
Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks - pak
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/09/523024776/farmers-look-for-ways-to-circumvent-tractor-software-locks
======
Sytten
My dad is a farmer and I can assure you that this is a real problem. Every
piece of equipment now as its own proprietary, closed-source and, most of the
time, incompatible software. Plus, many of them don't get any update after the
product launch. When you are in rush to plant or harvest you just can`t afford
to wait for an authorized dealer. And if they fail, good luck trying to find a
replacement that is not 100x overpriced because it has been discontinued one
year after you bought it. I tried repairing a GPS system once and it required
a special serial cable + software which costed more than 100$ just to update
the driver...

~~~
swampthinker
Sounds like an opportunity...

~~~
rebeccaskinner
I co-founded a company in this space a few years ago. We ultimately pivoted
out of the space because for all of the user buy-in that we got, the legal
encumbrances were way too high to be able to successfully operate without
raising a lot of money just to pay lawyers. If we'd decided to go the VC route
instead of bootstrapping we might have been able to make a go of it, but
raising VC money for a startup in the midwest working on something as mundane
as farming was looking pretty untenable.

~~~
burfog
Couldn't you make a full electronics replacement kit? It's a bit more
involved, but DMCA and other DRM issues just go away. All the original
electronics just get removed, to be boxed up and maybe discarded.

You run your own software on your own computer with your own sensors.

~~~
rebeccaskinner
It might have been with a much longer team, and a much longer time to market.
We were 4 people, and as I mentioned in another comment, getting VC funding
for a company in the rural midwest is essentially impossible.

The other issue is that I'm not sure we would have gotten as many buy-ins from
the farmers. Many of them were very frustrated by the lack of interoperability
between different pieces of equipment, their sensor data being locked behind
DRM schemes, etc. They wanted to integrate the hardware and software that they
owned, and wanted something that would let them do it piecemeal and with
relatively little risk to their hardware. A complete overhaul wouldn't have
helped with integrating their historic data, and would have definitely had a
higher upfront cost and risk associated with bricking their equipment.

------
TaylorAlexander
I think we'd all be better off if basically everything was open source, by way
of eliminating intellectual property protections provided by governments.

As an alternate solution, those of us with engineering skills can work to
create an open source economy with open source factories, computers, and
products.

This would never be a problem nor would it be likely to happen if genuinely
competitive options existed for farmers that were not locked down.

Another way we in this community can help is by helping smaller businesses
learn the value of open source and get them using and creating it.

I believe with a sufficiently open source base in our economy, we can make
great headway into eliminating material poverty.

I write a little about this on my personal site, here:

[http://tlalexander.com/machine/](http://tlalexander.com/machine/)

~~~
TheRealDunkirk
If the software was open source, it would be modified and tuned to maximize
power output, and would belch huge plumes of particulates, CO, and NOx. How do
you balance openness against the public good of controlling this pollution?
These are, perhaps, the primary reasons that engine control software is so
complicated these days, on diesels and gas engines.

~~~
DanBC
Since the software is closed source we don't know if it's cheating emissions
testing or not.

~~~
TheRealDunkirk
Touche.

------
jaclaz
I have the feeling that somehow the actual _need_ has been put aside for
phylosophical (or Open Source, etc.) reasonings (nice but not the original
issue).

More or less what the good farmers are asking for (which is not about the
code, the kernel or whatever, they are not "hackers" as much as the authorized
JD technicians are not computer experts or programmers or software engineers)
is just access to the "database" of parts serial number of the machine.

Loosely the way it works (simplified) is a database where the (say) pressure
sensor #42 has been registered (authorized) in the operating system as having
serial number #0123456789. When the sensor breaks, after it has been replaced
with a new (original or verified third party) sensor, you need to update the
database telling it that sensor with serial #0123456789 has bee replaced with
sensor serial number #2223334445 and - of course it depends on the specific
part - possibly run a "self-test" program to verify that the sensor works
properly and maybe tune/regulate it.

The farmers do not want the source code, they don't want to modify it, they
don't want to "hack" anything, they simply want to be able to replace a part
and have the thingy work.

Going back to software, let's talk of - say - Windows 7 (yeah I know that all
the rage is about Windows 10 nowadays) and its activation, imagine that
instead of having one month time to activate a new install either through the
internet, the automated phone call in case it doesn't work and a support phone
call for particular cases where the previous two options do not work,
activation was:

1) Immediately mandatory (i.e. the OS wouldn't work until activated)

2) ONLY available through a local visit of a MS agent (9 to 5 , Monday to
Friday) at a cost of (say) US$ 100.00/hour + US$ 1.00/mile

