$500,000.00 fine and/or 5 years in federal prison for a first offense. John Deere

[fried1765]

Sounds as bad as Monsanto suing you if you use last years corn to sew this years crop.

What sort of machine is used to "sew" a corn crop?

 

[Cavjock22]

Im surprised nobody has mentioned heavy equipment makers. Caterpillar is just as bad. They will sell you the part and sell you the software to make that part run. You can also pay for add-ons like a scale system but then you have to pay for the software and the mechanics time to install the software..Many of today's repairs also are updates to the ECM's... This will be interesting...

 

[dnw64]

The simple answer is to have those that want to modify or change the computer software...

I believe the OP was about simply fixing a machine that was broken, NOT modifying or or changing it, just getting it running again.

Does your post stil haf relevance?

 

[Reg]

Just don't buy from JD - for this as well as all the previously existing reasons.

 

[rustydollar]

You don't own the operating system software or application software on your computer. You buy a license to use it.

What automobile manufacturers and tractor manufacturers have to take into account is that the software they provide controls a piece of machinery that can cause a great amount of damage and even result in the death of the operator or others if used outside of the parameters programmed into the machinery.

A secondary consideration, beyond that type of liability, is related to warranty issues. I can remember in the early 2000's many people were buying engine system programmers to alter both engine and transmission performance on diesel trucks. When they blew up the vehicle, they'd simply set the engine control module back to factory programming, take it to the dealer and demand warranty repairs.

After awhile, it became clear to the manufacturers what was going on, so now they include a programming memory as part of the ECM that documents the time and date when programming changes were made and what type of changes were made. Programming changes not made by the dealer can result in denial of the warranty if they can prove that the changes caused the malfunction.

Please - don't go on and on about the Moss-Magnuson Warranty Act as the manufacturer can deny warranty claims if the performance parameters are outside of what the manufacturer deems as safe for the equipment. They are the arbiter of acceptable operating parameters as they designed the equipment.

In the case of Deere, it is not who owns the equipment, but who owns the software. Rightfully, if the manufacturer pays the development costs and copyrights the software - the manufacturer OWNS the software and the buyer is granted a license to use it - just like the software on your computer.

They have the right to license the software while protecting themselves from liability issues caused by people who think they know better than the manufacturer as to how the equipment should be programmed for operation. They're the same people that will engage product liability lawyers to sue the manufacturer because they were, apparently, not protected from their own stupidity.

The manufacturer is trying to protect themselves from that type of liability. Because, in the end, the manufacturer doesn't pay the cost - the buyers do.

As an example, there is a built-in cost that is part of the price of a ladder specifically to cover liability insurance for the manufacturer - and we all pay the policy cost when buying a ladder.

You don't like Deere's stance on software and copyrights? Fine. Buy equipment from a different manufacturer.

GNU General Public License - Wikipedia
GNU General Public License - Wikipedia
The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL) is a widely used free software license, ... Prominent free software programs licensed under the GPL include the Linux kernel and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). David A. Wheeler ...

 

[Ivan49]

What is happening around here s there are several large farms that are 3 and 4 generations old. These farms would never have anything that was not painted green on them. In the last 4 or 5 years there is very little green eqit on them any more. Many have went to NH and some to Kubota. 2 years ago when I started looking for a new tractor it was in Mar the NH dealer told me they had 50 of the big 4 wheel drive tractors to get ready by the 1st of April. I did not buy a JD because of the dealer being suck a prick but if you go by the Case lot or NH lot it looks almost like a JD dealership lot

 

[rjmack]

They have the right to license the software while protecting themselves from liability issues caused by people who think they know better than the manufacturer as to how the equipment should be programmed for operation. They're the same people that will engage product liability lawyers to sue the manufacturer because they were, apparently, not protected from their own stupidity.

The manufacturer is trying to protect themselves from that type of liability. Because, in the end, the manufacturer doesn't pay the cost - the buyers do.

