Slashdot Mirror


Grandson of Legendary John Deere Inventor Calls Out Company On Right To Repair (securityledger.com)

chicksdaddy writes: The grandson of Theo Brown, a legendary engineer and inventor for John Deere who patented, among other things, the manure spreader is calling out the company his grandfather served for decades for its opposition to right to repair legislation being considered in Illinois. In an opinion piece published by The Security Ledger entitled "My Grandfather's John Deere would support Our Right to Repair," Willie Cade notes that his grandfather, Theophilus Brown is credited with 158 patents, some 70% of them for Deere & Co., including the manure spreader in 1915. His grandfather used to travel the country to meet with Deere customers and see his creations at work in the field. His hope, Cade said, was to help the company's customers be more efficient and improve their lives with his inventions.

In contrast, Cade said the John Deere of the 21st Century engages in a very different kind of business model: imposing needless costs on their customers. An example of this kind of rent seeking is using software locks and other barriers to repair -- such as refusing to sell replacement parts -- in order to force customers to use authorized John Deere technicians to do repairs at considerably higher cost and hassle. "It undermines what my grandfather was all about," he writes. Cade, who founded the Electronics Reuse Conference, is supporting right to repair legislation that is being considered in Illinois and opposed by John Deere and the industry groups it backs. "Farmers who can't repair farm equipment and a wide spectrum of Americans who can't repair their smartphones are pushing back in states across the country."

28 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Tesla given a pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is illegal to repair your own Tesla. But you faggots keep giving them a pass.

    1. Re:Tesla given a pass by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      It is illegal to repair your own Tesla. But you faggots keep giving them a pass.

      A corporate EULA (or some shit like that) stating your warranty is void if you repair your car or whatever other gizmo has broken down on you is not the same thing as law.

    2. Re:Tesla given a pass by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Awwww, Don't worry.. An over the air firmware update will take care of any parts you manage to actually replace yourself....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Tesla given a pass by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. And that is why I'll never own an Apple or a Tesla or a John Deere. Such companies do not deserve customers.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:Tesla given a pass by Matheus · · Score: 2

      This right to repair legislation would apply to the electronics in a Tesla as well but to the jackass OP's point this article had nothing to do with Tesla.. who's giving them a free pass? This article is an editorial from a John Deere founder descendant writing about his dislike of current John Deere company behavior in respects to both their customer interactions and their explicit opposition to proposed right to repair legislation. ...but he hates Tesla so apparently the fact he didn't mention a company that has no bearing on his personal interests in his own personal editorial is somehow giving them a free pass.

    5. Re:Tesla given a pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I really don't give a shit about hacking Tesla's (or GM's, or...) software.

      What I want is access to diagnostic information, tools and parts. For $10 a day I can get access to current service information and dealer-level software for my Honda: https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.aspx

      I can get access to parts at ANY Honda dealer, no questions asked.

      Why can't Tesla do this?

      On one hand, you have people which claim EV's are simple to maintain, and on the other hand, these same people say you can't service a Tesla because it's so exotic and esoteric you can't possibly ever fix them with your reptile-sized brain.

      So which is it?

    6. Re:Tesla given a pass by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The important bit is that right to repair should apply to all machinery and transport like this. It's inexcusable that this isn't an abuse of copyright that IMO should terminate the copyright. It's exploiting copyright to provide an additional legal protection to the seller that they wouldn't otherwise have which is a textbook example of abusing the law.

      There are legitimate rights that need to be respected, but any customer should be able to modify or break software on any product they buy, as long as they aren't doing so to abuse a warranty or to abuse the copyright (using the software on another unaffiliated product or something similar) beyond repairing, servicing or upgrading a product you own.

      The problem here is that Deere and the other companies (like apple) that are opposed to this make massive political donations to make sure these laws die. We need more congress critters that are willing to stand up to these entrenched interests when they are abusing the law to get protections they were never supposed to get.

    7. Re: Tesla given a pass by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      Oh look. An apologist. /shocking.

      *YAWN* you can be as snarky as you want, a EULA drawn up by a Tesla lawyers is still not law.

    8. Re:Tesla given a pass by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      A corporate EULA (or some shit like that) stating your warranty is void if you repair your car or whatever other gizmo has broken down on you is not the same thing as law.

      No but that doesn't mean that the law has to allow or enable it. I get that attempting a repair and making things worse could reasonably void part of a warranty but only the parts that apply to what was "tampered" with. Unrelated systems should still be covered under warranty.

  2. Monopolism is a crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As is artificial scarcity.

    For thee same reason: It ruins exactly the freedom of the market that those corporations say they want so much when it works in their favor.
    And it allows infinite price gouging to a poimt where it is literally robbing or stealing, as in: taking money, even by force, without giving something in return, and without leaving a choice. With only a small token legiimate business exchange attached for alibi purposes.

    Whether it's done with tractor parts or software copies (aka "intellectual property"), does not matter.

    1. Re:Monopolism is a crime. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Or printer cartridges where the price of the printer was lowered to a loss leader item, where the manufacturer would actually make money on selling parts to keep the printer printing.. It was so bad at times, the printer was cheaper than you could buy the cartridges in the box with it.

      Apart from the legal "It's for essential emission controls" so we force you to use factory certified parts. It's a shame pretty much ALL companies went with this sell the product cheap and gouge it back from the customer over time model...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Re:His opinion means nothing by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Don't care what the kids of kids think.

    True that.. Now if he retained controlling interest in the company his grandfather worked for... That's a deere of a different color, in this case Brown...

    However, suppose it's a nice PR move to use this guy's linage to help sell your idea and lobby for the laws you want and I'm going to guess he's getting paid "deere-ly" for the invocation of his family legacy. What's in a name? Well, in this case, likely a few bucks and if you ravage the company that benefited from your ancestors, who really cares? It wouldn't really matter even if his name was John Deere....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  4. Sure by WankerWeasel · · Score: 1

    "My grandfather would have wanted them to have the right to repair, as long as they used only John Deere authentic parts purchased from a dealer. He filed those patents to also prevent others from making use of the technology he created but ignore that part as it's a bit counter to my argument."

    1. Re:Sure by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      "My grandfather would have wanted them to have the right to repair, as long as they used only John Deere authentic parts purchased from a dealer. He filed those patents to also prevent others from making use of the technology he created but ignore that part as it's a bit counter to my argument.

      Hardly counter to his argument. He's arguing for a right to repair the technology, not a right to manufacture copies of the technology.

      "Right to repair" is not a synonym for "open source hardware." Try to make it so and you'll doom it.

  5. Re:Manure Spreader by bobbied · · Score: 1

    This one was patented even....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. I'm with right to repair if doesn't harm by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I think right to repair is important - especially with what Deere has been doing, which I read about off and on.

    The one caution I would make is, I like making it so that third parties can get official means and parts to do repairs. I'm not as on-board with any kind of law that would limit how objects should be manufactured...

    My long term worry is that products would become more crappy if it's mandated they cannot be sealed a certain way. Both Android and iPhone owners enjoy greta waterproofing abilities of modern phones, and I would seriously be annoyed to lose that just because of a law that said you had to be able to easily remove the back of a phone (for instance).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I'm with right to repair if doesn't harm by zippo01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree with your statement in whole. Apple does not sell parts, and is difficult to service. Samsung http://www.samsungparts.com/Mo... I can buy any part I want, and for a long time lead the way in water proof phones. it is a design choice to say, I need to make this serviceable and weather proof. The part can even be considered disposable, as long as I can replace it myself. Versus, I refuse to support people repairing their phones and putting mechanisms in place to make it almost impossible.

    2. Re:I'm with right to repair if doesn't harm by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I don't think you disagree with me as much as you think you do...

      I probably did not make it clear enough but I do support third parties being able to get official repair equipment and parts from Apple as well. I am totally fine with that.

      Where I differ is I think it should remain OK for products to possibly be difficult to service, because you are shutting out a lot of design priorities by making it easier.. in fact there is a risk you are making it MORE likely products will break down more often by having shirt sighted design choices. As it is, in Apple's case at least all of the devices are recycled anyway so who cares if they are harder to fix? I'll take that tradeoff for the devices generally lasting me 2-3x longer than any other electronics I have owned.

      I can buy any part I want, and for a long time lead the way in water proof phones.

      You can buy any part you want but don't install it yourself if you want to keep the phone waterproof... that's the problem with letting the average consumer buy parts, they will on average break more than they fix (at least for something as compact and delicate as a phone).

        I'd still rather err that way, but it does have downsides.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:I'm with right to repair if doesn't harm by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      You can buy any part you want but don't install it yourself if you want to keep the phone waterproof... that's the problem with letting the average consumer buy parts, they will on average break more than they fix (at least for something as compact and delicate as a phone).

