tractor hacking - JD's

[plowhog]

I've never heard of such a thing. Is it true that Deere (or other) dealers are requiring tractor customers to sign a proprietary rights agreement concerning the tractor software/firmware? For those who have seen it, what does it say? Does it limit your right to do your own repairs? What else does it cover?

 

[ericm979]

Here's an article that includes a link to the agreement that Deere purchasers were expected to sign.

There are a number of things that are unique to Deere here. First off, they are claiming copyright on data in tables (i.e. boost parameters). Software copyright does not cover data, only code that operates on data. As the article says, it's legal to modify the code running on the vehicle that you bought. I've done that on a number of cars, sometimes quite extensively. (of course it's potentially a risk to your warranty but that's not the issue here). Second, they are using the DMCA law to go after independent repair shops. That's not what it's intended for (and it's a terrible piece of legislation). Third, the agreement says that you can't reverse engineer it to see how it works (clause 4). Normally when you buy something, you own it. You can take it apart if you want to. Software copyright does mean that you can't learn how it works, write your own software using those ideas, and then sell it. That violates copyright. But what Deere's saying here is that you can't even look at it to understand how it works so you can understand how your tractor works. Clause 5 says that you can't modify the system to circumvent restrictions that the Deere software places on the system (like using approved parts, presumeably parts complex enough to have their own computers on board). That's also unusual. Normally manufacturers require you to use approved parts to keep the warranty in effect(*) but that's only for warranty. Here Deere is forcing that requirement, and for the life of the product.

I've not had to sign any software license agreement on any vehicle including sophisticated late model cars or the new tractor I recently bought. Only Deere does this.
I realize that it may be for real farm tractors and not for CUTs but I find Deere's stance on this to be odious enough to discourage me from purchasing a Deere. I may feel more strongly about DMCA and software rights issues than other people.

I've been writing software as a profession for 32 years. I like getting paid for my work. I'm not arguing against software copyright, and I understand wanting to keep users from meddling in complex systems. But I also fix my own vehicles and modify them. When I buy a vehicle I own it. I'm not leasing it under onerous rules.


*- yes I know, Magnussen-Moss act, etc. I'm trying to not get off track.

 

[vsteel]

John Deere is getting more attention because about a year or so ago they were one who was really waving the software can't be touched flag. Other manufacturer might be doing it but they haven't been as vocal. John Deere was with GM and others talking about how the DCMA applies to them and you don't own the "vehicle".

 

[BlackOps]

apple - DRM garbage - the reason i left macs after 20 yrs and went 100% linux. they started saying what you could put on and couldn't put on your computer as well as have to buy everything through their store and meant you had to start an apple account etc. way too much BS!!!!

 

[plowhog]

I can't assess how successful this effort might be, as I just don't know ....

But, I know where it can lead. Here is an example:

Tractor owner 1 buys both a tractor and rotary cutter from an authorized dealer. The manufacturer builds their own tractors, but buys rotary cutters in bulk from another company, such as Woods. They repaint the cutter to their color, and install their proprietary RFID chip. When you connect the cutter to the mower, an on-board computer and sensors in the tractor can "see" the RFID chip in the mower. All is well, and the PTO shaft spins to operate the mower, and the owner goes out and mows.

Tractor owner 2 buys a tractor from the same dealer and manufacturer, but buys the exact same rotary cutter elsewhere. It isn't the same color, and has no RFID chip. But it's cheaper. Owner 2 connects the cutter to the tractor, but the on-board computer and sensors don't detect any authorized RFID chip. The PTO shaft won't spin. The mower won't operate. The console says "Unapproved device-- Contact Dealer."

I was also in the software business for many years. My competitor had a "time bomb" in their software-- if you didn't pay the annual "maintenance fee," their software shut down until the fee was received, and a new authorization code was sent out. Very upsetting to customers, but they always paid since they had no choice. It's probably unrealistic to apply that to tractors, but just imagine the revenue a tractor manufacturer could derive if they required payment of an annual fee to re-authorize the tractor right before harvest?

