Farmers Demand Right To Fix Their Own Dang Tractors (modernfarmer.com)

According to a report, farmers are demanding the right to fix their tractors. The report reminds us that owners of tractors aren't allowed to fix them, thanks to a set of laws designed to protect software intellectual property. The world's largest tractor maker, John Deere, in fact, says that people who purchase tractors don't really own them and instead they are getting an "implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle." Some farmers are voicing their opinion against these laws. From the article: What this has meant is that tractor owners can't repair their own tractors -- and if they do, they're in violation of the DMCA. So, if a machine stops working, its owner can't pop the hood, run some tests, and find out what's going on; he or she is legally required to take the tractor to a service center (one owned by the manufacturer, since that's the only entity allowed to analyze the tractor's issues). This can be expensive and time-consuming, and more to the point, unnecessary -- at least according to farmers in several states, who are lobbying to force tractor manufacturers make their diagnostic tools available to independent repair shops and owners. Not everyone is on the farmers' side here; some, according to the Associated Press, are concerned that the move would reduce revenue to tractor manufacturers, potentially landing them in trouble. But the tractor owners disagree, annoyed that their tractors are treated differently from their cars and trucks, which can be serviced by any independent shop.

Comments

License to work

[Calydor]

So basically John Deere is reserving the right to cancel any of these licenses, impound the farmer's tractors, and put him out of a job?

Re:License to work

[bev_tech_rob]

So basically, you're an idiot.

No, you're the fucking idiot. That is precisely what Calydor is saying. I'd love to see John Deere try that bullshit on a farm. The unlucky sap they hire to impound the tractor would be looking down the barrel of a 12 gauge shotgun.

Re:License to work

[mrclevesque]

Shouldn't John Deere be clear then, and say they only rent tractors

Re:License to work

[elrous0]

I don't think that's what John Deere is meaning for at all. And let me play devil's advocate here for a minute, as someone who has worked with farmers in the past.

First of all, as someone who grew up working on farms and with farmers, let me dispel some of the Norman Rockwell bullshit image about the "noble farmer." The farmers that I knew coming up weren't the "heart and soul of America" (well, maybe they were, but not in a good way). They were the greediest, cheapest bunch of sonabitches you ever wanted to meet in your life. They would routinely try cheat their workers, crawl over their mother's dead bodies to make an extra penny, lie, cheat, and often outright steal if they thought they could get away with it. They were the kind of unabashed brutal capitalists who would easily give the most heartless Wall Street prick a run for his money in greed and avarice.

They didn't do this out of necessity, mind you. Most of the farmers I knew had plenty of money. Far from the popular image of the poor struggling farmers, most of them were quite well-off. Yet they would cheat you out of every dime they could if they got a chance. And when the illegals came in to my area in a big way back in the late-80's and early-90's, these "noble farmers" were the first to happily hire them, cutting farmhand wages in half and pocketing the difference by flagrantly breaking the law. The average farmworker salary went from $7/hr. to $4/hr. almost overnight, in spite of the fact that farmers were already making good money paying their workers $7/hr.

With that in mind, I suspect this John Deere situation has something in common with the controversial Monsanto seed situation, in that the real truth is that it boils down to cheap-ass greedy farmers using the "evil big corporation vs. the little noble farmer" image to their advantage by villianizing John Deere. What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck. And they're playing on their bullshit image to portray themselves as the little guy fighting back against evil big business to do it, when in reality they're every bit as greedy and underhanded as the company they're fighting (likely more so).

Now go ahead an mod me down, all of you whose only knowledge of farmers comes from John Mellencamp songs.

Re:License to work

[guises]

Most of your argument there consists of, "I hate farmers." You throw in a bit at the end about how non-sale sales and customer lock-in are okay, although maybe that's only when they're directed at farmers, who you hate.

Ignoring the first part of your argument: when a company sells a product, but retains practical ownership over that product, that's a big problem and it's been happening more and more wherever the opportunity to do so has arisen. The farmers in this case are asking for nothing which hasn't already been addressed for other vehicles, and regardless of how greedy they may be this is a perfectly reasonable request.

Re:License to work

[CaptSlaq]

I don't think that's what John Deere is meaning for at all. And let me play devil's advocate here for a minute, as someone who has worked with farmers in the past.

First of all, as someone who grew up working on farms and with farmers, let me dispel some of the Norman Rockwell bullshit image about the "noble farmer." The farmers that I knew coming up weren't the "heart and soul of America" (well, maybe they were, but not in a good way). They were the greediest, cheapest bunch of sonabitches you ever wanted to meet in your life. They would routinely try cheat their workers, crawl over their mother's dead bodies to make an extra penny, lie, cheat, and often outright steal if they thought they could get away with it. They were the kind of unabashed brutal capitalists who would easily give the most heartless Wall Street prick a run for his money in greed and avarice.

They didn't do this out of necessity, mind you. Most of the farmers I knew had plenty of money. Far from the popular image of the poor struggling farmers, most of them were quite well-off. Yet they would cheat you out of every dime they could if they got a chance. And when the illegals came in to my area in a big way back in the late-80's and early-90's, these "noble farmers" were the first to happily hire them, cutting farmhand wages in half and pocketing the difference by flagrantly breaking the law. The average farmworker salary went from $7/hr. to $4/hr. almost overnight, in spite of the fact that farmers were already making good money paying their workers $7/hr.

With that in mind, I suspect this John Deere situation has something in common with the controversial Monsanto seed situation, in that the real truth is that it boils down to cheap-ass greedy farmers using the "evil big corporation vs. the little noble farmer" image to their advantage by villianizing John Deere. What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck. And they're playing on their bullshit image to portray themselves as the little guy fighting back against evil big business to do it, when in reality they're every bit as greedy and underhanded as the company they're fighting (likely more so).

Now go ahead an mod me down, all of you whose only knowledge of farmers comes from John Mellencamp songs.

I won't contest that farmers are businessmen first, despite being firmly blue collar, but they DO have to hedge against QUITE a bit of stuff. While they don't worry about "the consumer won't buy our product", they DO worry about "what happens when the crop gets destroyed by bad weather/vermin/disease" and "geez that's a lot of water I'm having to pump this year". These impact the bottom line and have to be hedged against. Long term farmers hedge against multiple seasons of bad, which is why they've survived as long as they have.

The amount of assets (which includes the land itself) required for farming is pretty significant when compared to most other businesses.

Broken equipment doesn't just cost "what's in my SLA", but could cost a significant yeild of a crop. Being able to fix stuff in-situ makes sure the wheels keep turning. This is (part) of the argument against John Deere: Calling them during a busy time is potentially a massive problem because "Locusts are chewing through the field next to mine and if I don't get mine crop harvested, I'm not going to get anything out if it either." "We can dispatch someone tomorrow" is a non-starter at times. I don't know how the SLAs are set up for farm equipment, if there are any. When my family was working, it was fixed in place with bailing wire, duct tape, bubble gum, and spit, until it could be fixed right.

Re:License to work

[aardvarkjoe]

What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.

Well then, John Deere should get a lesson on what happens when you have a stupid business model. If they want to make a profit on equipment sales, they'd better price their equipment such that they can turn a profit.

Whether or not the farmers are cheap bastards -- given human nature, they probably are -- is really irrelevant.

Re:License to work

[jdavidb]

What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.

If I buy somebody's loss leader and then don't want to participate in the business model they were expecting, that doesn't mean I've "altered the deal" unless there was an actual deal.

And if somebody's trying to save a buck that doesn't make him bad. In fact if he's the guy supplying our food or something else we need that makes him good.

Re:License to work

[geoscodin]

Why lump all farmers together? My grandfather was a farmer and briefly owned a tractor dealership. He was a real-life George Bailey type from A Wonderful Life. He made a pretty good living, but was never wealthy. His farm was a family operation in rural Pennsylvania with some seasonal help. He kept what he needed, gave a lot away, and from what he sold, he kept what needed to get by and donated the rest to the church and directly to people in need. Some farmers in our community focused on their own families, and there's nothing wrong with that, Some got rich doing it, and there's nothing wrong with that either. I can only think of one farm owner who took everything he could at the expense of others, although there could very well have been more. And in the winter when snow made farming impossible, my grandfather worked in the coal mines, and eventually died of black lung from that experience. I have no doubt that there are scum-of-the-earth folks out there in every industry, but for you to agree that farmers across the country should not be allowed to fix their own tractors because you once knew some bad guy farmers is a bit short-sighted, don't you think?

Re:So the farmer is merely renting the tractor?

[Scutter]

"Oh, sure, we'll fix it for free, but you have to bring it to our repair facility in Tucson. Oh, by the way, our single qualified technician is backlogged six months. If your crops can't wait six months, we do offer a premium value-added repair service that includes same-day onsite repairs..."

Re:Not going to help...

[ThosLives]

These farmers are not trying to modify their source code for these repairs. Farmers just want to be able to pull a code, replace broken sensors / actuators, and reset the codes so they can grow your food.

One Thing Missing...

[twmcneil]

Just like in our business, uptime is crucially important for these farmers. During the spring planting time and the fall harvest period, if that machine breaks, it needs to be RIGHT NOW. They can't wait a "few days" for the dealership mechanic to visit. And he's busy as all hell fixing our people's shit. This isn't just a bunch hay-seeds saying they want to break their knuckles for the fun of it. This is a very serious situation that can have devastating effects on the bottom line.

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[jedidiah]

Intellectual property allows you to steal other people's stuff. The most obvious example is a patent that not only grants you exclusive ownership of your own invention but the right to claim ownership of anything similar regardless of how that invention may have come about.

Treating creative works as property allows people (usually robber barons) to hijack other people's creative works and real property.

And again, we have an example of that right here and now.

The intellectual property fiction is preventing the farmer from fully controlling his own personal property (by way of the tractor).

Re:The joke's on John Deere

[tsotha]

I suspect it's more likely that in a few decades tractors won't need farmers.