~~~
gerbilly
>The farmers do not want the source code, they don't want to modify it, they
don't want to "hack" anything, they simply want to be able to replace a part
and have the thingy work.

One way to fix this would be for a farmer to sue the manufacturer for business
interruption for millions of dollars.

When planting or harvesting, especially when bad weather is coming in, you are
on a tight deadline.

Inability to replace a perfectly functional physical part due to this kind of
software lockdown could cost a farmer lots of money.

~~~
criddell
I'm guessing JD has lawyers smart enough to protect the company against
something like this. For one, I'm guessing the purchaser / licensee agreed to
binding arbitration. As well, the purchaser / licensee probably also agreed to
release JD from any responsibility for losses due to malfunction (where
_malfunction_ is defined by JD).

------
nottorp
I don't get why all this chat is about software, licensing and software
safety.

The way I read it, a farmer can't change even, say, a brake pad (or whatever
tractors use) without authorization from John Deere. I very strongly doubt
that they want to mess with the software, they just want to perform minor
maintenance themselves.

~~~
weberc2
Some farmers want to change engine curve profiles to get more power out of
their engines, likely at the expense of Tier IV emissions regulations and
possibly damaging the drivetrain. I don't believe this is the normal case, but
I have heard this expressed in the past.

~~~
randomdata
This does seems to be John Deere's primary motivation. They make the exact
same mechanical machine to serve many different market segments, and then
assign each model's capabilities, like horsepower, in software. Of course, the
consumer soon figures out that by flipping a couple of bits they can buy the
less expensive machine and upgrade it at little to no cost.

Thus ensues the debate of who owns the tractor.

~~~
qb45
> They make the exact same mechanical machine to serve many different market
> segments

Do you know that they do? Parent only talked about running the machine out of
spec altogether but your theory could explain a few things if it's true.

~~~
weberc2
I used to work in John Deere Power Systems. The parameterization exists to
allow Deere to sell their engines all over the world (different emissions
regulations), to a variety of different equipment manufacturers (barges have
different power requirements than tractors than cranes than etc). I'm not
aware of any "pay to unlock more power" schemes, but I also wasn't
particularly attentive toward pricing.

------
throwaway_jddev
Hey all, I worked on software for John Deere. This is a throwaway account for
obvious reasons. Opinions expressed here are MY OWN. I no longer work for John
Deere or am associated with them in any way.

I was part of one of the many teams that work on this software. Specifically I
was part of John Deere's ISG division also known as the Intelligent Solutions
Group. The ISG division (was at the time) responsible for tying together
various software built by OEM's, for building the central UI within the cabin,
and for building various debugging and build tools. The team I was on,
consisted of about 8 very senior engineers, and I think there were around 20
total engineers working for ISG at the time (though I saw, and knew only a
handful of them). Now, when I say OEM integration, I mean suppliers and other
John Deere divisions with their own teams mirroring ours. All told, I would
estimate that John Deere has somewhere between 150-300 engineers working full-
time on their codebase for their tractors.

Let me disabuse you of any myths. I have worked in software for 20 years. I
have worked in large enterprises, and scrappy startups. This software is by
FAR the largest, most complex codebase I have ever interacted with. Submission
of any new code was seriously considered and reviewed before it entered
production (sometimes to a pedantic degree), after which JD put all new code
through 10s of thousands of hours of testing on production equipment.
Production and release cycles take on the order of months to ensure that we
don't kill people.

These are not riding lawnmowers. They are 30-ton combines, and 20 ton tractors
tilling fields, with massive horsepower behind them. They have a real
potential to end peoples lives in the event of failure, and these tractors do
(in testing) fail in spectacular ways. If a team of hundred of engineers
struggle with their codebase internally, Joe Farmer isn't going to have a
fucking clue how to repair their software correctly.

Now should you, in theory, have the right to modify equipment you own? Sure.
Absolutely. Hell, John Deere tractors run on open source software. But trust
me on this, locking this down is a very good idea.

If you have the drive to make open source tractor software AND can make
absolutely certain no-one ever dies from code you write, then go do it. Just
keep in mind that the engineers that work on this shit really care about
keeping people safe.

