> pursue a model by which their software is more or less SaSS A tractor isn't a service. Fixing problems in goods after they were sold doesn't make the purchas

> pursue a model by which their software is more or less SaSS A tractor isn't a service. Fixing problems in goods after they were sold doesn't make the purchased product (the tractor) a service either. <side note> In general, "SaSS" (and "SaaS") is a useless buzzword. If you provide an application on a webpage that people can subscribe to, you're offering "service". If you're selling a tractor with automatic software updates, you're selling a good that may include software internally and access to service that provides software updates. Adding "Software as ..." is useless. Like the people that rushed to prefix everything with "Internet ..." in the dot-com era indicates the speaker incorrectly believes that goods and services suddenly lose some of their usual properties and become something fundamentally new when "Software" (or "Internet") is added. No, it's still mostly the same good or service. Maybe adding the unnecessary term "Software" may contribute to this confusion that mistakes goods for services? </side note> > Why is it that these farmers believe they have a right to modify that software? The same reason everyone else believes they have the right to modify the goods they purchase. This is a fundamental feature of what it means to own property. Yes, they do not have the right to copy the internal software, but that isn't what the farmers are trying to do. They just want to fix the tractor they purchased. If someone else retains the power to forbid you from modifying your own property, you don't actually own it. Why does John Deere think it has the right to undermine the concept of property rights? Why do so many people accept that reinterpretation and defend tying[1] a service and/or software license to the purchase of a good, which is forbidden by the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts?