Hacker News Reader

Comment by bpodgursky | Hacker News Reader

Well, you can frame this both ways, because the contract clause, allowing people to (by default) sign binding contracts, also counts towards "grant the people permission to do something". And that's what this is — the farmer signing a contract to use the equipment in a certain way.

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.

View on HN

On paper that all sounds well and good, but that completely discounts the power imbalance between large corporations and normal people.

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"

That's why I am arguing that this law is good, but the default contract clause (which the OP comment is arguing against) is also good.

This is actuslly the part where other tractor companies should be stepping in and eating Deere's lunch.

Why aren't they?

Because they would rather have a 20% profit margin on 5% of the market, than a 1% profit margin on 50% of it?

Being in the latter position is precarious, being in the former is printing free money.

Maybe if you spend your entire day looking at percents, and never get back down to dollars.

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.

> That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold mine.

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.

>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.

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!

Because no market has ever been free in any meaningful sense.

Unlimited contracting rights, which I am not saying you support, are a very dangerous path to go down because history shows they will be abused in very serious ways to reduce the actual freedom of large subsets of the population.

You are absolutely right that we should pursue more freedom in signing the contracts and this is exactly what such regulation is supposed to do: a contract with the vendor must not block signing the contracts with other suppliers and repair shops. It creates more freedom by being more explicit about what is a valid contract.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com