, there Deere (and all the companies) get kind of paranoid, which is so strange.
No, it has nothing to do with paranoia. Repairs are a huge source of income for a lot of companies, and they can (and do) everything possible to lock consumers out. John Deere could easily make their 'special software' free to download.
Re: (Score:1)
Given how all of the touchscreens and computers already built into the tractor, there is zero technical reason to have to connect a laptop to tell the tractor to relearn injectors.
Agreed. The reason is purely financial.
Both sides of the argument (Score:2)
They can't allow you to do anything to something that you own. It's like me saying you can't wear the color blue. Once it's yours they have absolutely no fucking say in the matter. I hate how they are even playing this game like it is being asked. If a farmer owns it, they say what happens to it and how it happens, not John Deere.
This is a tricky situation that requires some nuance. Suppose:
1) John Deere harvester has assisted driving (or autodrive) using GPS, the farmer replaces the GPS with a non-standard one, the ECU interrogates the GPS and discovers it's a non standard brand. The autodrive could run the machine into a hedgerow doing damage to itself or the highway next to the field.
2) John Deere tractor complies with emissions standards, the farmer replaces the O2 sensor with a non-standard unit, the sensor is chipped and the E
Re: (Score:3)
1) Sorry, that's not valid. For one Deere (and all brands) require you to agree to disclaim all liability when you enable auto steering. Secondly, auto steering always requires a body in the seat who should be watching over everything. Auto steering is not magically smart. It typically drives in a straight line until you turn the tractor around. So any auto steering system with any GPS receiver will drive into a hedge row if you let it. Finally I can put any GPS receiver and autosteering system on a Jo
Re:Both sides of the argument (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a tricky situation that requires some nuance. Suppose:
1) John Deere harvester has assisted driving (or autodrive) using GPS, the farmer replaces the GPS with a non-standard one, the ECU interrogates the GPS and discovers it's a non standard brand. The autodrive could run the machine into a hedgerow doing damage to itself or the highway next to the field.
Shit happens. The farmer has liability for what their equipment does while in operation.
2) John Deere tractor complies with emissions standards, the farmer replaces the O2 sensor with a non-standard unit, the sensor is chipped and the ECU detects that it's non-standard. The emissions might now be out-of-spec.
If emissions regulations apply, there are inspections required, and penalties for failing to comply -again, the farmer is liable.
3) A strut snaps, the farmer welds it and continues working. Sometime later a strut snaps and someone is injured or killed.
3a) If it's the strut the farmer fixed, who is responsible? If the fixed strut snapped in a *different* place, how is responsibility determined?
3b) If it's not the one the farmer fixed, how is responsibility determined?
Sad face for dead person, but...accidents happen. The farmer is liable. Business liability insurance exists for a reason.
4) Farmer changes a headlamp. The new headlamp is chipped, the ECU detects a non-standard lamp... you get the point.
No. I do not get the point. Make it clearly, don't ask us to assume.
Some of the issues revolve around responsibility for what happens, and some revolve around responsibility of John Deere to sell a safe product.
Nope. The farmer is liable for their operations. If the device was safe, AS SOLD, it is the farmers responsibility to maintain it and operate it in a safe manner.
No blanket rule can apply here: sometimes John Deere will be at fault for making a bad design or poor-quality product, and other times it will be the farmer's fault for making a repair he shouldn't have. (And the vast majority of cases, where the farmer makes a perfectly useable repair.)
Why can't that be a blanket rule? I'm pretty sure that it IS a blanket rule -items must be fit for purpose as sold, and you are responsible for how you use/modify them.
The current situation is untenable.
Absolutely -so lets pass right-to-repair laws and change it.
A John Deere unit can fail in the field, the nearest official John Deere repair place is 50 miles away, it's something that could be swapped out easily (the O2 sensor mentioned), but significant responsibility attaches to John Deere if they're not the ones who do it.
No. John Deere has no more liability for your homebrew repairs to your tractor than Ford has for you wrenching on your pick-up truck.
I think the *right* way to do this is to have some group akin to the TSA (who looks into aircraft accidents) who looks into farm equipment accidents. John Deere would not be held responsible so long as their products pass safety standards, and they could work with the TSA-like group to identify the root cause of accidents and maybe modify their designs for future products.
