[HN Gopher] Colorado governor signs tractor right-to-repair law ... ___________________________________________________________________ Colorado governor signs tractor right-to-repair law opposed by John Deere Author : FridayoLeary Score : 415 points Date : 2023-04-27 15:26 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com) (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com) | vvpan wrote: | Are there countries out there with good right-to-repair laws? How | does Colorado now stand up on the international scale? | eitland wrote: | I think EU is getting there. | | One recent win: Nintendo has agreed to lifetime replacement of | Switch controllers, and while they or their reseller tried to | weasel their way out of it by demanding sales receipts, | consumer authorities has already pointed out the ridiculousness | of it as every single one of them are eligible for replacement | anyway. | jnsie wrote: | Who wants to set up a company to repair John Deere equipment? We | can aptly call it "Dear John". | LastNevadan wrote: | Did you hear about the tractor salesman whose wife left him? | | She left him a John Deere letter! | tejohnso wrote: | Why couldn't this have been done through market competition? Is | there no tractor manufacturer who could step up and advertise | their lower TCO with their open repair policy? And if not, and if | the demand was so strong, why wouldn't a new company have sprung | up to compete on that basis? | cft wrote: | Probably because the industry consolidated due to regulatory | capture to one manufacturer per continent (economic zone). | causi wrote: | _And if not, and if the demand was so strong, why wouldn 't a | new company have sprung up to compete on that basis?_ | | You don't have to prove the reason why to observe that it | didn't happen. No company sprung up. | crazygringo wrote: | But you can definitely ask why not. Asking questions helps | our understanding, to help recognize where situations like | this might also exist, or arise in the future. | | I wouldn't want HN to become a place where you can't ask | questions! | hanniabu wrote: | True market competition doesn't exist in capitalism | csilverman wrote: | This can't be said enough. | | The "capitalism encourages healthy competition that works to | the advantages of innovation and the consumer" only works | when companies are prevented from cheating. And the natural | inclination of anybody who wants money and power is to cheat. | crazygringo wrote: | I just want to say that it's a shame you're being severely | downvoted. | | Because this is a serious question whose answer is extremely | non-obvious. Is this a market failure or not? If so, what kind? | Is this a very unique market failure that needs specific | legislation to address in farm equipment specifically, or is it | generalizable to certain conditions that future legislation | might target to benefit more people? If so, what are those | conditions? | | I think we can defend right-to-repair, and at the same time ask | the serious questions about why we need legislation around it | at all, why it hasn't happened on its own? | neogodless wrote: | The top comment on the thread 15 days ago prompted a lot of | discussion of this point, so it may interest you. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35533738 | bogwog wrote: | You're getting downvoted, but I think this is a really good | question. Why didn't market competition solve this issue? | | I don't know enough about this to be able to answer. Maybe John | Deer was guilty of anti-competitive behavior that suppressed | competition in the market? Or there are some other challenges | that make it difficult to start a farm equipment company? | i_am_proteus wrote: | That other challenge is called "John Deere's moat: market | entrenchment via dealership/service center network." | | Agriculture is very time-of-year dependent. Waiting a few | weeks for spare parts can be devastating to annual revenue. | mcguire wrote: | Because, as you suggest, suppressing competition is a winning | strategy, especially when there are barriers to entry? | Because the free market prefers monopolies? | Etrnl_President wrote: | [dead] | forgetfreeman wrote: | You're a smallholding farmer. The last couple of years crops | have done well enough you've managed to pay down enough of your | debt to the ag supply corp that you've got enough financial | wiggle room to finance a new equipment purchase. Are you going | to go with the incumbent player with four generations of | history in the industry and a network of dealerships across the | planet or Bay Area BushelMaster's new offering that's been on | the market for 18 months, is advertised largely in Facebook | Groups, who's sole dealership is a job trailer behind a carwash | in Fresno? Hell, Mahindra makes more tractors than any other | manufacturer on the planet and they're just now starting to | make inroads into the 20 acre hobby farm, homestead, and | landscaping market niches (hearafter referred to as the | Bullshit Tractor Market or BTM for short). It'll be another 20 | years before you start seeing