Again, I'm not trying to be alarmist, as I just don't know how much traction this could get. But I know where it *can* lead to ....

 

[not2old]

I can't assess how successful this effort might be, as I just don't know ....

But, I know where it can lead. Here is an example:

Tractor owner 1 buys both a tractor and rotary cutter from an authorized dealer. The manufacturer builds their own tractors, but buys rotary cutters in bulk from another company, such as Woods. They repaint the cutter to their color, and install their proprietary RFID chip. When you connect the cutter to the mower, an on-board computer and sensors in the tractor can "see" the RFID chip in the mower. All is well, and the PTO shaft spins to operate the mower, and the owner goes out and mows.

Tractor owner 2 buys a tractor from the same dealer and manufacturer, but buys the exact same rotary cutter elsewhere. It isn't the same color, and has no RFID chip. But it's cheaper. Owner 2 connects the cutter to the tractor, but the on-board computer and sensors don't detect any authorized RFID chip. The PTO shaft won't spin. The mower won't operate. The console says "Unapproved device-- Contact Dealer."

I was also in the software business for many years. My competitor had a "time bomb" in their software-- if you didn't pay the annual "maintenance fee," their software shut down until the fee was received, and a new authorization code was sent out. Very upsetting to customers, but they always paid since they had no choice. It's probably unrealistic to apply that to tractors, but just imagine the revenue a tractor manufacturer could derive if they required payment of an annual fee to re-authorize the tractor right before harvest?

Again, I'm not trying to be alarmist, as I just don't know how much traction this could get. But I know where it *can* lead to ....

I'm trying to figure out how a carpenter can disable a house until the residents pay his annual extortion.

 

[Rock knocker]

But, I know where it can lead. Here is an example:

Tractor owner 1 buys both a tractor and rotary cutter from an authorized dealer. The manufacturer builds their own tractors, but buys rotary cutters in bulk from another company, such as Woods. They repaint the cutter to their color, and install their proprietary RFID chip. When you connect the cutter to the mower, an on-board computer and sensors in the tractor can "see" the RFID chip in the mower. All is well, and the PTO shaft spins to operate the mower, and the owner goes out and mows.

Tractor owner 2 buys a tractor from the same dealer and manufacturer, but buys the exact same rotary cutter elsewhere. It isn't the same color, and has no RFID chip. But it's cheaper. Owner 2 connects the cutter to the tractor, but the on-board computer and sensors don't detect any authorized RFID chip. The PTO shaft won't spin. The mower won't operate. The console says "Unapproved device-- Contact Dealer."

Seems possible, but that scenerio seems like it would run into anti-trust action. But I think this whole subject is an anti-trust question.

 

[TheMadOne]

I'm trying to figure out how a carpenter can disable a house until the residents pay his annual extortion.

Put a computer in the HVAC system. No payment, no heat or ac.

Or better yet, the water system. You like warm showers, right? Well, your boiler is now connected to the internet, and we control if you get hot water or not.

The above is one reason, among many, why the "Internet of Things" is a terrible idea that needs to stop. People don't need to control their lights with their phone. That's what light switches are for.

 

[adventure bob]