      Right to repair laws aren't mostly about people wanting to do the repairs themselves. It's about wanting to take it to your local repair shop instead of the factory authorized shop that charges 3 times as much. Just like in your own link where the top rated answer is from a local repair shop that can do the work.

      --
      Nope, no sig
  7. some things are just too crazy to self fix by AndrewFlagg · · Score: 1

    while i admire those that try to control repairs, some things are just to crazy to fix yourself. yet, the competitive pricing of a free market to get something fixed should exist. the manufacturer should not 100% absolutely control something i bought and paid for, otherwise why would a title of ownership exist? its okay, as farmers, john deer was the primadonna and the darling of all things farming, yet massey ferguson, international harvester, ford, etc... had plenty of room on our farm and acreage. the dumb asses at john deer were doing like any other capitalist, trying to control the market for maximum profit.. that's okay.. the market will eventually decide and turn on them and drop them like a hot rock in a lake... no crying over spilled milk ... john deer... the mickey mouse laws do apply and your patents are nice... submarined patents or not... until that was no longer legal either... ethical, nope, but greedy bastards.. yep.. so... ;-) nice one ... tesla? oh.. so what.. i like Elon and his toy story... can't wait until we have moon trips and john deer is patenting moon farming equipment too....

  8. doubt it by hdyoung · · Score: 1

    All due respect to the grandson and the grandfather, but Theo Brown was a businessman of the time. If he had lived today, he would totally be working to lock his customers into exclusive maintenance channels. Business has changed, and that's how you make money nowadays. I like the idea of right-to-repair, but let's face it: it just isn't good business anymore. You're fighting capitalism. It's gonna be a *very* uphill battle.

    1. Re:doubt it by bobbied · · Score: 1

      What does capitalism do for *me*, exactly?

      Do for you exactly? It give you the freedom to choose.

      Choose what? That depends on what you want it to do and what you work to get. You see, capitalism provides you opportunity to do what you want to be what you want and to make choices about your life. As such, it has produced more wealth (not money, wealth) and raised more people's standard of living than any other system. Many equate opportunity and results, but they are not the same, then they bash capitalism based on the experiences of a few. But history proves that it is the system that does the most good for the most people. That's what capitalism does for you.

      The problem with Deere (and other manufacturers) is we've messed things up though government regulations and the unintended side effects of well meaning laws. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for zero government regulation, quite the contrary, I'm just pointing to this as a cautionary tale to prove that government is a necessary evil that can do great harm if used too much.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  9. Tesla by Ingineerix · · Score: 1

    Is far worse! As much as I am for less governmental oversight, I think it's going to take legislation.

  10. I've solved the entire problem right here. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once I've purchased your item or service, I'm more than happy to license certain "unlimited"* rights back to you, for a "reasonable fee"** Just head on over to my website, create and account***, and apply for your new access to my decision making processes!

    *using the new meaning of the word, popularized by American ISPs and data service providers.

    **using the new meaning of the term, popularized by american shareholders, and banking institutions.

    ***All data presented in account creation process belongs to ME, and may be shared or sold to other interested parties at my sole discretion, in an effort to better patronize your company and/or services.

    You certify that all information provided during the application process is true, and you understand I may revoke your access to my decision making process at any time, without notice, and I may change the terms of this agreement at any time without notice. By entering into a sales contract for goods or services with ME, you have explicitly agreed to these terms. This agreement supersedes all other agreements you may, or may not have made with ME in the past. You also agree that any disagreements arising from acceptance of this agreement are to be resolved via arbitration, by an arbiter of my choosing, at a time of my choosing, at your expense.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  11. Sorry, but only the great grandson by srichard25 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but only the great grandson of a legendary inventor has the final word on whether or not the company is now corrupt.

  12. Monopolism via a Patent is Legal by drnb · · Score: 1

    Monopolism is a crime. As is artificial scarcity.

    Unless it is based upon a government issued patent. Then it is perfectly legal.

  13. Farmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I grew up on a farm. Farmers *need* to repair their own machinery. You cannot be a farmer without also being a mechanic. When you're working in the fields all day and into the night, for example, to get the crops harvested before winter comes, you can't just stop and wait for someone else to repair your broken combine. You need to be able to diagnose the problem, go buy the part you need from the local farm supply store, and then do the repairs yourself.

    So for John Deere company to deny farmers the right to repair their own equipment which they own is stupid.

  14. manure spreader? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    I thought Facebook had that patent?

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.