fleets of Mahindra combines | cruising the seas of wheat in the midwest, if ever that day | comes. | dotancohen wrote: | Is the personal vehicle market much different? Tesla seemed | to upset all the incumbents, against what look to me to be | similar issues. | forgetfreeman wrote: | These two markets are so different that the only properties | they share is both items cost money and are made out of | roughly the same raw materials (steel, plastic, wiring, | etc). Tesla managed to claw their way into the industry | through a brilliant marketing campaign that nailed the | subset of the (entirely suburban) market that believe an | expensive car is a status symbol and new always means | better. This line absolutely does not scan in the context | of agricultural equipment, where the defining ethic is one | of hard work and rugged dependability, both of which have | to be proven in action. All the hyper-macho cargo-pants- | and-a-tactical-vest advertising in the world isn't going to | make a dent in an industry where the only two | considerations are price and proven durability. So you've | got a chicken-and-the-egg problem. To prove durability and | workability you have to have product in the field, but | nobody's buying unproven equipment. Put another way: the ag | industry doesn't have a cohort of suburbanites with loose | cash and a taste for novely to tap into. | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | ...and absolutely not because EVs are superior to ICE | cars in many critera? | | I didn't buy my Tesla as a status symbol, I bought it | because of the 0-60 time. | Mistletoe wrote: | I'll tell you one reason and it is in lots of farmers' minds | John Deere is the best. It's a status symbol. That's what it is | for my Dad. It's a flashy Cadillac. Probably why their insane | policies have continued. | JohnFen wrote: | > Why couldn't this have been done through market competition? | | There are a ton of problems that can't be solved through market | competition. | gnarbarian wrote: | tldr: read "shop craft is soul craft" | | in theory it could have been solved by a more competitive | market. | | I believe most shortfalls in our current market economy stem | from a lack of competition and then subsequent cartel style | collusion for the few big players, high barriers to entry | that are fortified through regulatory capture, and a tendency | for lots of small players in tight competition to consolidate | over time into fewer bigger players. (I think we need to | disincentiveze consolidation in all but the most egregious | cases of natural monopolies like most public utilities) | | this answers so many questions from "why is it so hard to | work on my new car" to "why do my tennis shoes wear out so | fast". | | there are also cultural factors. people using the tools | aren't the same craftsmen who build, repair, and sell them. | each of these disciplines is now siloed and few companies are | putting real effort into considering this holistic lifecycle | view of their products. | | then when these options do exist people may not be aware, or | obtaining them is more immediately expensive or less | convenient in the short term. or they simply don't care. | JohnFen wrote: | > I believe most shortfalls in our current market economy | stem from a lack of competition | | That set of problem is indeed enormous. I'm not arguing | otherwise. But there is also an enormous set of problems | that can't be solved by more competition, but people put | forth "more competition" as a solution anyway. | | Increasing competition is valuable, but it's not a panacea. | | I'm far from convinced that this particular problem can be | solved by more competition for a few reasons, but the | primary one is this: the established players have shown | that behaving this way will maximize profit. New players in | the space have a greater economic pressure to do the same | than to do differently. | bogwog wrote: | Can you give a good example of a market problem that | can't be solved through increased competition? | dragonwriter wrote: | Any problem involving externalities rather than monopoly. | [deleted] | [deleted] | astockwell wrote: | Barrier to entry/market penetration meets the 10+ year | amortization schedules of six/seven/eight figure machinery. | jollyllama wrote: | +1 For actually attempting to answer the poster's question. | Seeing five replies to the effect of "it just can't" was | frustrating. | scythe wrote: | I believe it could also be argued that some fraction of the | value created by repairability is in fact an externality. | Your standard rational pricing model uses exponential | discounting. A farmer does not necessarily expect to be in | business for the entire useful lifetime of a tractor. But the | resold tractor provides potentially more value to the economy | if it is easier to fix. I.e. the initial buyer's discount | rate should be higher than the overall society's discount | rate, because they get most of the value from using the | tractor, not its resale, but society gets more value if the | tractor can be used longer by other farmers. | | This