Deere - Right to Repair - Class Action Lawsuit

[Nicksacco]

Hi All-

This video came up and I thought ya'll might be interested in seeing the actual lawsuit details.
This fellow goes thru the entire document, so it's not exactly riveting, but still interesting.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Hi All-

This video came up and I thought ya'll might be interested in seeing the actual lawsuit details.
This fellow goes thru the entire document, so it's not exactly riveting, but still interesting.

I think The Commodore likes to hear and see himself. He should have simply posted a link to the barely 50 page complaint - I can read and don't need someone to read it for me.

As to the class action complaint itself - it alleges non-competitive restraint of trade in violation of various anti-trust regulations. Pretty standard stuff that has been litigated many times and Deere has staked out a pretty indefensible position. The complainants will likely prevail and some sort of legal remedy will be ordered.

Then we can argue about whether the $8K per year subscription cost they establish for the Deere Diagnostic Advisor software is "fair and reasonable". Deere will likely prevail on that matter and a small cottage industry of third party repair products and services will materialize. Farmers that can't afford the yearly fee (I really can't imagine many big time operations would even blink at that price tag) will find themselves tied to a third party provider rather than Deere. This is the case today with most automobiles and trucks.

Regardless of industry, with rare exception the OEM's are not going to provide this proprietary stuff at low cost or give it away for "free" and lose that income stream. It is also utterly unrealistic to think the current anti-trust and fair trade laws and regulations can be used to force them to.. Its also unlikely the legislative bodies will act and pass laws that would allow that to happen. Welcome to the world of digital technology service and repair.

Dan

 

[Nicksacco]

Agreed Dan.
And the path you've illustrated for the progression of all this seems reasonable.
I wonder what Deere was thinking in the first place creating this complete blackout to farmers?
Hmmmm, was it all just corporate greed or something more?
I am certain however that other manufacturers are watching - and not just farm equipment either.

 

[TheOldHokie]

OEMs have a long history of using these types of tactics to restrict competition. Take a look at the Magnuson-Moss act. That was a major legislative intervention enacted in response to unfair warranty requirements. While not exactly the same thing it prevented OEMs from restricting the use of third party parts and services for warranty purposes. So this is just a new wrinkle in an old game. Modern hardware and software companies are engaged in similar practices - Apple leaps to mind for some reason. The issues are complex and hard for courts and legislative bodies to understand. Even harder to write judgements and legislation that is fair and equitable. The OEMs have a legitimate interest in protecting and profiting from their IP. The consumer has a right to a fair and competitive marketplace. Defining a reasonable legal balance is a tricky business and OEMs hold the upper hand both in terms of political clout and access to the trade secrets.

The consumer automotive repair industry will likely be the reference model used by the powers that be and it does not favor Deere's current practices. Unfortunately IMO it too unfairly favors the industry over the consumer.

I am sure it will get worked out but dont hold your breath waiting for a CD containing Deere Service Advisor to be provided with your Operators Manual.

Dan

 

[GreensvilleJay]

One problem with 'right to repair' is to define exactly where to 'draw the line'.
Say your tractor fails..diagnosis determines it's really a defective part on the daughter board on the main computer board. R2R would say YOU have the right to unsolder the bad part, replace it ? I can count on one hand the number of ETs that CAN do that repair, one reason why 'board swapping' is common.
Say you like a certain tire on your tractor, but the 'computer' has been calculated for THEIR tires, so 'apply rates' are wrong(just a wee bit)..just HOW can you change that? That kind of data is hardcoded into the CPU,think any court will allow you to change JD machine code ?

JD has 25%+- of the World market, so they have a HUGE interest in keeping R2R stalled....they also have a monsterous bank account.....

I've seen MFRs design and use very 'custom' parts ONLY available from them, so when you need that part, you have to pay them their 'ransom' money. What should be a $1 bolt , is $39.99 plus taxes.....

 

[TheOldHokie]

One problem with 'right to repair' is to define exactly where to 'draw the line'.
Say your tractor fails..diagnosis determines it's really a defective part on the daughter board on the main computer board. R2R would say YOU have the right to unsolder the bad part, replace it ? I can count on one hand the number of ETs that CAN do that repair, one reason why 'board swapping' is common.
Say you like a certain tire on your tractor, but the 'computer' has been calculated for THEIR tires, so 'apply rates' are wrong(just a wee bit)..just HOW can you change that? That kind of data is hardcoded into the CPU,think any court will allow you to change JD machine code ?

JD has 25%+- of the World market, so they have a HUGE interest in keeping R2R stalled....they also have a monsterous bank account.....

I've seen MFRs design and use very 'custom' parts ONLY available from them, so when you need that part, you have to pay them their 'ransom' money. What should be a $1 bolt , is $39.99 plus taxes.....

The computer service industry stopped doing component repair on circuit boards 40 years ago. It wasn't cost effective then and with today's miniaturizarion and integration not even possible.

I dont expect a court would ever order it but BMW provides their factory software (binary and source code) which will let you reflash +99% plus of the "machine code" in thier onboard systems . The only data you can't change are insignificant things like a VIN.

Cost for the factory software is $0 USD. Cost for third party hardware interfaces starts around $50 USD and hits three figures for a full blown high speed factory ENET kit.

More or less dedicated Windows 10 PC with high soeed CPU and lots of memory and disk storage required for full functionality. Prebuilt third party systems will run you $3k USD. Maintenance and update services extra.

Dan

 

[aaluck]

I have followed this for a while and find it very interesting. I am very curious to see what happens. On one hand I understand the farmers' position. On the other Deere's position. If i remember correctly there was some legislation in Iowa (or somewhere) attempting to prohibiting this already. I also remember that at the public hearings on this Microsoft, Apple and other MAJOR companies came in and argued the same position as Deere.

It seems to be a bit more complicated. Who has the right to use (for free) what YOU have developed? On the other side does a manufacturer have the right to prevent you (via huge cost) from fixing YOUR purchased product? I think back to Napster--I'm that old. You have a company making a boatload of money without 'producing' anything--but rather taking it for free.

I can remember when farmers (not GPS) drove their tractors and fixing it didn't involve computers. In fact, I remember reading that small farmers are hanging on to these old machines to prevent this whole issue. Those days are over.

As stated by @GreensvilleJay has stated. This fight is obviously worth it to Deere as I'm sure they are making a lot of money on this issue.

 

[TheOldHokie]

I have followed this for a while and find it very interesting. I am very curious to see what happens. On one hand I understand the farmers' position. On the other Deere's position. If i remember correctly there was some legislation in Iowa (or somewhere) attempting to prohibiting this already. I also remember that at the public hearings on this Microsoft, Apple and other MAJOR companies came in and argued the same position as Deere.

I can remember when you got the source code for your computer's operating system and owned it - yes I am that old ;-)

Software licensing is big business and the current model is you only get a right to use. That is not likely to change. For things like computers the hardware environment is pretty standard and open and you can shop around for an operating system. Embedded systems with proprietary interfaces and software like in a tractor present a thorny issue. You own the machine but not the software. The machine is non-functional with out the software and you have no alternative source for that software outside of the OEM. That brings talk of restraint of competition to the table. The only two ways out that I can see are:

1. The OEM makes the details of the electrical interfaces and software APIs public allowing third parties to develop against them - possibly requiring a license or NDA to do so.
2. The OEM keeps all of the IP secret but provides a proprietary hardware/software product available to the consumer and/or third parties at a reasonable and fair price point. The product would have to provide most but not all of the functionality of the OEMs inhouse product.

In the case of JD and similar OEM's my bet is on #2.

Dan