Are you violating the law?

[crackerjack222]

Farmers fight for the right to repair their own tractors | Fox News

 

[MossRoad]

What a poorly written article.

 

[Industrial Toys]

Not much difference to the car or truck you drive. Or furnace for that matter.

You buy it but someone else maintains ultimate control. But do you have a software team on hand to correct a bug?

Consumers would have great power if they banded together. Nobody buys Deere until they clean up their act for instance. Sounds good, but that would lead to all sorts of new mayhem.

 

[2458n]

Yes, I believe I do daily.

 

[Wagtail]

No I didn't. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.

(and if this is about those 'photographs'... well, I was young and needed the work)

 

[Monster5601]

Not much difference to the car or truck you drive.

We can buy a code reader or stop by an auto parts store and have our vehicles scanned for codes, for example, a check engine light might indicate a bad O2 sensor. You can then buy a new sensor and install it if you wish. Our government standardize many OBDII codes just for this purpose. That is what the farmers are asking for, the ability to perform simple diagnostics and maintenance. Deere is claiming they don't want anyone but them scanning for fears of someone hacking and modifying their software, a ridiculous argument that has a different context than what the farmers are asking for.

 

[paulfun9]

PROBABLY! But since it was because of carelessness and I didn't have intent you cant prosecute me! Just ask Hillary she will tell you all about it!

 

[Wagtail]

We can buy a code reader or stop by an auto parts store and have our vehicles scanned for codes, for example, a check engine light might indicate a bad O2 sensor. You can then buy a new sensor and install it if you wish. Our government standardize many OBDII codes just for this purpose. That is what the farmers are asking for, the ability to perform simple diagnostics and maintenance. Deere is claiming they don't want anyone but them scanning for fears of someone hacking and modifying their software, a ridiculous argument that has a different context than what the farmers are asking for.

Two things... hacking and modifying, which would alter the control systems that the programme has been developed (at great expense in research, design, and implementation) to operate. Some of these programmes integrate the GPS/DGPS with an 'auto-pilot' function. We're not talking about replacing a fuel filter or fixing a flat tyre, this is about the big tractors and self-propelled (combines, industrial-level seeders, etc...) implements whose programming would be stolen and applied to other makes of tractors/implements.

Secondly, have you noticed that ALL of these news articles (5-6 different threads here on TBN alone) target/refer-to/mention ONLY John Deere. What does CASE IH have to say about the subject? Oh wait... their head office is in Italy. Any other big tractor manufacturers happen to actually be from the US?

<sounds of crickets> <<a tumbleweed rolls by>>

Yet no one has asked the 'foreign manufacturers' to release their programming.

 

[RickB]

Two things... hacking and modifying, which would alter the control systems that the programme has been developed (at great expense in research, design, and implementation) to operate. Some of these programmes integrate the GPS/DGPS with an 'auto-pilot' function. We're not talking about replacing a fuel filter or fixing a flat tyre, this is about the big tractors and self-propelled (combines, industrial-level seeders, etc...) implements whose programming would be stolen and applied to other makes of tractors/implements.

Secondly, have you noticed that ALL of these news articles (5-6 different threads here on TBN alone) target/refer-to/mention ONLY John Deere. What does CASE IH have to say about the subject? Oh wait... their head office is in Italy. Any other big tractor manufacturers happen to actually be from the US?

<sounds of crickets> <<a tumbleweed rolls by>>

Yet no one has asked the 'foreign manufacturers' to release their programming.

Proposed legislation would affect the entire industry if enacted.

A response from Deere was referenced, this is not a targeted action.

 

[Dftodd]

Not familiar with John Deere tractors. But have Deere engines in my construction equipment. And have been self diagnosing there ecm's for 8 years now.

If the tractors, combines, ect..... have a display that shows the code, it's gonna show up as Spn### Fmi##. The spn number is the code. Fmi is the sub code and gives you more detail.

Deere uses the same codes as Cummings. And the codes are all over the Internet. If I forget my list of codes, then I can just Google them on my smart phone. And there is a full list of John Deere trouble codes on the Internet.

Other tractor manufacturers are allowing the consumer to see what code is popping up on the display. And a way to clear it off the display. It doesn't remove the stored code from the ecm's. That's a dealer only option. But it allows the consumer to self diagnose.

To be compliant with the law suit, all the end user would need is access to the codes. Not the software, or the reader, if it was incorporated into a display on the unit.

 

[Wagtail]

RickB, mate... simply put, the proposed legislation then would be demanding that all of the OEMs give up their patents on software & control systems that they've developed. That's how I'm reading it, anyway. Patents have a lifespan so, eventually they'll expire and be cheaply available like the older vehicle diagnostic codes.

And, you are quite correct that Deere was referenced... only Deere... in every one/version of this story that has appeared. It's targeting by inference. Not one other large (HP wise) agricultural OEM was or has been referenced.

