[HN Gopher] Senate introduces bill to allow farmers to fix their...
___________________________________________________________________
Senate introduces bill to allow farmers to fix their own equipment
Author : serverlessmom
Score : 222 points
Date : 2022-02-02 16:18 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nbcnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nbcnews.com)
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Right to repair should be for everyone or no one. Idiots buying 6
| figure pieces of kit for industrial applications without reading
| their contracts are pretty low on the list of those deserving
| rescue imho.
| nyxtom wrote:
| I wish these things were re-worded the other way. It's a sad
| state of affairs that a law has to be encoded to grant the people
| permission to do something that should be the default state.
| Right to repair is about targeting the manufacturers and
| preventing them from making it impossible to do so.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| That's exactly my reaction, what about cars and phones and
| ordinary people? Politicians care are farmers, babies, and
| little old ladies because it gets people going, but the bigger
| issue is right to repair in general. It's great that farmers
| would be able to fix tractors, but if the senate carves out
| this exception it could weaken the overall right to repair
| argument. Are there any broader bills being considered by the
| senate?
| gorjusborg wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| People should be able to repair their belongings. We shouldn't
| need a law for each type of belonging.
| queuebert wrote:
| _Apple glances around nervously._
| serverlessmom wrote:
| Yeah I really thought it was clear how much of a huge bummer
| this news is. Rewrite is as 'Farmers are having their work held
| hostage by, of all things, tractor DRM, and there's a mere
| proposal to pump the breaks on this absolute cyberpunk
| nightmare"
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| I wouldn't read into it too much. This is just NBC's bias
| creeping in. It's not like they have a plethora of hardline
| libertarians kicking around who are gonna say "hey, can we
| title this differently?". The bill itself probably has some
| grand patriotic title.
|
| Edit: Boring title and "text not available yet"
|
| https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s3549
| [deleted]
| zenithd wrote:
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Well, you can frame this both ways, because the contract
| clause, allowing people to (by default) sign binding contracts,
| also counts towards "grant the people permission to do
| something". And that's what this is -- the farmer signing a
| contract to use the equipment in a certain way.
|
| As much as this law makes sense, the blanket right to form
| contracts between individuals/businesses/etc (when those
| contracts are not explicitly deemed abusive) is very important
| and I don't think we would be in a better place without it.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| Unlimited contracting rights, which I am not saying you
| support, are a very dangerous path to go down because history
| shows they will be abused in very serious ways to reduce the
| actual freedom of large subsets of the population.
| hyperhopper wrote:
| On paper that all sounds well and good, but that completely
| discounts the power imbalance between large corporations and
| normal people.
|
| When somebody wants to buy a good, if the only way to do that
| is to accept a one-sided ToS that makes them give up there
| rights, that's just eroding freedom.
|
| The problem is, it's not a choice anymore. John Deere isn't
| saying "hey, want to sign up for our repair program?"
|
| It's saying "If you want a tractor we actually control what
| you can do with it forever. Too bad you need this tractor to
| work, tough luck we own you"
| bpodgursky wrote:
| That's why I am arguing that this law is good, but the
| default contract clause (which the OP comment is arguing
| against) is also good.
| salawat wrote:
| This is actuslly the part where other tractor companies
| should be stepping in and eating Deere's lunch.
|
| Why aren't they?
| vkou wrote:
| Because they would rather have a 20% profit margin on 5%
| of the market, than a 1% profit margin on 50% of it?
|
| Being in the latter position is precarious, being in the
| former is printing free money.
| salawat wrote:
| Maybe if you spend your entire day looking at percents,
| and never get back down to dollars.
|
| That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold
| mine. Playing it the other way just ensures that bad
| ideas never get out competed. Honestly, it just takes
| _less work_ to make something non user hostile. There has
| to be a perverse incentive somewhere.
| vkou wrote:
| > That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold
| mine.
|
| Or a quick death spiral into bankruptcy in response to
| any disruption in business as usual.