mostly applies to tractors that, today, are too old to | violate R2R. But someday, the tractors sold today will be | that old. | hedgehog wrote: | In most industries there are scale and network effects that | favor larger incumbents regardless of the wishes or long term | interests of customers. That's why startups are nearly always | started off the springboard of big social or technical changes, | otherwise there's no room for them to get started. Incumbents | work to tilt the field in their favor through expanded product | features, lock-in via cross product integrations, exclusive | distribution deals, heavy regulation, etc. Simple example: All | current iPhones are much bigger than I want, but the switching | cost of going to Android is very high due to lock in via Apple | services and integration between devices so I don't leave. | Paradoxically competitive markets require some regulation to | fight customer lock-in. | thomasjb wrote: | 'Open repair policy' ~= No dealership support in your country. | There's a number of lesser known brands of tractor which just | bolt together parts from ZF, Perkins and the like, but they | don't have dealer coverage, and there's low expected longevity | of what dealers they do have. A Hattat or Basak tractor is a | fairly straightforward machine which you could work on yourself | just fine, but there's just no dealer coverage, which means | there's no quick way to get parts | jacksnipe wrote: | It's hard to imagine a more mature industry than _farming | capital_. It's not exactly going to be easy to even compete on | quality, let alone disrupt. | forgetfreeman wrote: | This is how hard that industry is to disrupt: I needed a mid- | sized utility tractor in the 40-60 hp range with a loader. I | briefly visited the local Mahindra dealer, decided their | offerings looked both expensive and flimsy, and then spent a | month on FB marketplace until I found a 1974 Ford Industrial | in good working order. | WalterBright wrote: | Part of this stems from intellectual property laws, which are | more or less a legal fiction invented by the government, and | are not an inherent property of a free market. | biftek wrote: | ag machinery has generational life spans, they aren't laptops | or even lawn mowers. | | would you buy the from the start up who pinky promises to | always let you repair it, or the incumbent who is annoying to | work with but has existed your entire life and will after you | die? | naikrovek wrote: | there are reasons for government, and things like this are one | of them. left alone, companies will always prioritize short- | term goals over long-term goals. | | budgets in the short-term are negatively impacted by this | decision for all/most tractor makers, which is why they | resisted this change. no one can accurately predict market | forces that far out, so short-term concerns, being much easier | to predict, win out. | valine wrote: | One of the main benefits of right to repair is to keep tractors | in service for longer. Your solution is for farmers to throw | away their tractors and buy new ones? | | What's to stop the new manufacturer from implementing a similar | policy once the farmers are locked in with an expensive | purchase? | mhb wrote: | A contract? | valine wrote: | How about a law? Then every farmer doesn't have to | negotiate repair terms. | eitland wrote: | As we have seen it didn't work, at least not right now. | | Even if this is just a band aid while we wait for competition | to pop up (I'm not that optimistic about the market) it would | still be valuable and I see no problems with it. | scottyah wrote: | It probably would happen, it'd just take more time. The best | minds of my generation are trying to become famous on tiktok, | resting and vesting at Big Tech, or writing day trading | algorithms. Minimal work to max profit is what we're all trying | to optimize. | JohnFen wrote: | > Minimal work to max profit is what we're all trying to | optimize. | | That attitude is why John Deere and similar have the | anticustomer policies that they do. | mcguire wrote: | That, as they say, is the purpose of any corporation. Their | responsibility is to their shareholders. | JohnFen wrote: | No. This is a mischaracterization of both the purpose of | corporations and the responsibility corporations have to | their shareholders. | | The purpose of a corporation is not "profit above all | else". Corporations are also supposed to operate in a | manner that benefits society. We used to actually strip | corporations of their charters when they failed their | social responsibility. | | The responsibility to shareholders depends a lot on the | charter, but in general, it's to run the company in a | profitable and sustainable manner. Again, it's not "make | the most money possible no matter what". If that were the | case, then there would be no corporations engaging in | anything but the highest-margin sorts of business. So | there'd be no low-margin stuff like toilet paper. | wavefunction wrote: | The purpose of incorporation is to encourage business | speculation by offering a mechanism to