I'm not buying that argument. John Deere can include a waiver for tampered software in the purchase/warranty agreement just as easily as it demands a perpetually open credit card authorization.

far as not owning your own land, who is going to stop you from putting in a garden, or planting lawn over a garden, or cutting down an apple tree, or cutting the lawn.

this "software" con would require permission from, and a tribute paid, to John Deere for everything except fueling the tractor (for now).

far as buying another brand, if John Deere can find enough corrupt politicians to pull this off, other corporations will see the fabulous profits it generates and do the same thing. you will be paying full purchase price, plus rental costs, for 'your' tractor, for the rest of your life, and you won't have the option to vote with your feet because every other manufacturer will be lined up to suck your blood in the same fashion.

and btw, the argument that the government collects perpetual taxes, therefore it is okay for a corporation to usurp the authority of government and start it's own perpetual taxation program, on top of what the government already charges, just doesn't wash.

John Deere has no right to arbitrarily assume the authority to collect taxes.

I'm not a John Deere owner, but I am genuinely worried about this enormous overstepping of authority spreading to other manufacturers, because it will. :2cents:

 

[Gator6x4]

I believe the OP was about simply fixing a machine that was broken, NOT modifying or or changing it, just getting it running again.

Does your post stil haf relevance?

If he he has to hack, change or modify factory installed software to accomplish his goal yes. If he has the skills, dianogistic ability to work on and repair expensive computer controlled equipment and buys a new computer and installs it to fix the problem, no. I know some very electronic savvy people, but I don't think one of them would think about opening up a computer on a $225,000 dollar piece of equipment think they could repair or fix it with a pair of pliers, a screw driver and a couple feet of old wire they had laying around.

 

[OkieDave]

Books you alluded to are intellectual property. Computer software is also intellectual property. No one has a right to change anything written by the author of a book or modify or change computer software, which was designed to safety operate the equipment it was designed for. Modifying or changing Computer software that operates machinery is something that could kill a person. Survivors of the deceased will then sue the manafracture not the idiot that did the modification or a user will after modifying software sue the manafacture alleging the equipment purchased was defective when the equipment self destructs.

The simple answer is to have those that want to modify or change the computer software in equipment sign a nortarized statement to the effect if his/her tampering with the software that operates the equipment causes damage to the equipment, injury or death ever piece that is left when it self destructs and any injury or death is the fruits of his/her labor and their sole responsibility.

You're mistaken on many points. As the owner of the hardware, I have the right to do with it as I please, including loading alternate software. Manufacturers tried to restrict that by putting in software locks, and the DMCA would seem to support them, but the Librarian of Congress has written an exception specifically to cover that scenario in the case of repair. That's the entire reason that Deere has gone to a contract: their remedy under copyright has been stripped according to the provisions of law.

I can change anything I want in a book I own. Ask any college student: we all took notes in our textbooks. What you can't do is redistribute (i.e. copy) the modified version (though you can give away or sell your one original copy under the doctrine of first sale).

Your suggestion of a plaintiff suing the manufacturer over a tort arising out of the use of modified software is also a miss. Sure, the suit can be brought, but the manufacturer will quickly point out that the device was modified and implead the producer of the alternate software; it'll be up to the jury to determine relative fault. As a practical matter, you can sue for anything: I can sue you because I don't like the color of your shirt. It won't go anywhere, but if I'm willing to pay the filing fee, I can bring the suit.

There's no need for a notarized waiver or anything like that to shift liability. If an injured party sues, the defendant will simply bring any alternate defendants into the fray and let the jury sort it out, assuming the defendant can't win it outright on a motion for summary judgment.

 

[OkieDave]

far as not owning your own land, who is going to stop you from putting in a garden, or planting lawn over a garden, or cutting down an apple tree, or cutting the lawn.

Well, actually... Florida Vegetable Gardens - Institute for Justice to name one example. It's becoming increasingly common for cities to forbid gardens, or to fine people for not watering their lawn often enough, and yes, prohibitions on removing trees are not unknown, especially in "historic" or "preservation" districts.