9 ms·

How is this practice even legal? Could auto manafuctirers do the same thing? I'm sure they discourage aftermarket programming and whatnot, but using DRM to prev

How is this practice even legal? Could auto manafuctirers do the same thing? I'm sure they discourage aftermarket programming and whatnot, but using DRM to prevent DIY repairs is bringing things to a whole new level.

weberc2 10y ago
Former John Deere employee here. The company isn't being spiteful or doing this to corner the repair market; they do it to avoid legal liability and fraudulent warrantee claims. They're an extremely risk-averse company. EDIT: By the way, I favor owner's rights (my family farms with Deere equipment, and I think there's tons of mutual advantage in open sourcing software in this case specifically and in general), but as is often the case, the "greedy corporate oppressor" narrative is too simple.
- ethbro 10y ago
  From that perspective, it does start to look dicey in terms of "offer a lengthy and full service warranty" + "allow the end user to make modifications", so I understand that perspective. But I do think there's a lot of room for detecting what changes were made and honoring / invalidating the warranty depending on them. Rather than simply saying "something was changed, therefore we invalidate the whole warranty."
  - weberc2 10y ago
    The warrantee issue I mentioned was fraud--that is, sinking costs into investigating additional warrantee claims which turn out to be due to user manipulation. I suspect this is less of a concern compared with the legal liability of injury resulting from modification--I imagine it behooves the company to be able to point to the EULA and say, "look, we're doing everything we can to make sure this doesn't happen". This is complicated by the fact that they have to comply with laws in virtually every second and third world country, not just the US. It's just easier to be conservative with a blanket EULA. They could probably devise a more nuanced approach, but it would probably be costly and they probably have better (read: higher customer value) things they could put that money toward.
    - pacificleo11 10y ago
      This is very similar to CPU overclocking. fraudulent warranty replacement claims were rampant untill recently but that intel fixed it .
- joe_the_user 10y ago
  "...as is often the case, the "greedy corporate oppressor" narrative is too simple." What part of the things you describe aren't done with the purpose of making the company money? I mean, "we're risk-averse so we force the risk onto you" is kind of the same as "we don't want to spend money so we inconvenience you". Of course, companies are in business to make money and will tend to use whatever avenues are open. When a company starts using a monopoly position to impose legal restrictions on customers (whether to avoid risk of losing money or just to make money), sympathy for their money-making efforts tends to lessen. Edit: Note that the approach of Deer is not warranty voiding if someone hacks the software but a license agreement which effectively terminates the ability of the farmer to use the vehicle and thus the defense above is pretty disingenuous. See: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/ https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
  - weberc2 10y ago
    1. My argument was that their incentive is to avoid being sued, not profiting from a monopoly. 2. What monopoly are you proposing? A monopoly on the software that comes with the tractor?
    - joe_the_user 10y ago
      I don't know if avoiding liability for their products is great way to make money or not. But if they are making a large effort to avoid liability, they are doing that as a way to guarantee profits - ie, make money. Deere effectively has a monopoly on tractors at the scale discussed in the article. That's why farmers are buying the tractors and illegally moding them rather than buying competing brands - see comments elsewhere on this page. And, of course, they're leveraging new legal concepts which allow them to sell their tractors while maintaining control over them through software licenses.
      - mathgeek 10y ago
        > But if they are making a large effort to avoid liability, they are doing that as a way to guarantee profits - ie, make money. This can also be viewed as the more general "companies act in a way that gives them the best chance of continued indeterminate existence."
- rjmunro 10y ago
  In that case, just write the license contract to say "If you change the firmware, John Deere accepts no liability". Make people sign that if they want the unlock key. Presumably John Deere aren't liable for other kinds of misuse - e.g. if you crash it.
  - sglane 10y ago
    It's not that simple. A corollary is with cellphone firmware for the radio. They have to answer to the FCC. Updating the firmware will let you broadcast with more wattage, for example. FCC doesn't like that. JD has to answer to the EPA. See Tier IV.
    - Arizhel 10y ago
      Automakers have to answer to the EPA too. That doesn't stop regular joes from changing their own oil in their garage and buying parts at Autozone. Most cars are not designed to make it impossible for car owners to do regular maintenance or simple repair jobs themselves.
      - syshum 10y ago
        Doing so would actually be illegal for the Automakers, who tried similar things in the early days of the Auto Industry and several laws and regulations were passed to protect consumers for Highway vehicles It is highly unlikely this will work out very well for JD.
        Arizhel 10y ago
        Yeah, it's called the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. It doesn't just apply to cars though, it applies to everything, including farm equipment.
        syshum 10y ago
        That was one, but not the only Regulation passed as a result Things like ODBII Regulations, which do only Apply to Highyway Vehicles, and all of the regulations that come out of the USDOT for Highway rated Vehicles.
Swizec 10y ago