Look, I don't 'have a dog in the fight'. The only "computer" in my tractor is the digital 'Hour' display. :laughing: And I think that a lot of us have known the frustration of having a rig 'down in the field' for whatever reason... it's production time lost. What I'm saying is that there's another side to the story/situation.

 

[arkydog]

if the deere manufacture would just have a program built into their computers that would self diagnose and display fault codes that the owner could see like a scanner would that is all the owner would need. like chrysler and turn the key 3 times to access the fault codes

 

[stlbill]

....Any other big tractor manufacturers happen to actually be from the US?

<sounds of crickets> <<a tumbleweed rolls by>>

Yet no one has asked the 'foreign manufacturers' to release their programming.

:thumbsup:

 

[MORRISONSTEEL]

What a poorly written article.

I agree, it also appears that "mich" in the article is maybe a dolt...and shouldn't be allowed to work on an 8235r if he can't pull up the codes on a machine like that, it's a very capable tractor in that regard. All of these articles seem to mention the same thing, the ability to look at codes...which can already be done. This is really about trying to allow non-trained ind the ability to re-program not trouble shoot. I am leaning towards the mfg side as I think about who may be working on my daughters new car with a fancy self braking system...I don't want an untrained ind to work on it.

 

[The Fred]

We can buy a code reader or stop by an auto parts store and have our vehicles scanned for codes, for example, a check engine light might indicate a bad O2 sensor. You can then buy a new sensor and install it if you wish. Our government standardize many OBDII codes just for this purpose. That is what the farmers are asking for, the ability to perform simple diagnostics and maintenance. Deere is claiming they don't want anyone but them scanning for fears of someone hacking and modifying their software, a ridiculous argument that has a different context than what the farmers are asking for.

Ignorance is bliss. If you only had a clue about fixing some of this stuff.

Does the guy who specializes in fixing tractors tell you how to grow corn?

I didn't think so.

Regards, Fred

 

[prichard]

You do realize this is a weakly topic on here? Not much to say that hasn't already been said.

Last week's thread:
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/361619-farmers-lobbying-right-fix-own.html

 

[Dftodd]

Ok, you can get the diagnostic tools for a John Deere tractor. A reader that allows you to check, and clear codes, plus monitor the same stuff that shows on your gauges is on ebay for around 650$. It's listed as a gauge. Not sure if it comes with the wiring harness or if you have to buy that separately. Part number is RE555553.

You can also go through John Deere university. Take the two online courses, and register for the one day class to learn how to use the software correctly. Pay the licensing fees, and buy the module that connects from your tractor to the lap top.

I happen to have both to manage my fleet of equipment. The software is clunky, and unless you have gone through the school, you can get yourself in trouble pretty quick with some expensive repairs. Lap Top gets used maybe once or twice a year if I swap out something that needs to be calibrated, or requires new payloads to be installed. Or cleaning an egr valve.

A list of the codes, and the reader are my most used tools for working on these motors. The codes tell me where or what to look for, and the reader is used to clear the stored codes after the repair, to cut down on nuisance service calls at 2am.

 

[RickB]

RickB, mate... simply put, the proposed legislation then would be demanding that all of the OEMs give up their patents on software & control systems that they've developed. That's how I'm reading it, anyway. Patents have a lifespan so, eventually they'll expire and be cheaply available like the older vehicle diagnostic codes.

And, you are quite correct that Deere was referenced... only Deere... in every one/version of this story that has appeared. It's targeting by inference. Not one other large (HP wise) agricultural OEM was or has been referenced.

Look, I don't 'have a dog in the fight'. The only "computer" in my tractor is the digital 'Hour' display. :laughing: And I think that a lot of us have known the frustration of having a rig 'down in the field' for whatever reason... it's production time lost. What I'm saying is that there's another side to the story/situation.

I'm not advocating a position. Just trying to straighten out a misinformed poster. Doesn't matter who the spin doctors are targeting. What does the proposed legislation say? Does it target Deere? I bet not.

 

[crabjoe]

whose programming would be stolen and applied to other makes of tractors/implements.

I didn't read the article, but just because someone can read code with a code reader doesn't mean they can read the program to steal it. If someone wanted to steal the actual program, the odds are, they would pull the eprom off the ECM and read the program with an Eprom reader. If that's not how it's setup, oh well, but if there's a will there's a way to steal the code.

Personally, I don't think there will be enough of a market for someone to try and steal Deere's programming to offer changes to sell. GPS is pretty simple, so I doubt other companies would want to steal any code either, since they could just have someone write code for them. It's not rocket science to write software for a tractor.

I think the only real reason for Deere not wanting anyone to be able to read diagnostic codes or get sensor info is to allow themselves and their dealer network make a good profit by locking owners into their dealer network.

 

[Wagtail]

Tell you what , crabjoe. Why don't you wander over to your Kioti dealership and see if they'll give you (purchase or otherwise) their diagnostic stuff.

Today I suppose that general GPS is fairly common for driving/sailing/walking applications. Precision GPS for agriculture requires DGPS for accuracy in rowcrop planting and harvesting.