We do not need a new government security-theatre agency to oversee farm equipment repairs (You meant to say FAA... but I don't think we need a real oversight agency either)
That way the farmer can make all the mods he likes, John Deere isn't liable for accidents, and the products become safer over time.
John Deere is not liable for a farmers use of their product -as long as the product was safe as sold and not defective from the factory. All businesses (including farmers) are responsible for maintaining and operating their equipment in a safe manner.
PS -sorry for the long, nit picky response, but there were a lot of points to address.
Re: (Score:3)
Well said. It's apparent from the GP post that Deere's campaign has been quite successful at muddying the waters among the general non-farm population, particularly politicians. Especially with the old think of the children line.
Right to repair is not about physical repairs or modifications to the tractor. I can weld any attachment on it I want. Anything mechanical on it I can change and fix. Axles, gears, differentials, etc. Just like we've always done. I can even swap steering valves or add a third
Re:Both sides of the argument (Score:4, Informative)
I should add it's also about being able to buy the service manuals to know the proper repair procedures for the mechanical bits, and get the electrical schematics and hydraulic schematics for a machine, something they used to provide standard with an owner's manual a couple of decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
1. That is on the farmer, not John Deere.
2. See #1. Why would John Deere care that a tractor OWNED by someone else is emitting too much pollution?
3. There is currently nothing that would stop a farmer from making a weld repair anyways.
4. People change headlamps all the time on other vehicles.
Your points aren't valid at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Is Ford responsible because a 3rd party mechanic (or an individual at home) does a bad brake job on a Ford and gets into an accident due to the brakes failing?
Is Ford responsible because a 3rd party mechanic (or an individual at home) replaced a component on a Ford and now it emits more emissions than its allowed to?
Is Ford responsible because a 3rd party mechanic (or an individual at home) replaced a component involved with a safety feature on a Ford and the car got into an accident due to the safety featu
Re: (Score:2)
Same answer for every single point: He who does work takes responsibility for doing it right.
Payload files (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest sticky point of right to repair for John Deere tractors is access to the payload files needed to program ECUs. For example, recently the armrest controller failed on my tractor. This is the ECU that reads the position of the thottle setting, the adjustable speed control, and the hydraulic controls, and communicates them to the rest of the tractor. Getting a replacement ECU is no big deal and really not that expensive. But I can't just go get one from the dealer and install it (four screws is all), because the boards come blank and must be programmed with the proper firmware, which John Deere calls a payload file. But each payload file has to be customized for my tractor's serial number, or the rest of the ECUs won't talk to it. A dealer tech has to come out with a laptop and program the board after he installs it. But to get the payload file he has to request it (online of course) directly from the mothership using my serial number. Mother Deere generates the payload file with my number coded into it somehow. I wouldn't say the firmware is digitally signed (not yet anyway) but they are definitely customized.
Third-party mechanics (and farmers) cannot legally buy the Deere diagnostic software, and they certainly cannot request a payload file.
I don't see anything in this MOU that actually addresses the core issues here, except to suggest they might be open to it in the future, which I strongly doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be
Talk is cheap. (Score:3)
It doesn't matter if John Deere promises that you repair your tractor or if find because talk is cheap. Furthermore, promises are worth the paper it's printed on because at any point they can change there mind. They might be sly and do it a bit at a time.
The bottom line is that without legislation to force their hand then this promise is as valid web ads telling me "there are horny singles in your area waiting for you".
more reason to put the laws in place (Score:3)
ODBC (Score:2)
Seems to me use of the OBDC 2 standard should be mandatory on all new farm vehicles
Re: (Score:3)
Farm vehicles (and heavy trucks) are based on J1939 which is an open standard like ODB II, and there are some standard messages, but there are whole classes of undocumented, proprietary messages used between ECUs. You can have a standard and still be proprietary. Also in cars there are plenty of proprietary ODB II messages.
Re: (Score:2)
Proprietary standards seem like a contradiction in terms to me.
The 64,000 question (Score:3)
Easy to undermine for them (Score:3)
I bet they've seen the legislation and noticed that it's ridiculously easy for them to just ignore it. Pretty much any repair you want to do on JD equipment needs a software update. I wouldn't even consider an oil change something that can go over without having a priest of the Church of Deere having to wave the dead chicken over it.
So repair all you want. And then cough up the dough so we bless your repair with our update. The price stays the same, you just have to pay someone else to fix your crap and we don't even come out to you anymore and just do it online.