~~~
rando832
> If a team of hundred of engineers struggle with their codebase internally,
> Joe Farmer isn't going to have a fucking clue how to repair their software
> correctly.

> But trust me on this, locking this down is a very good idea.

Joe Farmer may not know, but Joe farmer has "the internet", and ability to pay
an independent software engineer. And people would absolutely find and fix
bugs that john deer is missing.

Honestly, your argument sounds so ridiculous, it sounds like saying "it's to
protect the children from terrorism."

~~~
lobotryas
What happens if this independent fix results in a death? Do you really think
JD will escape liability?

~~~
db48x
This is not exactly uncertain ground. Car manufacturers don't have liability
when their customers modify their cars. Whoever made my clothes dryer doesn't
have liability for any unsafe condition I may or may not have created when I
removed that stupid annoying buzzer.

------
cmurf
Among the most successful cars were those with straightforward replacement
parts, a defacto standard, and reasonably well documented and available
maintenance manuals.

Tesla wants control over this, by literally renting the maintenance manual,
and remotely disabling the car if repairs or parts aren't authorized. I don't
expect the model 3 market will appreciate this business model. It will be a
much more price sensitive market compared to the early models which has been
relatively inelastic for repairs and resale.

Consider the x86 computer market, if every component had signed firmware, and
the main system verified this signature in case of component replacement, and
would fail to function at all if signature verification failed. What a pain...

Consider voting machines, proprietary hardware, expensive to design, maintain,
audit, and go obsolete in as few as 1/2 dozen uses. Compare that to pencil and
paper.

The older I get the more Darth Vader I become: "Don't be too proud of this
technological terror you've constructed." (Let's say the Force is common sense
in this metaphor.)

------
tim333
Previous discussion
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13925994](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13925994)
(177 comments)

------
kccqzy
This really reminds me of how Richard Stallman started GNU. It was because he
can't modify the software on a printer he uses.

~~~
laughingman2
And the Pro-corporate shills would say "What if he made printer into a ink
bomb? we should respect the right of manufacturer to offer printer as a
service".

This kind of blind slavery to ideology of blind market instead of intelligent
systems to provide the best outcomes in a information era is only setting back
innovation.

All software should be free as in freedom of speech at the very least. And I
say as automation progresses, and material needs of society can be fulfilled
freely, it should also be free as in free beer.

------
intrasight
While this is a fascinating question in the context of tractors, it gets even
more interesting in the context of cars, houses, personal electronics, light
bulbs. The First Sale Doctrine is being eroded by DRM.

~~~
bbarn
The problem with DRM is the early internet era community wasted all of its
screaming and yelling about stealing movies and MP3's, and now anytime you
mention DRM in a context that matters like those, it's ignored.

~~~
intrasight
I really should have said "is being eroded by DMCA"

------
mabbo
It's not just the farmer paying for this: it's everyone who eats food.

The time wasted is lost productivity. The extra fees just for a software
unlock is lost money. The farmer has to either charge more, or go out of
business sooner. Either way, the cost of food rises.

~~~
kodfodrasz
The only problems is that the creators of those software did not get their
food and tools for free.

Was that also lost productivity?

Maybe we could fix it by giving everything for free!

