This view might not be very popular, so I want to preface it with: I am very supportive of the right of repair, especially when it's being used to force expensi

This view might not be very popular, so I want to preface it with: I am very supportive of the right of repair, especially when it's being used to force expensive proprietary repairs, probably from a long way away (I'm sure shipping a tractor isn't quite like shipping an iphone), or when it's used to enforce a sort of planned obsolescence when the manufacturer just decides to stop maintaining in order to force you to upgrade. I'm curious, however, how much (in practical terms) John Deere would have to give or open up in terms of trade secrets in order to enable repairs (especially of super advanced stuff like fully autonomous farming), and to what extent they would need to open things up that offshore competitors might easily clone without having invested the millions (or billions?) that John Deere has already invested. Put another way, right now, today, we have a farming equipment manufacturer based in the U.S. that is actually injecting some serious tech into a rather staid industry. John Deere seems to be turning into a highly innovative tech mfg company, in, ironically, one of the most expensive places to run a heavy equipment manufacturer. I view them as a huge asset, developing what appears to be interesting ideas in what was a pretty tech-adverse industry, and fully automated farming is probably also a key component for food security across the globe, U.S. national security, international stability, and probably needs to be a part of any climate change conversation. So, how much are we asking them to give up of their know-how where it might be cloned or worked-around by other companies? In the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcolm, "You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you wanna sell it." What if FOTMA or Yucheng Dadi Machinery Co (https://sdycdadi.en.made-in-china.com/product/EvdncAtVZXkZ/China-Farm-Machinery-Tractor-Rotary-Tiller-1GQNK-140D-.html https://sdycdadi.en.made-in-china.com/product/EvdncAtVZXkZ/C...) or something like that decide to clone the most advanced John Deere tractors with their new access? If you are buying a quarter-million-dollar John Deere combine, you have probably already evaluated the rest of the industry and decided that the draconian DRM or whatever they're using is worth that very substantial investment. It's not like you might have just been browsing in the store for a $1 bottle of shampoo -- I'm sure you can't be a farmer without knowing, in detail, about this unable-to-repair problem with John Deere specifically, and might have even formed some strong opinions about it! And if you decide that it's not worth it, then you would choose something else.. the market would punish John Deere for their overstep. (I'm not a farmer and have zero contact with this industry, but it seems that the Indian company Mahindra has pretty competitive pricing from a quick browse of tractor dealerships.) You could also sue John Deere if they were delivering a vehicle that wasn't performing according to their specifications, and ultimately their reputation would suffer. (It took thirty years for American auto mfgs to rebuild their reputation after the garbage they made way back in the 70's.) The other thing where the market would help to fix this, without needing a legislative fix, is if a competitor steps up with an easy to repair tractor, like https://frame.work/ https://frame.work/ did for laptops. If this is a real problem, then some smart entrepreneur eventually will, even if they end up having their first tractors built in China. John Deere relies on the trust of farmers just as much as the other way around. Just some food for thought. This seems to be a nuanced and very emotional issue for some people, but it does seem like there are at least two sides to this story.