|
| This is a manufacturer of heavy industrial machinery, not
| a software startup, or a grocery store. You can't just
| turn down your burn rate by 1% in response to a 1% drop
| in demand, and you don't have a magical firehose of VC
| money that will smooth over any rough edges in your quest
| to improve the world by conquering the industrial
| machinery market, and driving all potential profits to
| near-zero with zero vendor lock-in.
|
| Hell, the VCs will run away screaming when you get the
| 'zero vendor lock-in' part of your pitch.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| You are absolutely right that we should pursue more freedom
| in signing the contracts and this is exactly what such
| regulation is supposed to do: a contract with the vendor must
| not block signing the contracts with other suppliers and
| repair shops. It creates more freedom by being more explicit
| about what is a valid contract.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| It is not like that. People are allowed to do things, but they
| voluntarily cede the right to do them by agreeing to the terms
| of the contract, when they buy the hardware and services. So
| the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain
| types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to
| grant this right.
|
| Also, the right to repair may mean different things: it can
| forbid exclusive contracts with spare parts suppliers, so that
| you could shop or repair elsewhere. Or it can regulate the
| price and availability. Or it can allow you to manufacture
| replacement parts on your own. The first option would be an
| equivalent of antitrust regulation in the vendor-specific
| ecosystem, and it seems pretty reasonable, because it will
| create a market where it did not yet exist. The second option
| will be economically destructive, because it would replace free
| market with planned economy. The last option may result in
| creating a black market of pirated parts, actually harming
| manufacturers which invested in R&D.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > voluntarily cede
|
| That's the thing about contracts and debt -- they let people
| who have the advantage today rob you for not just what's in
| your pocket today, but what will be in your pocket tomorrow.
| nyxtom wrote:
| > So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid
| certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair,
| not to grant this right.
|
| That's actually what I think the title should of been. But
| that's my own opinion.
|
| "Senate introduces bill to forbid farming contracts that
| limit right to repair"
|
| I get that, it's just a titling thing. Even framing the
| discussion in that way is not only a more accurate
| description of what's happening (as you've elaborated) but it
| lands better (if you were looking at this as a libertarian
| type perspective).
|
| Anyway, it's just a thing that irks me is all.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Let's see what shape it will get when it's passed. As the
| article says, "The legislation would require agriculture
| equipment manufacturers to make spare parts, instruction
| manuals and software codes publicly available". This can go
| both in option 1 and option 2 direction.
| SilasX wrote:
| >So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid
| certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair,
| not to grant this right.
|
| And to void previous contracts written that way.
| caymanjim wrote:
| This is a good start, but I wish things like this weren't always
| so tied to special interests. "Think of the farmers" is even more
| powerful than "think of the children"; no politician wants to
| appear to be anti-farmer. But there's no reason we should be
| carving out a right-to-repair rule for farmers while ignoring
| every other industry. What's so special about farm equipment,
| beyond the fact that they have powerful lobbies and strong tribal
| allegiance from politicians?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Could this be solved through antitrust? Is there really no
| feasible alternative to John Deere for farm equipment? Break 'em
| up and get some competition in there.
| dicknuckle wrote:
| There's all kinds of competition in that market, Deere is just
| the worst offender and is the reason they are at the very
| center of the issue.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| So none of the existing competition is interested in making a
| play for the customers who don't want to be locked into the
| Deere scheme? That's fascinating.
| foxfluff wrote:
| I recently read that the big suppliers of farming equipment
| have divided the land so to speak and aren't operating on
| each other's turf. You buy from whoever has a functional
| supply chain in your part of the farmland; if your tractor
| breaks, you need to get it fixed quick, because nature
| doesn't wait. Can't wait for some small startup or chinese
| supplier to send parts or technicians from the other end of
| the country.
|
| It smells like a cartel to me. Either way, it doesn't seem
| easy to compete in such a space.
