Justice Department Says John Deere Should Let Farmers Repair Their Tractors (vice.com) 37
President Biden's Department of Justice has formally made its position known on a class action filed against John Deere over farmers' right to repair their tractors. From a report: John Deere owns 53 percent of the market share for tractors in the U.S. and has become notorious among farm workers for using monopolistic practices when it comes to repairs. Last month, Forest River Farms launched a class action lawsuit against John Deere accusing them of violating antitrust laws with its repair policies, including putting software locks on their tractors and restricting access to repair tools. In a "Statement of Interest" filed Monday, the DOJ sided with plaintiffs and forcefully disagreed with Deere's analysis of antitrust law.
"I'm thrilled that the Department of Justice is weighing in on this issue," said Willie Cade, a board member at Repair.org whose grandfather served as a board member at John Deere for 30 years. "I'm sure he would be pleased that there is support being garnered for farmers and ranchers," Cade said of his grandfather. In its statement, the DOJ argued that because of Deere's practices, when tractors break, "repair markets function poorly, agriculture suffers. Crops waste. Land lies fallow." It expressed concern that "repair restrictions can drive independent repair shops out of business by raising their costs or denying them key inputs, which, in turn, leaves consumers with fewer choices." Further reading: 11 states consider right to repair for farming equipment.
"I'm thrilled that the Department of Justice is weighing in on this issue," said Willie Cade, a board member at Repair.org whose grandfather served as a board member at John Deere for 30 years. "I'm sure he would be pleased that there is support being garnered for farmers and ranchers," Cade said of his grandfather. In its statement, the DOJ argued that because of Deere's practices, when tractors break, "repair markets function poorly, agriculture suffers. Crops waste. Land lies fallow." It expressed concern that "repair restrictions can drive independent repair shops out of business by raising their costs or denying them key inputs, which, in turn, leaves consumers with fewer choices." Further reading: 11 states consider right to repair for farming equipment.
Will they void the DMCA if needed? copyright laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will they void the DMCA if needed? copyright laws?
I can see some "apple" trying to use an mix of DMCA / IP / copyrights / Patton Laws to lock out / lock down repair.
Re:Will they void the DMCA if needed? copyright la (Score:4, Informative)
They're not going to void the DMCA. If anything they will just carve out an exception for repair. The DMCA already explicitly protects reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability, and the ultimate outcome of Sega v. Accolade sets a precedent that if you need to use data for that purpose then you can do that as well. It's a short hop from there to a DMCA exception on defeating encryption for that purpose.
Re:Will they void the DMCA if needed? copyright la (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything they will just carve out an exception for repair.
In a saner world, the requirement for those multiple exceptions would serve as a hint that we're dealing with a fundamentally flawed law from the start.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything they will just carve out an exception for repair.
In a saner world, the requirement for those multiple exceptions would serve as a hint that we're dealing with a fundamentally flawed law from the start.
In a saner world, the fact that people were pointing out these flaws before the bill even passed would serve as a hint that we're dealing with a fundamentally defective election system that creates the illusion of meaningful choice while providing little.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like the DMCA was always inevitable in a world of corporatism and intellectual property. I'm frankly amazed that it even has any of these exceptions, though I stop short of describing it as "lucky".
an if they try to clam theft in some insane way? (Score:2)
an if they try to clam theft in some insane way?
Like the dealer repair shop needs to buy an software usage token and they say that 3rd party shops are not buying that usage token they are doing theft?
Perhaps a revised version of that country song? (Score:2)
She thinks my tractor's nerdy
It really turns her off
She's always yellin' at me
While I'm hackin' the code
She hates the way its parts are mostly made in Taiwan
She's doesn't understand why it needs a connection to our WiFi lan
She's convinced that John Deere hates me
She thinks my tractor's nerdy
Shame you can repair YOUR own propety (Score:1)
Re:Shame you can repair YOUR own propety (Score:5, Informative)
Typically, unless there's a contract saying otherwise, you own what you purchase regardless of the debt you put yourself in to buy it. You can lose that ownership if the loan involves it as collateral or there's a lien, but you still own it, and can do with it as you please, until that time. (Or at least until some Mickey Mouse(TM) law takes away your rights)
Re:Shame you can repair YOUR own propety (Score:4, Interesting)
Any hardware that includes code to make the hardware functioned as advertised, should be considered a complete product that is purchased when it is sold. All these licensing schemes do is deprive consumers of the personal property that they paid for, and allow corporations to do things that you and I would be imprisoned for doing. Such as rendering a third-parties property inoperable.
