Manufacturers and dealerships raised concerns that providing tools and information to farmers would allow equipment owners to illegally crank up the horsepower and bypass emissions controls — putting operator safety and the environment at risk.
These are not serious arguments, are they?
Serialized parts don't prevent you from defeating emissions controls anyway - there's plenty of low-tech ways to tamper with sensors to do the same thing. Even the theft prevention[0] benefits are limited, because the chip with the serial codes on it can be desoldered and resoldered onto a new board.
[0] i.e. if someone were to chop-shop your phone or tractor. It happens.
There are reliability improvements to be had as well, reducing operating costs still further (the emissions equipment can get clogged up, especially if the engine isn't running perfectly).
So yeah, farmers (all commercial diesel users really) have a strong financial incentive to avoid or remove these emissions controls, provided they don't get caught of course.
These tools aren't being used to work on skateboards or jet skis, these tools are being used to fix a tractor so the farmer can do their job.
One could think of a ton of illegal things a welder could be used for, but we aren't taking welding tools away from welders are we?
it allows for manufacturers to greatly simplify manufacturing requirements and lower costs, and it allows farmers to buy the tractor they need today and to grow into upgrades as they need them, without the downtime or expense of an engine swap if they need horsepower later.
manufacturers are afraid that the tools they would be required to provide could allow someone to "upgrade" their engine for free, but that's not what right to repair is about, and I would be surprised if a law required that upgrades like this be made possible by end users free of charge.
so it's a legit concern if you are a manufacturer of tractors and you compare what's being done in other areas of consumer electronics. oscilloscopes today are often sold in this same way: all models have the same potential for performance but are limited in software, so hackers bypass or trick the software to unlock the higher speeds when you only paid for the entry-level scope. In reality it is not much of a concern, since the percentage of customers who do this is extremely small.
the main problem for tractor manufacturers is that new regulations require them to spend money in order to be in compliance with those regulations. money that was not budgeted and which affects earnings reports and changes work priorities within a company. The desire to avoid regulations which require expenditure of any kind is what is drives the motivation of every company that resists right to repair efforts.
I think the manufacturers' real concern has not been cost of compliance, but rather loss of service revenues which business model is arguably customer-hostile.
well, usually the services needed by the owner are provided by a dealer, and not the vehicle manufacturer, so I'm not sure that holds water. I don't think the manufacturers lose anything except a small amount of goodwill from a dealer who can no longer charge $100 every few years when a particular dealer tool would be needed to convince a tractor to resume operation. that's not a lot of loss for a dealer.
manufacturers do supply parts, but that wouldn't change if an end user installs the parts instead of a dealer. most farmers fix their own tractors using first-party parts already.
One safety concern for untrained technicians is the possibility of activating motors, and other circuits during the repair process without ensuring those things are safe to operate in their repair/disassembled state. So, there is a legit safety argument, but that's true for many tools that are sold at the local hardware store.
So they pretty much have to lie.