| ykevinator2 wrote:
| I'm worried that if we don't let the free market handle this, the
| government is going to make it worse. Someone should steal deere
| customers on merit, and deere should have the right to ruin their
| brand equity with stupid predatory marketing and service
| restrictions. If you don't like it, spend your money with another
| vendor.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Smart phones have shown that the free market would not stop
| this behavior.
| dboreham wrote:
| People like to take a Faustian bargain so government
| regulations are required. Has been true for thousands of years.
| vkou wrote:
| In my experience, libertarians are more than eager to take a
| Faustian bargain to avoid government regulations... And to
| frame that sort of nonsense as some kind of in-volatile Prime
| Directive.
| notch656a wrote:
| Excuse my naivety, but what Faustian bargain are you
| referring to here? Farmers giving up their moral belief in
| ability to repair so that they can pay more for tractors?
| scrooched_moose wrote:
| I recently left a major part supplier for a good portion of the
| heavy equipment industry and Deere was one of our biggest
| customers. They were truly despicable to work with.
|
| On every bid we sent them the #1 requirement was Proprietary Fit.
| There had to be some sort of IP lockout (always disguised as a
| valuable design feature, but it never was) to prevent end users
| from procuring replacement parts anywhere else. In many cases it
| even made the parts significantly worse, as useless bumps or
| ridges were added to the industry standard to make them
| physically incompatible.
|
| The old model was we build a part for $8 and sell it to the end
| user for $10. Under Deere's new model, we build the part for $8,
| sell it exclusively to Deere for $11, and they sell it to
| customer for $16.
|
| My former employer was very complicit in this behavior, but Deere
| was by far the most aggressive about and a big enough player to
| squeeze all their suppliers.
|
| Edit: They pay all kinds of lip service to how this is better for
| the customer ("reliable supply chain", "Deere-guaranteed
| quality", etc) but that's only in their public PR. Behind the
| scenes it is 100% about securing a long term revenue source -
| customers pay out the ass for a piece of equipment, then have to
| keep coming back to Deere for 50 years for replacement parts.
| busterarm wrote:
| Worse still, you can't get schematics for John Deere in the US,
| but John Deere provided full schematics as a condition of
| access to the Chinese market.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| My company makes products that have computer controllers, and
| lots and lots of code to run them. They are bending over
| backward to make them impossible to hack here in the States,
| but (so I am told) giving the source and the encryption keys
| directly to the Chinese government as a requirement of
| selling products into that market.
| rootsudo wrote:
| Ironic. Makes you think which country cares more about their
| people and industry.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| China didn't demand the schematics out of altruism - they
| did it so they can copy the product and release their own.
| It's standard operating procedure for doing business in
| that country.
| notch656a wrote:
| I don't doubt it; but schematics, while incredibly useful
| for repair, are only a sliver of the piece of the puzzle
| to manufacturing something.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| Could you point to China's version of said product? This
| sounds a bit like FUD to me.
|
| Schematics do not always 100% lead to stolen and
| reproduced IP.
| jahewson wrote:
| More style than substance but the blazon disregard for IP
| is clear:
|
| https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/fancy-a-chinese-
| interpr...
| vosper wrote:
| Does it really make you think China might care more about
| it's people? A brief Google should relieve you of that
| notion :)
| zardo wrote:
| The Chinese government is a large beurocracy, it contains
| many competing factions and interests.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's pretty shocking. At the same time: this is a pretty
| strong case for market response, some other company should be
| able to get a significant price advantage out of this and make
| minced meat of JD in comparative advertising.
| dijonman2 wrote:
| Exactly the same situation with Apple, but it's much more than
| bumps and ridges. It's DRM for screens, digitizers, batteries,
| etc. It is genuine OEM but apple obviously prefers you to buy a
| new device.
| jevoten wrote:
| This sounds like it should be congressional testimony in
| support of these laws.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| Something about this really rubs me the wrong way. Our congress
| doesn't "give" us rights to do anything. This bill will be full
| of caveats and will probably be drafted with John Deere lobbyist
| in the same room.