In all fairness... (Score:3, Informative)
With that said, I'm not AT ALL familiar with heavy farm equipment repair / maintenance so I could be WAY off base.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think when it comes down to it, the owner should be able to modify the software too. However... if the problem could have been caused by the behaviour of the software (such as, say, stressing the physical components through out-of-bounds instructions), and the firmware fails a version checksum, I think the company shouldn't be on the hook for warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
but allowing the consumer to modify firmware or software directly is a bit questionable.
This is what the manufactures are hoping the general public will think when "right to repair" gets talked about in the media, but the modifications required aren't typically what most people think of when this comes up.
You just bought a brand new tractor that'll be perfect for you to plow the driveway at the cottage and cart stuff around as you build a new extension. One day you get into your tractor but while putting the key into the ignition a bug bites you, startled your knee jerks to the side right int
Re: (Score:2)
The 'further reading' link in the OP specifically stated that the equipment required code modification to get back up and running. I'm all for users in general being provided the tools, parts and documentation to perform repairs on whatever hardware they purchase outright but allowing the consumer to modify firmware or software directly is a bit questionable. However, charging $1,000 to 'add a few lines of code' seems pretty outrageous to get a machine function in the manner that it was intended (I'm making a pretty big assumption there..). If the software update was required to allow the machine to function properly with other repairs he made then they should provide online tools to perform this, similar to how Apple requires you to generate a new hardware hash key online when you change certain components.
With that said, I'm not AT ALL familiar with heavy farm equipment repair / maintenance so I could be WAY off base.
I'm guessing the "few lines of code" was something like telling the tractor to recognize the new equipment, probably something akin to typing something at the CLI or editing a config file.
If it was actually modifying the firmware that should be part of a standard free update like any other software package.
To the extent that John Deere does have a legit argument I'd say that it's a lot easier to make an interface that can be fixed by a technician who's trained by you and answerable to you, and making someth
Re: (Score:2)
You'll need to cite sources on your claims of "most tractors are leased."
In my experience, farmers will buy the equipment, even at the amazing expense (a capable but not ridiculously overspec'd tractor can be half a million dollars or more) because they plan on using it for a much longer term than any lease would give them, and they don't want to lock themselves into bullshit service agreements that have them waiting for days in the middle of a harvest, praying weather holds and their crop doesn't spoil whi
Will it help? (Score:2)
John Deere has undoubtedly made their machines such a rat's nest of interdependent hardware and software that simply allowing an owner to perform the repair might not help the situation. It may prove too costly by the time you invest in all of the necessary equipment.
You might have to mandate design. And if you can't even get around to mandating that a battery in a phone be easy to replace, what hope is there for tractor repairs?
Re: (Score:2)
Even the simple refrigerator now wants to connect to some internet server (but why?). My parent's fridge had a physical thermostat to kick the compressor on/off and a defrost timer. The other wiring consisted of a door light. As long as the coolant stayed where it belonged the rest was repairable with a couple of hand tools from the garage and ONE new part.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember limping the old fridge along for another 5 years by periodically shooting a bit of WD40 into the defrost timer.
I’m fine with this as long (Score:2)
Right-to-repair doesn’t mean immunity from being an idiot. As long as we get that straight, I’m 100% for these types of laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Farmers have been operating dangerous machinery for decades - literally since the first single-cylinder tractors and towed combine harvesters on metal wheels came out a hundred years ago. They know what they're doing, and they accept responsibility if they do dumb shit. They've literally been operating this equipment their entire lives, usually learning how to drive a tractor or harvester well before driving a car.
It's been that way for decades. Like, actual decades. I have aunts and uncles that can tel
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, it’s these very same self-styled ayn-randian-Uber-mensch-anarcho-capitalist-libertarians that will sue literally everyone around them, their friends, their family, their senator, and god almighty himself, at the drop of a hat, when something they do blows up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right-to-repair does not mean immunity from being an idiot. As long as we get that straight, I am 100% for these types of laws.
Yeah, and right to repair also does not mean that you have a right to force a rectal probe up your neighbors anus. Not really all that earth shattering of a statement.
Corporations claim immunity from being idiots all the time. And the court grants such immunity sometimes. How the Courts decide on all of that is a separate matter, and the human survival instinct holds that most h
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of a single right to repair advocate that has EVER argued otherwise.
In other words that is and has always been a strawman created by the manufacturers.
"Should" is pretty harsh language (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It should have been "MUST".
Preventing Repair should just be illegal. period.