My dad is a mechanical engineer who loves cars. I spent my youth listening to him lamenting the fact that modern cara have too many electronics and DIY protections. That you can't even make an oil change without also notifying the computer, the interface for which is proprietary and only sold to licensed dealers, or the car would refuse to run because it would think its oil is bad. He reminisced about the good old days when all you needed was a wrench and a hammer and you could fix anything on a car. This was 10 years ago. I imagine it's only gotten worse since. Coincidentally he grew up on a farm where they would hack and build from scratch all sorts of farm equipment.
- rconti 10y ago
  [citation needed] There is no vehicle on the market (that I know of) which will refuse to run without an oil change. On my 17 year old BMW and 2 year old VW, the oil service indicator is just a reminder, a courtesy. On the BMW I can reset it with a paper clip. On the VW I can reset it on the screen on the dash. Honestly, most of the major things that go wrong with cars these days are still mechanical, and are still fixed in the old-fashioned way. I've done countless brake jobs, oil changes, suspension changes, fluid changes, cooling system swaps, and never once been stymied by a computer.
  - icantdrive55 10y ago
    I completely agree, until you have a problem that requires you hook a scan tool up to that diagnostic link. I have a snap-on mt2500, and two other generic scan tools. I can get hard codes on most vechicles. I can't get certain codes or repair information on many newer vechicles. The problem arises when you have an intermittent problem, and need access into those propriatiatry systems. The dealerships get software updates, but automotive companies are not required to inform anyone that there's been an change to the existing software. In states like CA, which are very strict with emissions; failing a smog check because you have on old version of firmware is beyond frustrating. Most people have no idea that the reason they failed is due to an older software. Most smog shops don't even have information the dealerships have. It's a lot of trial and error to get that vechicle to pass those smog checks. It's not right. It should violate The Sherman Anti-Trust Act? There are many indepent Auto Shops that are hobbled. They need access to at least the dealership scan tool. I believe Massachusetts is the only state that enacted a "Right to Repair" law. If you live in that state, you can buy expensive dealership repair manuals, and get the opportunity to spend thousands on their scan tools. Just to find out what system/lazy sensor/etc. is broken in a vechicle you bought? Having to take you vechicle to only the dealership is---un-American?
loeg 10y ago
Tesla does something very similar to this.
gambiting 10y ago
Tesla already does. If you have an accident in a Tesla, it will shut down its computer and you can't reactivate it without bringing it to a Tesla dealership. While I understand why they want to do it that way, it's inherently customer-hostile, because Tesla can refuse to re-activate the car. Imagine if you have a 15 year old Tesla that gets into a minor fender bender, and Tesla says that they won't reactivate your car because it's not supported anymore - but they are super happy to sell you a new one.
syshum 10y ago
They are Trying ODBII regulations for Highway Vehicles are what prevents the bulk of it today. ODBII does not apply to non-road vehicles like Tractors. However Automanufacturers are moving anything that is not required by ODBII (which was passed in 1996 so it very out dated) to CANBUS and disallowing 3rd parties access. This makes is harder for Independent shops to service some of the non-mechanical parts of the car like the GPS, Radio, power seats, etc
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  ODBII has to be the greatest planned obsolescence scheme ever perpetrated. Want to continue driving that older car that is running perfectly fine? Sure go ahead and rip apart the dashboard to get at that sensor that happens to fail perfectly around 100k mile mark at a cost of about half the value of the car at the repair shop because it takes half a day for their tech to complete. If it was about greenhouse gasses they'd let you keep the "dirty" car because the extra pound or two of emissions per gallon compared to a new car doesn't offset the carbon cost of building a new car from scratch.
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    How would any other protocol change your nonsensical example? Cars will have sensors with canbus or obdX. We arent running mags and carbs anymore man.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      When the OBD system was created auto manufactures (via dealership trade organizations that are extremely powerful in some states due to the large sums of taxes paid on new vehicles) pushed for state regulations that don't allow cars to be used that have the check engine light on. Often the sensor not functioning has no effect on the use or safety of the car (also the sensors themselves are designed to be needlessly difficult to replace). In effect causing the use of older cars to not be cost effective. In my state emissions are measured at the tailpipe, you can be well within standards but fail simply because a sensor reports that it needs to be changed. This is essentially a highly regressive tax scheme that subsidises auto makers and dealerships at the disproportionate expense of poorer working Americans. It gives auto manufactures a "replace car" light that they can activate and have enforced by law and thus, planned obsolescence. As someone who grew up poor and has spent time not having access to food in order to replace a useless sensor in a family vehicle (or paying a fine related to not having a valid inspection sticker) and knowing many other families who have been in the same situation. I have seen first hand the issues with this policy.
moonbug 10y ago
Your expectations based on consumer law may not apply in this case as the "farmer" purchasing the equipment is operating as a business not a private individual.