------
userbinator
Every time I read or hear about new developments in creating safer/more secure
software, I am reminded of scenarios like this. Companies could use formally
verified crypto and such to provably and completely lock out users by
destroying all means of circumvention. In that sense, I think these secure
technologies are like nuclear weapons --- extremely powerful, _too_ powerful.
Society in general seems to rely on some insecurity to maintain its freedom;
so I believe anyone who advocates for more secure systems should also
carefully consider all the _negative_ effects which will appear if their
vision comes true, and whether they are, however indirectly, locking
themselves out.

~~~
nickpsecurity
That first thing you said was what Trusted Computing Group was all about but
with whitelisting & chips instead of perfect crypto. Such things were fought
well but App Stores succeeded. For "security" reasons, hardware support will
show up in products that incidentally reinforce the DRM parts. Good news is
vendors keep differentiating on increased control of product & ASIC costs
means there's usually debug hardware in it to tap into. ;)

------
swanson
It seems so unbelievable to me that there are enough people that are a) John
Deere equipment owners/renters and b) capable of debugging and patching issues
in a C++ codebase for these stories to keep appearing.

Debates on the virtues of open source aside, is this actually the solution? Or
is it a symptom of, say, poor quality software releases? or service visits
that are too costly? or overloaded dealers who can't handle harvest-time
support loads? I just don't believe that allowing people to tinker with the
software is going to be the magic answer that these folks seem to think it is.

~~~
yorwba
> It seems so unbelievable to me that there are enough people that are a) John
> Deere equipment owners/renters and b) capable of debugging and patching
> issues in a C++ codebase for these stories to keep appearing.

There doesn't have to be any overlap between these groups of people. The issue
here seems to be that some mechanical parts that are easily replaced, are not
accepted by the controlling computer, unless it is authorized using specific
administration software. Basically, ink cartridge lock-in, but for tractors.

To circumvent the restrictions, no farmer has to know C++, they only need a
pirated version of the software to integrate the replacement parts into the
system. So what the farmers want is not the ability to arbitrarily modify the
software running on their equipment, but simply a way to do purely mechanical
repairs on their own.

------
shawn-butler
The motherboard/vice article NPR is blatantly ripping off here is much better
in my opinion.

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-american-
farm...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-american-farmers-are-
hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware)

------
itchyjunk
"farmers could damage the machines, like bypassing pollution emissions
controls to get more horsepower."

Isn't this the problem with warranties? People could try to mod it, end up
damaging it and try to get it replaced with warranties.

I also don't fully understand this software. Is it just completely vendor
locked? That sounds really unreasonable. It should allow for at least basic
debugging and trouble shooting.

Is this software locking only in large $100k + harvester type equipment? Does
the vendor have other reasonable explanation of doing this?

I wonder if the software designer for this equipments would have reasonable
arguments for such locks or if this is just profit driven decision.

~~~
R_haterade
Can confirm it's usually proprietary and locked. An old roommate is employed
by an implement manufacturer--his sole job is traveling the western united
states, making housecalls to upload newer versions of control software to
equipment. They absolutely DO NOT trust the owners to do it themselves.

This has pretty frightening implications for the state of consumer goods, if
industrial goods are already going this direction.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Consumer electronics have been disposable for 25 years now. You don't exactly
see an electronics repair shop in every town anymore.

~~~
fineline
Or even basic electrical appliances. I have a toaster, a kettle and a vacuum
which are all bricked because of peripheral failures - two poorly
(deliberately..?) designed mechanical switches and a charger - which in many
cases would cause the whole otherwise functional appliance to be junked. Only
somewhat resourceful and stubborn folk like myself bother to fix these things
themselves.

------
peter_retief
This seems to be a regular way to lock in customers, I think of ink jet
cartridges and even 3d printer refills use similar tricks. I wonder if there
is a case to be made in making this illegal or optional

------
douche
There's going to be a huge market in used pre-DRM heavy machinery. The purely
mechanical/hydraulic versions of this stuff is virtually indestructible, with
a little maintenance.

~~~
randomdata
I'll _gladly_ pay the cost of a John Deere mechanic from time to time before I
go back to the purely mechanical tractors we used to have on the farm.

When I hear this kind of comment I have to wonder if: 1. The person has never
spent time in a tractor. 2. Has never spent time in a modern tractor. 3. Has
never spent time in an old tractor.