Devils Advocate time: John Deere spent millions and millions of dollars on the development of the electronic systems in their tractors that provide previously inconceivable up times. The level of system integration in modern tractors is amazing: simply plug in and pay your subscription and the tractor will tell you how to get the best yields, the highest production rates and the best application of everything from fertilizer to seed. Your tractor will talk to your seeder and sprayer and get near perfect application of both at the same time. Yields in the US commercial farming sector have never been higher. JD can diagnose and effect repair of your tractor without ever having to come to your farm. If they log into your tractor, they can see what's wrong and have a part and technician on the way to your farm. They can also monitor performance and tell you something is strating to go, before its broke so you can keep working. All of those tractors are sensors that report that data back to JD so they can adjust the algorithms to achieve even better yields. They can also adjust the tractors engine management to get a particular farmer the best fuel utilization for the exact way he uses the tractor. Nearly all of the people who seem to have issue with this type of automation/system integration are a class of farmers stuck in the middle: They aren't big enough to be big ag, and they're not small guys like us with a hobby tractor and 8-20 acres. I have a friend with a real farm in Minnesota and his statement was "you have a lawn mower (I have a L6060 by the way), tractors start at 100HP" So, the people who wrote the article are trying to villanize JD for trying to recoup their cost on system development and integration that provides a buyer with the best running tractors on the planet? Those same folks hacking their tractors will complain loudly when JD says hey we cant log into your tractor to diagnose it because you hacked it. By the way this seems to be an American phenomenon, Fendt and Lamborghini commercial ag has nearly the same levels of automation and integration and the Europeans aren't up in arms. This is a capitalistic country and Id have to say that if this was truly a big issue, JD wouldn't still be the biggest AG tractor seller in America. People want the ease of use and cost/acre that JD is providing but then they want to complain about how to get it? Theres a bunch of Indian and Chinese stuff you can get, lets see what your cost per acre does with those...

 

[Wagtail]

Devils Advocate time: John Deere spent millions and millions of dollars on the development of the electronic systems in their tractors that provide previously inconceivable up times. The level of system integration in modern tractors is amazing: simply plug in and pay your subscription and the tractor will tell you how to get the best yields, the highest production rates and the best application of everything from fertilizer to seed. Your tractor will talk to your seeder and sprayer and get near perfect application of both at the same time. Yields in the US commercial farming sector have never been higher. JD can diagnose and effect repair of your tractor without ever having to come to your farm. If they log into your tractor, they can see what's wrong and have a part and technician on the way to your farm. They can also monitor performance and tell you something is strating to go, before its broke so you can keep working. All of those tractors are sensors that report that data back to JD so they can adjust the algorithms to achieve even better yields. They can also adjust the tractors engine management to get a particular farmer the best fuel utilization for the exact way he uses the tractor. Nearly all of the people who seem to have issue with this type of automation/system integration are a class of farmers stuck in the middle: They aren't big enough to be big ag, and they're not small guys like us with a hobby tractor and 8-20 acres. I have a friend with a real farm in Minnesota and his statement was "you have a lawn mower (I have a L6060 by the way), tractors start at 100HP" So, the people who wrote the article are trying to villanize JD for trying to recoup their cost on system development and integration that provides a buyer with the best running tractors on the planet? Those same folks hacking their tractors will complain loudly when JD says hey we cant log into your tractor to diagnose it because you hacked it. By the way this seems to be an American phenomenon, Fendt and Lamborghini commercial ag has nearly the same levels of automation and integration and the Europeans aren't up in arms. This is a capitalistic country and Id have to say that if this was truly a big issue, JD wouldn't still be the biggest AG tractor seller in America. People want the ease of use and cost/acre that JD is providing but then they want to complain about how to get it? Theres a bunch of Indian and Chinese stuff you can get, lets see what your cost per acre does with those...

Well stated post adventure bob. I've not seen any of this kerfuffle reported here in Australia, New Zealand, Europe... Indeed, anywhere else in the world (including Canada). Nothing in my local, Tasmania, agricultural newspaper either, and we're a big agricultural State (for our size). All the major colours/brands are represented throughout the State and on the mainland.

A neighbour of mine runs Case/McCormick tractors; 70hp and over 100hp rigs, and does his own maintenance & repairs if possible. The McCormick runs with a fly-by-wire setup... if there's a problem with that or the computer itself he always gets the Case people in to fix it. It's beyond his ken.

Another angle on this 'story' also goes to the fact that John Deere is a US Home Office company and the US is one of the most 'sue-happy' litigious countries in the world. Any excuse and a lawsuit is happening. They (lawyers) can't sue the other colours because their Home Office is off-shore.