Senate introduces bill to allow farmers to fix their own equipment
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
On every bid we sent them the #1 requirement was Proprietary Fit. There had to be some sort of IP lockout (always disguised as a valuable design feature, but it never was) to prevent end users from procuring replacement parts anywhere else. In many cases it even made the parts significantly worse, as useless bumps or ridges were added to the industry standard to make them physically incompatible.
The old model was we build a part for $8 and sell it to the end user for $10. Under Deere's new model, we build the part for $8, sell it exclusively to Deere for $11, and they sell it to customer for $16.
My former employer was very complicit in this behavior, but Deere was by far the most aggressive about and a big enough player to squeeze all their suppliers.
Edit: They pay all kinds of lip service to how this is better for the customer ("reliable supply chain", "Deere-guaranteed quality", etc) but that's only in their public PR. Behind the scenes it is 100% about securing a long term revenue source - customers pay out the ass for a piece of equipment, then have to keep coming back to Deere for 50 years for replacement parts.
Schematics do not always 100% lead to stolen and reproduced IP.
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/fancy-a-chinese-interpr...
People should be able to repair their belongings. We shouldn't need a law for each type of belonging.
Edit: Boring title and "text not available yet"
As much as this law makes sense, the blanket right to form contracts between individuals/businesses/etc (when those contracts are not explicitly deemed abusive) is very important and I don't think we would be in a better place without it.
When somebody wants to buy a good, if the only way to do that is to accept a one-sided ToS that makes them give up there rights, that's just eroding freedom.
The problem is, it's not a choice anymore. John Deere isn't saying "hey, want to sign up for our repair program?"
It's saying "If you want a tractor we actually control what you can do with it forever. Too bad you need this tractor to work, tough luck we own you"
Why aren't they?
Being in the latter position is precarious, being in the former is printing free money.
That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold mine. Playing it the other way just ensures that bad ideas never get out competed. Honestly, it just takes less work to make something non user hostile. There has to be a perverse incentive somewhere.
Or a quick death spiral into bankruptcy in response to any disruption in business as usual.
This is a manufacturer of heavy industrial machinery, not a software startup, or a grocery store. You can't just turn down your burn rate by 1% in response to a 1% drop in demand, and you don't have a magical firehose of VC money that will smooth over any rough edges in your quest to improve the world by conquering the industrial machinery market, and driving all potential profits to near-zero with zero vendor lock-in.
Hell, the VCs will run away screaming when you get the 'zero vendor lock-in' part of your pitch.
>Hell, the VCs will run away screaming when you get the 'zero vendor lock-in' part of your pitch.
Well there's your problem, right there. Stop looking at yourself as a financial frigging instrument. You make effing machinery. Not hold people logistically hostage. This is why there is no trust in industry anymore. This is why the same bloody handful of people are sitting on top of everything. This is why people have about had it. Can't solve a damn problem without making half a dozen more. Make tractors. All standard parts. High quality.
But no... Can't do that. Gotta try to exploit the rubes. This is why everyone feels like the damn game is fixed. The same power hungry assholes are the ones all sitting on the damn capital.
Anyone wants to try to compete? Lock em out of capital access! Start organizing? Lobby!
Also, the right to repair may mean different things: it can forbid exclusive contracts with spare parts suppliers, so that you could shop or repair elsewhere. Or it can regulate the price and availability. Or it can allow you to manufacture replacement parts on your own. The first option would be an equivalent of antitrust regulation in the vendor-specific ecosystem, and it seems pretty reasonable, because it will create a market where it did not yet exist. The second option will be economically destructive, because it would replace free market with planned economy. The last option may result in creating a black market of pirated parts, actually harming manufacturers which invested in R&D.
And to void previous contracts written that way.
That's actually what I think the title should of been. But that's my own opinion.
"Senate introduces bill to forbid farming contracts that limit right to repair"
I get that, it's just a titling thing. Even framing the discussion in that way is not only a more accurate description of what's happening (as you've elaborated) but it lands better (if you were looking at this as a libertarian type perspective).
Anyway, it's just a thing that irks me is all.
That's the thing about contracts and debt -- they let people who have the advantage today rob you for not just what's in your pocket today, but what will be in your pocket tomorrow.
Being required to wait around burning days waiting on some specialized technician who can charge exorbitant fees does not work.
Give farmers access to the appropriate parts and resources and they will make their machines function and operate.
Just look at the huge list of implements here: https://www.kubotausa.com/products/tractors/utility/m4-serie...
So great, you bought a Kubota. Your nearest Kubota dealer can end up being 400 miles from you. They don't ship these things, you come buy and pick them up.
No one said farmers are not able to repair other brands.
The point is not all dealers/part suppliers are within a geographically reasonable distance. Think in hundreds and hundreds of miles or states away. Not just the other side of town.
John Deere on the other hand has rather dense distribution by comparison.
On the other hand, if Deere wants a market without right-to-repair requirements, they can simply not sell in the US. Voting with their feet, as it were.
Round one: this is great
Hardware equipment for farmers (funded by John Deere and Caterpillar) lobbyists hard at work.
Round two: here is a water down version
Lobbyists “discover” that there is a risk of sudden death if a farmer accidentally connects two very potential wires… Lobbyists "do more highly paid” work with unions, OSHA, worker’s compensation insurance companies.
Round three: warranty denied, worker’s compensation denied if worker (the word farmer has been deleted) fix anything that presents a risk of electrocution, or could physically harm the worker or co-workers
Hardware??? Apple & Co. lobbyists jump into the action
Bill is killed. Not enough support at the Senate. The people have spoken.
> Tester said: “I think when you get into other areas like cellphones and TVs and all that kind of stuff, it brings in all sorts of other issues that I am personally not as familiar with as agriculture. That’s not to say that those other issues aren’t really, really important. What it is to say is that I know this issue reasonably well, and I thought this is an issue that we need to deal with, and the sooner the better.”
Of course you don't understand all possible economic sectors and the issues they face. You're a Senator. You can't be expected to have personal expertise on everything. But it's your job to represent everybody anyway, not just the people working in whatever sector you used to work in before you became a Senator. This is why you have a staff. If you don't understand broader technology, hire people who do.
My fear is that this targeted advance on right-to-repair will mean fading support as specific groups get what they want/need.
No revolution in a dictatorship happens if the army is kept happy. This is paying the 'army' (those with the resource for R2R) for their support, leaving the citizens to their own.
Court challenges are much more effective at re-establishing individual rights. They're more applicable and usually more broad, especially if you can get a SCOTUS ruling. This law will likely delay a favorable court ruling.
Most democratic systems are built this way on purpose, to ensure no one branch of government has too much power. We don't necessarily want the branch in charge of interpreting the law to also be given the ability to write it.
The purchase of a tractor severs control via the first sale doctrine, which Deere must [be compelled to] respect.
For example, given the compute in the tractor I wouldn't be surprised if they licensed the code rather than sold you it under a first sale doctrine with a right of resale. Almost all software is sold that way already. So even with this bill it's hard for me to see them opening that up, in particular if it makes it easier for other countries to copy things.
Basically only ever lease the machines etc.
The manufacturer should have to prove that the customer opening the device is what caused the defect.
Totally unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wonder to what extent is lying illegal? Like, is it illegal to put such text on a sticker on your product, or is it only illegal to not fulfil a promise that is covered by warranty when the sticker is broken?
It smells like a cartel to me. Either way, it doesn't seem easy to compete in such a space.
Also, you don't have to be "Big Ag" sized to need a 6 figure piece of equipment. Not at all.