~~~
anjc
What're the benefits of newer models in terms of daily usage?

~~~
randomdata
Comfort. In the grain business my tractors don't get anywhere near daily
usage, but when their window of usefulness opens, the days are long and the
longer you can handle keeping the machine rolling the better.

Not all of the advancements are directly related to computers, but they sort
of come part and parcel at this point.

~~~
anjc
Gotcha, thanks

------
andrewchambers
I don't like the idea that we have to pass laws to force companies to make a
better product. Why can't a company take the initiative and grab all the
customers who value this?

~~~
digitalzombie
> Why can't a company take the initiative and grab all the customers who value
> this?

You make it sounds so easy to start a tractor company.

~~~
notliketherest
The result of a free market is that the better products will always win out.
By your logic your statement could just have easily as been "to start a car
company" or "to start a rocket company" or "to start a computer company".
These are all examples of industries whose existing players were supplanted by
a better idea with smart, passionate and dedicated entrepreneurs.

~~~
elgenie
The result of a free market is that the better products will always win out.
Then if the firms behind those products are well-run, they will use the
dominant market position their products have granted them to try to raise
barriers to entry and smother upstart competitors in their crib.

"Car company" and "rocket company" are interesting examples, since the "smart,
passionate and dedicated entrepreneurs" in those areas needed billions in
government subsidies to get off the ground [ _]. And "computer company"
includes the software side, with its low capital costs, and the hardware side,
where the competitors are firmly entrenched (what's the last laptop/desktop
upstart to hit it big?).

[_] [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-
subsidies-2015...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-
subsidies-20150531-story.html)

~~~
pdkl95
> The result of a free market is that the better products will always win out.

That is patently incorrect. There are _many_ examples of market failures that
produce incorrect, poor quality, or even predatory results. A recent example
is the total disregard for security in many (most?) "IoT" products, and the
market for lemons[1] is the canonical example of a market that specifically
selects for bad results ("lemons"). Note that the latter example of markets
_not_ producing "better products" was worth a Nobel Prize.

In a truly free market, the product that is most efficient for the market
wins. This is often (but not always) the most _profitable_ product. Sometimes
it may also be the "best" product, depending on your point of view, because
profit (or price) is not the only metric that is used in determining which
product is "best".

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons)

------
arca_vorago
I wonder, is the a GPL tractor software project out there yet?

~~~
dark_star
I don't know, but there is an open source tractor design:

[http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/LifeTrac](http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/LifeTrac)

Primitive but think of Linux when it was released.

It's part of the Global Village Construction Set, open source machines that
could make up the technological basis for a civilization:

[http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Constructio...](http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set)

~~~
sleepychu
Is it self bootstrapping?

------
ivanhoe
Couldn't they organize and sue the manufacturer for their losses due to the
tractor malfunctions in critical periods and being prevented to service them
promptly? I understand it's a bit naive, but you don't solve this by hacking
around the problem, but by attacking the problem through the institutions of
the system.

------
intrasight
The jet engines in a modern airplane have some analogies here. You can think
of an engine as a PaaS (Propulsion-as-a-Service). A tractor is HaaS
(Harvesting-as-a-Service). Our technologies have reach this level of
complexity - the must be offered as a service. Cars will soon be Mobility-as-
a-Service. Putting on my economist hat, I'd say that it is the ultimate
manifestation of "comparative advantage". If JD abuses their monopoly
position, then fix that through the courts and legislation, or by buying a
competitors product. Don't try to hack the terms of service. But JD and other
"product" vendors need to make it clear that they are in fact selling a
service.

~~~
ericd
Many people do not want to buy things as a service, they want to buy and own
something that was built correctly the first time, and if not, is supported
for the reasonable lifetime of the product for the cost stated upfront, and
can be supported by people outside the company out of their pocket after that.

This as a service model is not inherent to the complexity, it's usually a cash
grab.

~~~
intrasight
But in an open capitalists society, such rent-seeking will be resisted by the
market and by the law. A vendor has every right to make their offering a
service. Unless, of course, they are abusing their monopoly position. IBM was
taken to court for this in 1969.

------
squarefoot
SmartTV and other appliances are closed too, so that users must purchase a new
one when for example codecs become obsolete. Sadly, the closed source model is
not just being used where there are safety concerns involved.

------
kvncombo
The big boys have obviously cornered the market. Is there any farming
equipment company that provides more open access for maintenance and repairs?
If not, why not? It seems there is an opportunity there.

------
andai
Can someone please explain what software has to do with repairing a tractor?

Edit: it looks like the physical components themselves are DRMed? Wtf?

------
tbyehl
I'm starting to wonder if these articles are driven by a PR firm paid by John
Deere's competition. They're always about John Deere and only John Deere.
Aside from the Motherboard / Vice article, they never provide any specifics
about the maintenance or repair operations that farms are prevented from doing
on their own.

With the Vice article, 2 of the 3 things they mention are modifying the
tractors to operate in ways the manufacturer did not intend which could result
in damage.

~~~
ebbv
I've had the same thought. It's such a niche issue and really it's incredibly
standard for any kind of business hardware, which is what tractors are. Also
nobody's being forced to buy new tractors, there's tons of old tractors still
out and running and working every day.

So why do these articles appear with such regularity?

(To be clear I think that all software should be open source and vendors
should charge for support, but that's beside the point here.)

~~~
tmnvix
> Also nobody's being forced to buy new tractors, there's tons of old tractors
> still out and running and working every day.

There are also fewer every day.

~~~
ekianjo
You'd be surprised how long old, robust vehicles live for. I don't have any
clear data for tractors, but older trucks that can be repaired with minimum
tooling get used and re-used in places in Africa, almost to no end.

~~~
ptaipale
This is not so relevant for modern agriculture, but my family still has the
Valmet 361D tractor my father bought in 1963. It runs as good as ever. The
diesel engine needed to have the cylinder tubes replaced some 30 years ago,
and other mechanical parts do wear out and are replaced, but this thing isn't
going to be out of use because of software issues.

It's too small to be very useful in modern farming, though.

------
watertom
What's ironic is most of these farmers are republicans and voted in the people
who enable this crap.

------
known
And [https://www.iphoneasyunlock.com/](https://www.iphoneasyunlock.com/)

------
arkis22
Everybody likes to feel taken advantage of.

If I was a business owner or engineer that built systems this complex and you
asked me to not lock it down, I'd call you freaking crazy.

These are very expensive and complex machines, and you want my competition or
some farmer who has no idea what he's doing to access and modify it?

No thank you.

Google keeps proprietary code. And that's for auto complete...

~~~
michaelmrose
You address two different issues here competition and users.

In the case of users you have no right after sale to feel a right to control
how your users make use of your product. Just because software and contracts
give you two venues to potentially do so doesn't mean it would be rational to
allow you to. The world is 99.99% users.

On the second point, competition has always quite legally taken apart the
competitors products to see how they tick. If you have something truly
innovative you can file a patent, if not then you have nothing that deserves
protection.

~~~
arkis22
No, In this case I have complete right to control how my users make use of my
product because we agreed to it. It might not be rational because I might lose
to an open competitor, but that's a completely different subject.

There's trade secrets at every company in existence that they don't share with
their competition. They can't patent them, but that doesn't mean they don't
deserve protection. Companies exist because they don't give up how they work
to their competition...

~~~
michaelmrose
Properly we limit what you are allowed to contract away all the time. This
isnt any different. You want to retain control see leasing.

Regarding trade secrets you misunderstand them. Please see

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_secret](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_secret)

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA") defines a trade secret as: information,
including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique,
or process, that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from
not being generally known to or readily ascertainable through appropriate
means by other persons who might obtain economic value from its disclosure or
use; and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances
to maintain its secrecy

There are two basic situations in which obtaining the use of a trade secret is
illegal; where it is acquired through improper means, or where it involves a
breach of confidence. Trade secrets may be obtained by lawful means such as
independent discovery, reverse engineering, and inadvertent disclosure
resulting from the trade secret holder's failure to take reasonable protective
measures.

Anything that can be gleaned from tearing your product to pieces that isn't
suitable for patenting gets zero protection.