limit personal | liability of the owners. That's the only purpose a | corporation has and they definitely don't have | responsibilities themselves as they are only a legal | fiction. The employees of a corporation have | responsibilities. | gnarbarian wrote: | I think things are moving in the opposite direction. tech has | enabled heavier handed control over products Long after they | are sold. often customers legally do not own the products | they buy through IP law shenanigans amounting to legal | machinations as bizarre as leasing a pair of tennis shoes for | $120. you're free to throw them out but you may not use them | in a way that reflects poorly on the brand. | SkyBelow wrote: | Regulatory capture has distorted the market, making it harder | for competitors to join. How much of the existing issue | preventing sharing of information, tools, and technology to | repair the current equipment is supported by government laws, | be they IP, DRM, or anti-hacking, or other? | adamc wrote: | The suggestion needs evidence to be anything more than | ideology. | forgetfreeman wrote: | What evidence is lacking? Regulatory capture is a well- | documented phenomenon, that it exists is not in question. | Surely you're not proposing that industries are spending | billions to drive this phenomenon for no reason? | SkyBelow wrote: | Why would there be a demand of evidence for my response | when there isn't one for the previous question I was | responding to? It appeared to me the question asked was | ideological, given that it was an informal question of a | few sentences and not giving plenty of evidence to the idea | that another competitor would have solved the issue? | toss1 wrote: | First, "free market competition" is NOT a cure-all for | everything. | | The "Free Market" does do a far better job of rapidly and semi- | accurately allocating resources and labor than central | planning. | | However, the "Free Market" is absolutely horrible at solving | other problems, starting with the Commons Problem, and | including the tendency towards monopolies, which are the | problem here. It is a near-mathematical certainty in a 'free | market' that the big get bigger, and weild that power to crush | any upstarts. Even if there is massive demand for something | new, the entrenched monopoly/near-monopoly/cartel players will | crush it. This is the case here. Also, in regulated markets | (i.e., all of them, see next paragraph), the large players will | often succeed at regulatory capture, which further enables | them. | | Also note that the "free market" is an absolute fiction. It | does not exist. Every market has rules, spoken or tacit. | | The only question is what are the rules and how are they | enforced. Wise governments will set rules that minimize the | tendency towards monopoly, and protect their institutions and | citizens from regulatory capture. This is a step in that | direction. | | Another tack to answer your question is to observe what | actually happens in these "free" markets. There has been | enormous demand for this, with pressure provoking legislatures | to attempt to act for decades, yet no competitor has arisen. | Similarly, it took literally most of a century, and major | legislation to get car companies to even start installing | safety gear like collapsible steering columns (replacing the | ones that impaled the drivers in small collisions), seat belts, | airbags, etc. Plenty of demand, but a cartel-ish industry fails | to meet it. | | Re-examine your libertarian tendencies more closely. I also | used to find it an attractive concept, but it is full of glib | answers that are not actually realizable in the real world (and | often not even in toy models). Actually working through the | consequences of many of the concepts shows that they are just a | mirage, and sticking to those ideas simply enables monopolists | and oligarchs to thrive. | Etrnl_President wrote: | [dead] | dktoao wrote: | Bravo, I wish I had read this when I was a young "free | market" idealist. | legohead wrote: | Competition isn't enough for this issue, it needs to be written | into law. | | And tractors/farm equipment isn't the only thing we need right | to repair on. So count this as a small victory towards a much | larger goal. | Spooky23 wrote: | Tractors aren't a pure commodity. It's an ecosystem of | machinery, service and accessories. | | Market forces work best with commodities and substitute | products. The farther away you get, the weaker the effect. | mindslight wrote: | Because P != NP, as far as we know. | kodah wrote: | This is a huge win for rural people, open source, and ag-tech. | Hats off to Colorado for understanding what's at stake and the | brass to fix it. | whitemary wrote: | Hardly. This never should have been necessary to begin with. | It's pathetic that it took so long to reverse. | bigwavedave wrote: | >> This is a huge win for rural people, open source, and ag- | tech. Hats off to Colorado for understanding what's at stake | and the brass to fix it. | | > Hardly. This never should have been necessary to begin | with. It's pathetic that it took