|
| Court challenges are much more effective at re-establishing
| individual rights. They're more applicable and usually more
| broad, especially if you can get a SCOTUS ruling. This law will
| likely delay a favorable court ruling.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Courts can only interpret the laws defined by Congress. There
| is little they can do if the problem entity X has with entity Y
| is perfectly legal under the current legal code.
|
| Most democratic systems are built this way on purpose, to
| ensure no one branch of government has too much power. We don't
| necessarily want the branch in charge of interpreting the law
| to also be given the ability to write it.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| I really wish this was more broad than just farmers. Everyone who
| owns equipment should have the ability to at least try to repair
| it. This quote doesn't strike me as very encouraging:
|
| > Tester said: "I think when you get into other areas like
| cellphones and TVs and all that kind of stuff, it brings in all
| sorts of other issues that I am personally not as familiar with
| as agriculture. That's not to say that those other issues aren't
| really, really important. What it is to say is that I know this
| issue reasonably well, and I thought this is an issue that we
| need to deal with, and the sooner the better."
|
| Of course you don't understand all possible economic sectors and
| the issues they face. You're a Senator. You can't be expected to
| have personal expertise on everything. But it's your job to
| represent everybody anyway, not just the people working in
| whatever sector you used to work in before you became a Senator.
| This is why you have a staff. If you don't understand broader
| technology, hire people who do.
| Steltek wrote:
| There's so many angles to politics. It sounds reasonable that a
| Senator with prior expertise and personal enthusiasm will push
| forward a bill more than one without the background. OTOH, it's
| all backroom deals and negotiations anyway, isn't it?
|
| My fear is that this targeted advance on right-to-repair will
| mean fading support as specific groups get what they want/need.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > My fear is that this targeted advance on right-to-repair
| will mean fading support as specific groups get what they
| want/need.
|
| No revolution in a dictatorship happens if the army is kept
| happy. This is paying the 'army' (those with the resource for
| R2R) for their support, leaving the citizens to their own.
| dicknuckle wrote:
| While this is an important first step, I'm pleased there's at
| least one senator that doesn't have a stunning case of Dunning
| Kruger.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Honestly, Deere has been coasting on their reputation for 5 or so
| years. In another 5 years, I feel much of the brand loyalty will
| be gone if they continue this BS.
| sAbakumoff wrote:
| I read the title and I can just see how lobbyists affiliated with
| John Deere bribe GOP senators, Joe-Joe-Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema
| so that they kill the bill with the filibuster.
| alkaloid wrote:
| dboreham wrote:
| They'll water it down to the point where they figure they make
| more money anyway.
| mikece wrote:
| This is fantastic news but I'm hesitant to get excited about it
| yet. If it gets out of committee then it's a reason to celebrate.
| A bill "for the farmers" is an essential first step getting Right
| To Repair legislation; if this were to become law then getting
| similar measures passed for cars and eventually computers,
| phones, game consoles, and any/all personal electronics becomes
| easier. I'm looking forward to Louis Rossmann's comments on this!
| babypuncher wrote:
| I am worried the bill is too narrow in scope. "Help the
| farmers" is a great rallying call to gain broad bipartisan
| support for the right to repair movement. I think that if we
| pass a bill that _only_ helps the farmers, the rest of the
| movement will slowly wither away.
| rtkwe wrote:
| I'm of two minds on it. First it's good to see RtR finally
| making some possible progress but at the same time scoping it
| to farmers initially gives up some leverage that could maybe be
| used to get general RtR to actually pass. By solving the
| problem for farmers you get rid of one of the big stories
| behind RtR that appeals to the Republican world view.
| kokanator wrote:
| Farmers can fix most things on their farm. This is true for
| machines, fences, structures, animals, etc. Their ingenuity and
| hard work is how they survive. The ability to take advantage of
| weather windows as well as harvest and sow at the appropriate
| times allows them to maximize their output.
|
| Being required to wait around burning days waiting on some
| specialized technician who can charge exorbitant fees does not
| work.