weberc2 10y ago

Former John Deere employee here. The company isn't being spiteful or doing this to corner the repair market; they do it to avoid legal liability and fraudulent warrantee claims. They're an extremely risk-averse company. EDIT: By the way, I favor owner's rights (my family farms with Deere equipment, and I think there's tons of mutual advantage in open sourcing software in this case specifically and in general), but as is often the case, the "greedy corporate oppressor" narrative is too simple.

ethbro 10y ago
From that perspective, it does start to look dicey in terms of "offer a lengthy and full service warranty" + "allow the end user to make modifications", so I understand that perspective. But I do think there's a lot of room for detecting what changes were made and honoring / invalidating the warranty depending on them. Rather than simply saying "something was changed, therefore we invalidate the whole warranty."
- weberc2 10y ago
  The warrantee issue I mentioned was fraud--that is, sinking costs into investigating additional warrantee claims which turn out to be due to user manipulation. I suspect this is less of a concern compared with the legal liability of injury resulting from modification--I imagine it behooves the company to be able to point to the EULA and say, "look, we're doing everything we can to make sure this doesn't happen". This is complicated by the fact that they have to comply with laws in virtually every second and third world country, not just the US. It's just easier to be conservative with a blanket EULA. They could probably devise a more nuanced approach, but it would probably be costly and they probably have better (read: higher customer value) things they could put that money toward.
  - pacificleo11 10y ago
    This is very similar to CPU overclocking. fraudulent warranty replacement claims were rampant untill recently but that intel fixed it .
joe_the_user 10y ago
"...as is often the case, the "greedy corporate oppressor" narrative is too simple." What part of the things you describe aren't done with the purpose of making the company money? I mean, "we're risk-averse so we force the risk onto you" is kind of the same as "we don't want to spend money so we inconvenience you". Of course, companies are in business to make money and will tend to use whatever avenues are open. When a company starts using a monopoly position to impose legal restrictions on customers (whether to avoid risk of losing money or just to make money), sympathy for their money-making efforts tends to lessen. Edit: Note that the approach of Deer is not warranty voiding if someone hacks the software but a license agreement which effectively terminates the ability of the farmer to use the vehicle and thus the defense above is pretty disingenuous. See: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/ https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
- weberc2 10y ago
  1. My argument was that their incentive is to avoid being sued, not profiting from a monopoly. 2. What monopoly are you proposing? A monopoly on the software that comes with the tractor?
  - joe_the_user 10y ago
    I don't know if avoiding liability for their products is great way to make money or not. But if they are making a large effort to avoid liability, they are doing that as a way to guarantee profits - ie, make money. Deere effectively has a monopoly on tractors at the scale discussed in the article. That's why farmers are buying the tractors and illegally moding them rather than buying competing brands - see comments elsewhere on this page. And, of course, they're leveraging new legal concepts which allow them to sell their tractors while maintaining control over them through software licenses.
    - mathgeek 10y ago
      > But if they are making a large effort to avoid liability, they are doing that as a way to guarantee profits - ie, make money. This can also be viewed as the more general "companies act in a way that gives them the best chance of continued indeterminate existence."
rjmunro 10y ago
In that case, just write the license contract to say "If you change the firmware, John Deere accepts no liability". Make people sign that if they want the unlock key. Presumably John Deere aren't liable for other kinds of misuse - e.g. if you crash it.
- sglane 10y ago
  It's not that simple. A corollary is with cellphone firmware for the radio. They have to answer to the FCC. Updating the firmware will let you broadcast with more wattage, for example. FCC doesn't like that. JD has to answer to the EPA. See Tier IV.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    Automakers have to answer to the EPA too. That doesn't stop regular joes from changing their own oil in their garage and buying parts at Autozone. Most cars are not designed to make it impossible for car owners to do regular maintenance or simple repair jobs themselves.
    - syshum 10y ago
      Doing so would actually be illegal for the Automakers, who tried similar things in the early days of the Auto Industry and several laws and regulations were passed to protect consumers for Highway vehicles It is highly unlikely this will work out very well for JD.
      - Arizhel 10y ago
        Yeah, it's called the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. It doesn't just apply to cars though, it applies to everything, including farm equipment.
        syshum 10y ago
        That was one, but not the only Regulation passed as a result Things like ODBII Regulations, which do only Apply to Highyway Vehicles, and all of the regulations that come out of the USDOT for Highway rated Vehicles.