so long to reverse. | | Are you kidding me? We have been lambasting corrupt | politicians who are too greedy to stand against lobbyists and | wishing for the right to repair for years and now that it's | happened, all you can say is "no big deal, this isn't a win, | harrumph harrumph?" Bollocks to you, good sir. | | Of course it should have been a given in the first place! | However, while I can't speak for you, I myself live in an | imperfect world where we must do the best we can with what we | have. So if, for a change, elected officials act in the best | interests of their constituents to overturn something that | you and I both readily agree is a disgusting perversion of | the law, YES it's a win, and GOOD FOR THEM. Shame on you. | neogodless wrote: | Related: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35532479 Colorado passes | agricultural Right to Repair (ifixit.com - 15 days ago, 124 | comments) | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35714294 Colorado becomes | first to pass 'right to repair' for farmers (wivb.com - 1 day | ago, 83 comments) | frankfrank13 wrote: | Hopefully we see more like this. But also, as a Coloradoan, just | wanna say I appreciate Polis for giving time to _real_ | legislation. I know now everyone loves him, he is a politician | after all, but you gotta love a Gov. who doesn 't exist solely to | posture for the extreme half of his/her base. | dabluecaboose wrote: | I have to say my biggest criticism of Polis is his asinine | opinions on Pueblo chile being superior to Hatch | mfragin wrote: | Here in Pueblo there are a lot of "closet" Hatch chili people | ;-) | | Seriously though, I think Polis has done a good job and he's | the rare politician who can understand the implications of | the right-to-repair law. | | When I was teaching Comp Sci at the high school level and we | got a bunch of refurbished computers from his foundation ( | http://www.jaredpolisfoundation.org/ ). | | The desktops came with bare-bone Windows and a bunch of open | source applications. Of course we put Linux on all of them | anyway, but most people back then would have NOT known how to | use a Linux box, so the setup they came with was | understandable. | dfxm12 wrote: | We should be so lucky that our politicians' biggest fault is | poor taste in chiles... :) | friend_and_foe wrote: | This is only for farmers and farm equipment. I'll take a win when | I get one, but do we have a right to repair our property or not? | I think we do, and a government gracefully giving us some of our | rights is not good enough. | MisterTea wrote: | This sets precedence for future cases. This is a good win no | matter how small or obscure people want to think it is. | ddtaylor wrote: | We just need to take this same success and copy/paste it to | other industries enough times until everyone gets tired of | doing N different legislation and a more abstract and | widespread bill is created and passed. | | Farm equipment was a good first win because the opposition | isn't as big as some other industries. It's relatively easy to | get everyone on board with helping farmers and compared to say | Apple or Google companies like John Deer don't have as deep of | pockets. | | We probably won't have a lot of success jumping directly to one | of the more difficult markets like phones or cars, since the | opposition there is strong, well connected and well funded. | | The next battle will likely be won over a market that is bigger | than farm equipment but smaller than phones or cars in general. | I could see kitchen appliances, washesr/dryers or other | equipment in that space being a good target. It would be | relatively easy to motivate a base of people to care about it, | because everyone has these appliances, and the opposition is | fragmented and not as well funded in lobbying. | ip26 wrote: | Step by step. John Deere is allegedly one of the most flagrant | abusers of repairability, so it's the right place to start. | asebold wrote: | This is so, so important for helping family farms stay alive. | | The amount my family has saved by being able to fix and even | modify stuff on their own is huge. My dad still mows our lawn | with an antique Allis-Chalmers hooked up to a commercial mower. | Equipment is wildly expensive compared to margins at smaller | scales (think like 2k acres for small farms). Things need to last | for decades or generations in order to keep a profit. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | [flagged] | m4jor wrote: | I'd argue allowing farmers to fix their own stuff is way | better (and safer) than them having to seek out sketchy | foreign vendors/hacks in order to fix their own equipment on | the black market as an alternative. | | Obviously the majority of farmers aren't going to be going | into the software and editing it themselves, but instead | paying reputable companies in the industry to do the | programming/fixing/debugging for them. | | Companies like John Deere could embrace this by releasing a | ton of guides and self-learning classes to teach these same | farmers how to do basic coding, repairs, debugging and etc. | themselves. Could start a whole new wave and generation of | tech-literate and educated farmers which would be better for | all involved. | ep103 wrote: | If the John Deere engineers understand those systems so well, | then they could design their products in ways that the | farmers could repair the products for common use cases. They | are intentionally designing the products to prevent that. | That's the whole problem. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | [flagged] | crmd wrote: | Safety and performance are elements of the cover story | not drivers of the product strategy. | IntelMiner wrote: | >They're designing the products for maximum safety and | performance | | How do you know this. Do you work for Jon Deere? Since | the code is closed source that's simply an assumption | shagie wrote: | Product liability for industrial and agricultural | equipment gets interesting. | | You can modify a household lawn mower and if you get | maimed by it by those modifications, you're at fault. | | However, for industrial equipment if you can modify it - | the manufacturer is likely liable. Consider how often you | hear about deaths due to manufacturing defects (the stats | for deaths for framers is 60 - 70 per year per 100,000 in | the US). | | https://www.wkw.com/farming-accidents/blog/farming- | accidents... (personal injury lawyer site) | gjsman-1000 wrote: | > They're designing the products for maximum safety and | performance. It was never in the cards to make it open. | | Well, then, that was _stupid_ of John Deere and makes | them a victim of their own arrogance. Period. There | wouldn 't be a law right now if John Deere hadn't | unnecessarily, by their own actions, pissed off so many | people in the process of increasing "safety" and | "performance". As though anybody complained about the | lack of "safety and performance" in the century-long | history of tractors before computers came along and saved | us. | | Let's be clear here: John Deere, a multi-billion dollar | company, isn't the victim here, but the aggressor against | family farms, good intentions or not. Mourning for them | is absurd. | | > A huge change, that will take years and millions to | achieve? | | Nope. It's as easy as clicking "Publish" on the | repositories and setting the Dropbox folder to "Public." | I could do it in 15 minutes. Any legal review or trade | secret review or whatever else is entirely the company | protecting their own interests. John Deere has done that | long enough, a hard deadline is their self-inflicted | penalty. | jitix wrote: | This legislation is more akin to allowing you to repair | your PC and replace a damaged RAM module. | | I don't think any farmer is looking to tinker with the | control software, and even if they want they should be | able to tinker considering it's their property and their | farmland and only they themselves are liable for any | damages caused to neighbours or otherwise. | | John Deere is just trying to create artificial barriers | and extract more value from existing customers. | eganist wrote: | It kinda just sounds like you're content with family | farms not existing, because all of your points fail to | address the economic realities for these farms. | wewtyflakes wrote: | (As an outsider looking in) I think Deere's (and many | other companies) financial incentives more align with | product gatekeeping, than with maximum safety and | performance; maximum safety does not pay Deere's bills, | but service appointments do. | idiotsecant wrote: | Huh? This is about things like hardware modules not | connecting to the bus until an authorized repairer allows | them to, exposing part numbers so board level repairs can | happen, releasing board schematics, and things like that. | Nobody is suggesting re-writing firmware? There is a mountain | of context that you're either unaware of or leaving out on | purpose for some reason. | beiller wrote: | This is an odd comment in my opinion. Do you work at John | Deere? I ask only because you say you are familiar with their | testing environment. I don't think your horror scenario is | realistic. How many farms are located in a neighborhood? If a | farmer destroys property they are probably liable. I don't | think John Deere is restricting repairs to protect random | property damage since since I've never heard of that | happening before. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | Sorry, should have said, worked on the John Deere guidance | module for auto-driving tractors. As a contractor. | | There are field limits defined. But they are respected as | algorithms need, to determine turn parameters at the end of | a row. I could imagine easily that fiddling with that code | could end up with a tractor on the other side. | | What horror scenarios do you think are realistic? Remember | we are considering multi-ton machines with maybe a thousand | horsepower, wielding huge spinning blades and crusher | mechanisms. What scenario can we consider that is not a | horror show? | itake wrote: | I am still trying to understand your point. | | While I agree these systems are highly complex, I am not | sure why farmers need to mess with source code to perform | a repair? If farmers are messing with the code (disabling | sensors or whatever), then I'd have to assume the farmer | knows they are taking on this risk that their tractor | will not function as expected. | | If sensors can be safely disabled, then why not provide | an easy to do that? | Etrnl_President wrote: | [dead] | pitched wrote: | Assuming that there is some sort of sensor that's | measuring these turn radiuses? What happens to the | machine when the sensor malfunctions? Does it shut down | (requiring work to stop), keep going (being a huge | liability) or is there a box of them under the chair the | operator can swap in and keep going? I think what's being | asked for here is option 3, not so much being able to | modify turn parameters. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | To me, even though you might call this hitting a nerve, | this comment and the one you did earlier, scream the | classic stereotype of white collar workers looking down | on blue collar workers like farming. "If they were smart | like me, they wouldn't be farmers." "They are too dumb to | manage a multi-ton machine despite having done it for | over a century. Unlike me, who has written code for a few | years." | | Farmers aren't stupid. They're actually sometimes very | high-IQ people because maintaining a profit with so many | constraints and uncontrollable circumstances is extremely | difficult; and Silicon Valley flunkies would be in | bankrupt within days of trying. If they could even | survive waking up at 4AM for more than 3 days in a row. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | I'm a robotics engineer designing an open source solar | powered farming robot (links in my profile). | | I gotta be honest it sounds like you have been exposed to | Deere's propaganda and believed it. To put this another | way, I feel like you're missing what this bill is really | about. | | Deere has added software locks to their modules so that | even if you can source another identical module with | identical firmware and you're capable of plugging it in, | you have to use dealer software to change the software | lock and allow the module to work with your tractor. | | No one is saying farmers need source code, they're saying | they need access to the dealer software tools (not | engineering tools!) to allow replacement of modules | without a trip to the dealer. | | This is extremely important for farmers! Please read the | replies to your comments and consider that you may have | been misinformed. Respectfully, I think this can be a | learning moment for you today. | jitix wrote: | Your car, heater, air frier, lawn mower, etc all have the | potential to kill you. I'd even argue that the | probability of a car killing someone due to technical | malfunction or user tinkering is way higher than a farm | equipment that operates in a large open area. | | If all of these things were locked down following John | Deere's logic our daily lives would become very expensive | and inconvenient. | | We as a society have more than enough legal and insurance | frameworks to mitigate any of the risks that you've | mentioned. | shagie wrote: | Your car, heater, air fryer, and lawn mower are consumer | devices. If you modify them and they become unsafe, | you're at fault. | | However, farm equipment is classified as industrial | equipment and if you _can_ modify it to be unsafe without | being an expert in that domain, then it is the | manufacturers fault that you can do that. | | Locking down industrial equipment so that it requires a | trained technician to modify it is one of the ways that | industrial equipment manufacturers try to mitigate the | liability that they face. | smoldesu wrote: | > then it is the manufacturers fault that you can do | that. | | This is not always the case, and if it gets to the point | that legislation has to be written to stop you, it's | likely you don't care that much about the law in the | first place. | | When Marvin Heemeyer built the Killdozer, nobody blamed | Komatsu for providing him the parts. Unprecedented, | violent problems can happen with all sorts of equipment. | We stop these accidents by holding professionals liable, | not their machines. | kahrl wrote: | Oh look, the Pinkertons are trying to sow FUD in hacker news | again. | squeaky-clean wrote: | Joe's been an active member here with good contributions | for a long time. I disagree with his opinion in this | thread, but he's not some fake account trying to cause | trouble. | pitched wrote: | The way I understood the issue (as an outsider) is that they | weren't offering things like gaskets for sale. Sure, I can | pull out the old one if it pops but what do I do now? That | plus there being a remote kill switch if someone does figure | out how to manufacture replacements... | adamc wrote: | It's a step. The right to repair should apply to many items | beyond farm equipment, but hey, it's still a win. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-04-27 23:00 UTC)