~~~
arkis22
I understand they don't get legal protection. That's not my point. My point is
that companies don't just dump out information on how they operate. They
protect their trade secrets, which as the definition you provided says, are
worthy of protection. Thanks.

~~~
michaelmrose
I would argue that the consumers right to have access to a lot of that
information is considered normal and is vastly more important that the
companies need to protect it. Enough so that we ought to legally protect the
consumer even at the expense of the company. After all there are more of us
than them why shouldn't we protect ourselves?

~~~
arkis22
The law you cited seems to do that. Companies have no right to stop consumers
from purchasing goods that use their trade secrets without their consent.

------
soheil
Imagine not so long in the future if self-driving cars were forced to reveal
their code because of the right-to-repair bill, 1. who without a vast depth of
knowledge in C++, etc. would be able to go anywhere near it? 2. even if they
did is it in their best interest or anyone else's if they tinker with the code
and made the car take undesirable actions?

Maybe buying a tractor should be replaced with leasing tractors, if they never
want you to fully own everything in it. I think very soon there will be more
and more of a need for a new way to determine what products are allowed to be
sold partially with a secret OEM key.

~~~
kodfodrasz
They lock down the software in their well understood interests:

\- vendor lock in (this is not good for customers)

\- safety (testing this stuff is expesive and lengthy. Every change forces a
re-test. They are liable for this stuff)

\- defending the brand value (if there is an accident because of modified
software non-hackers will blame the manufacturer for making it possible)

This all weill get worse with neural networks:

Imagine people poking around bits in the matrix representing the neural
network of the sel-driving AI.

They will not have the slightest clue what they are doing, but they don't want
their System to be locked down. They download "steering optimizers" and
similar stuff from sites and overwrite the neural network.

Who will be to blame for the accident because of this?

With neural networks even the manufacturer cannot completely understand every
nauron's effect on the complete system, as opposed to traditional software.
Manufacturers have huge responsibility, and curently only locking software
down is their only way to defend themselves.

~~~
michaelmrose
You are arguing for accepting lockdowns on tractors so that john deere can
screw their customers harder based on the safety of systems that don't exist
yet. Drivers who cause accidents will end up liable just as they are now.

~~~
kodfodrasz
Except for self driving stuff I was arguing about. We are not yet sure who
will be liable for them. Also there is pretty much self driving in some
agricultural machines, for use on the fields.

But seeing this topic I'd make it possible for farmers to mod their machinery,
with a complete loss of warranty.

Imagine a modded component accidentally sending false or misleading data on
the CAN bus, or not yielding the bus, or simply being incompatible with a
component. These scenarios can cause serious troubles.

These stuff are not JS frameworks, a page reload does not undo a bad trial and
error round.

Also the supporting tools are expensive not only for farmers and machine shos,
but also for vendors. I remember the price tags for calibrated instruments
from my time in automotive industry...

~~~
michaelmrose
You can't void the warranty unless the modification/repair results in the
damage we already made a law for this even.

------
notliketherest
When we buy a piece of software, we own and "physically" posses a binary which
we feel we can rightly take apart, modify, and mess with it because we view it
as analogous to owning a toaster or stereo in the physical world. It's in our
home, we can touch it, and we in essence control it.

Now the same is never said for software as a service. We buy subscriptions to
services all the time but don't demand an ability to modify or control the
software. It's defined in our agreement. Now it seems to me that the companies
that sell these tractors have decided to pursue a model by which their
software is more or less SaSS (providing encrypted updates over the air). Why
is it that these farmers believe they have a right to modify that software?

~~~
save_ferris
Why is it that farmers don't have a right to modify and fix equipment that
they purchased in 2017 because some software they didn't ask to be installed
on their equipment prevents them from doing what they've been able to do for
generations?

Up until a few years ago, farmers used to be able to buy farm equipment with
the understanding that they could fix it whenever issues arose and didn't need
a gatekeeper to come fix their hardware.

~~~
maxerickson
I suspect the main reason is that it makes economic sense to most farmers to
keep buying the tractors, despite the gatekeeper.

Sucks, but there you go. If they managed (as a group) not to buy the tractors,
the gatekeeper would go away.