Swizec 10y ago

My dad is a mechanical engineer who loves cars. I spent my youth listening to him lamenting the fact that modern cara have too many electronics and DIY protections. That you can't even make an oil change without also notifying the computer, the interface for which is proprietary and only sold to licensed dealers, or the car would refuse to run because it would think its oil is bad. He reminisced about the good old days when all you needed was a wrench and a hammer and you could fix anything on a car. This was 10 years ago. I imagine it's only gotten worse since. Coincidentally he grew up on a farm where they would hack and build from scratch all sorts of farm equipment.

rconti 10y ago
[citation needed] There is no vehicle on the market (that I know of) which will refuse to run without an oil change. On my 17 year old BMW and 2 year old VW, the oil service indicator is just a reminder, a courtesy. On the BMW I can reset it with a paper clip. On the VW I can reset it on the screen on the dash. Honestly, most of the major things that go wrong with cars these days are still mechanical, and are still fixed in the old-fashioned way. I've done countless brake jobs, oil changes, suspension changes, fluid changes, cooling system swaps, and never once been stymied by a computer.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  I completely agree, until you have a problem that requires you hook a scan tool up to that diagnostic link. I have a snap-on mt2500, and two other generic scan tools. I can get hard codes on most vechicles. I can't get certain codes or repair information on many newer vechicles. The problem arises when you have an intermittent problem, and need access into those propriatiatry systems. The dealerships get software updates, but automotive companies are not required to inform anyone that there's been an change to the existing software. In states like CA, which are very strict with emissions; failing a smog check because you have on old version of firmware is beyond frustrating. Most people have no idea that the reason they failed is due to an older software. Most smog shops don't even have information the dealerships have. It's a lot of trial and error to get that vechicle to pass those smog checks. It's not right. It should violate The Sherman Anti-Trust Act? There are many indepent Auto Shops that are hobbled. They need access to at least the dealership scan tool. I believe Massachusetts is the only state that enacted a "Right to Repair" law. If you live in that state, you can buy expensive dealership repair manuals, and get the opportunity to spend thousands on their scan tools. Just to find out what system/lazy sensor/etc. is broken in a vechicle you bought? Having to take you vechicle to only the dealership is---un-American?

loeg 10y ago

Tesla does something very similar to this.

gambiting 10y ago

Tesla already does. If you have an accident in a Tesla, it will shut down its computer and you can't reactivate it without bringing it to a Tesla dealership. While I understand why they want to do it that way, it's inherently customer-hostile, because Tesla can refuse to re-activate the car. Imagine if you have a 15 year old Tesla that gets into a minor fender bender, and Tesla says that they won't reactivate your car because it's not supported anymore - but they are super happy to sell you a new one.

syshum 10y ago

They are Trying ODBII regulations for Highway Vehicles are what prevents the bulk of it today. ODBII does not apply to non-road vehicles like Tractors. However Automanufacturers are moving anything that is not required by ODBII (which was passed in 1996 so it very out dated) to CANBUS and disallowing 3rd parties access. This makes is harder for Independent shops to service some of the non-mechanical parts of the car like the GPS, Radio, power seats, etc

cmdrfred 10y ago
ODBII has to be the greatest planned obsolescence scheme ever perpetrated. Want to continue driving that older car that is running perfectly fine? Sure go ahead and rip apart the dashboard to get at that sensor that happens to fail perfectly around 100k mile mark at a cost of about half the value of the car at the repair shop because it takes half a day for their tech to complete. If it was about greenhouse gasses they'd let you keep the "dirty" car because the extra pound or two of emissions per gallon compared to a new car doesn't offset the carbon cost of building a new car from scratch.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  How would any other protocol change your nonsensical example? Cars will have sensors with canbus or obdX. We arent running mags and carbs anymore man.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    When the OBD system was created auto manufactures (via dealership trade organizations that are extremely powerful in some states due to the large sums of taxes paid on new vehicles) pushed for state regulations that don't allow cars to be used that have the check engine light on. Often the sensor not functioning has no effect on the use or safety of the car (also the sensors themselves are designed to be needlessly difficult to replace). In effect causing the use of older cars to not be cost effective. In my state emissions are measured at the tailpipe, you can be well within standards but fail simply because a sensor reports that it needs to be changed. This is essentially a highly regressive tax scheme that subsidises auto makers and dealerships at the disproportionate expense of poorer working Americans. It gives auto manufactures a "replace car" light that they can activate and have enforced by law and thus, planned obsolescence. As someone who grew up poor and has spent time not having access to food in order to replace a useless sensor in a family vehicle (or paying a fine related to not having a valid inspection sticker) and knowing many other families who have been in the same situation. I have seen first hand the issues with this policy.

moonbug 10y ago

Your expectations based on consumer law may not apply in this case as the "farmer" purchasing the equipment is operating as a business not a private individual.