|
| Give farmers access to the appropriate parts and resources and
| they will make their machines function and operate.
| ykevinator2 wrote:
| They do have access, just not with deere. So stop buying Deere.
| jevoten wrote:
| Voting with your wallet seldom works if the only organization
| permitted on the buyer's side is individual. As other posters
| have noted, there's a great deal of lock-in and local
| monopolies.
|
| On the other hand, if Deere wants a market without right-to-
| repair requirements, they can simply not sell in the US.
| Voting with their feet, as it were.
| busterarm wrote:
| Sure, you can buy Kubota or Massey Ferguson but in many areas
| of the US with active farmland, you'll have to drive many
| hundreds of miles to even find a dealer to support these
| brands. John Deere is ubiquitous.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| But I was under the impression from other comments farmers
| could fix anything themself, so why can't they fix Kubota
| machines?
| ghastmaster wrote:
| Without government intervention wouldn't the headline
| eventually be, "US Farmers Organize to Form Open Source Tractor
| Manufacturing Group"?
| jbkiv wrote:
| Here is how things work in the US. Sarcastic tone in my reply...
|
| Round one: this is great
|
| Hardware equipment for farmers (funded by John Deere and
| Caterpillar) lobbyists hard at work.
|
| Round two: here is a water down version
|
| Lobbyists "discover" that there is a risk of sudden death if a
| farmer accidentally connects two very potential wires...
| Lobbyists "do more highly paid" work with unions, OSHA, worker's
| compensation insurance companies.
|
| Round three: warranty denied, worker's compensation denied if
| worker (the word farmer has been deleted) fix anything that
| presents a risk of electrocution, or could physically harm the
| worker or co-workers
|
| Hardware??? Apple & Co. lobbyists jump into the action
|
| Bill is killed. Not enough support at the Senate. The people have
| spoken.
| levi-turner wrote:
| As an example for the detractors, Subaru has disabled
| components in response to the Massachusetts right to repair
| law: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/recent-developments-in-
| the...
| rirze wrote:
| can't wait for Louis to rant about this
| onphonenow wrote:
| A key factor here is if Deere and others can at least know if
| folks are doing work themselves and then be allowed to deny
| warranty coverage. If so, fair trade.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| It'd most likely be similar to automobiles where you don't void
| your warranty for repairs. Only when it's proven that your
| repair broke it further or something else breaks will warranty
| not cover a repair, but still doesn't void warranty on
| unrelated parts.
| Spoom wrote:
| As I understand it, the Magnussen-Moss Warranty Act protects
| this interpretation. You can't arbitrarily void a warranty by
| setting conditions on it like "must not remove this sticker".
| Though, of course, manufacturers will still try to scare
| people into believing that their warranty is far more fragile
| than it legally is.
| chasil wrote:
| If Deere wants to retain absolute control over the tractor,
| then they should sell it as a service.
|
| The purchase of a tractor severs control via the first sale
| doctrine, which Deere must [be compelled to] respect.
| onphonenow wrote:
| This is almost certainly a path they could go.
|
| For example, given the compute in the tractor I wouldn't be
| surprised if they licensed the code rather than sold you it
| under a first sale doctrine with a right of resale. Almost
| all software is sold that way already. So even with this bill
| it's hard for me to see them opening that up, in particular
| if it makes it easier for other countries to copy things.
|
| Basically only ever lease the machines etc.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Repairs should not void warranties. In fact, those "warranty
| void if removed" stickers you see on a lot of devices are flat
| out illegal. It's just not widely enforced.
|
| The manufacturer should have to prove that the customer opening
| the device is what caused the defect.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| * In fact, those "warranty void if removed" stickers you see
| on a lot of devices are flat out illegal. *
|
| Totally unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wonder to what
| extent is _lying_ illegal? Like, is it illegal to put such
| text on a sticker on your product, or is it only illegal to
| not fulfil a promise that is covered by warranty when the
| sticker is broken?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-02 23:02 UTC)