Right to Repair.

JasperFrank · Feb 8, 2020

The End Of Ownership, Military Edition: Even The US Military Can't Fix Its Own Equipment Without Right To Repair Laws | Techdirt

I come at this question from a more sedate place, that being repairing Home used Computers. But if this is messing up our armed forces in the field: Its a different question. Any thing used by our military, has to be freely available to them in the field to fix and in any way possible. It would be stupid to lose a hostile engagement because of some Corp Agreement.

MinnesotaEric · Mar 5, 2020

Bloomberg article on Right to Repair from today.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

ruffdog · Mar 5, 2020

Yeah...right to "repair" or right to hack software?

PILOON · Mar 6, 2020

My Kia dealer hit me with $120 to replace a rear link (that was not needed) one week out of warranty.
Link was not needed!
They offered to re install my used one for another $80.00
I later discovered that the actual problem was the tail pipe hitting the trailer attachment. (as shown by the polished areas on both parts)
I 'fixed' the annoying clanking by simply clamping a piece of dense rubber on the hitch frame.

Needless to say I never returned there but now rely on an efficient small local repair shop that is what a mechanic really should be.
He has 2 lifts and 2 mechanics and U need to book a long time ahead he is that busy. (read competent and honest)
Heck I can even supply any needed parts.

ruffdog · Mar 6, 2020

The issue with Deere and others with software is they don't want to expose the goods to the public. Do you think Tesla would be OK with unlocking the software for everyone to see? That is never going to happen without a court battle. I'm thinking this thing with Deere is being pushed by people looking for a money making opportunity selling reprogram kits that might even cause damage to the tractor. If a Deere blows up out in the field, who's reputation gets damaged, Deere or the software company that the farmer had work on the tractor?

Threepoint · Mar 6, 2020

ruffdog said:
[snip]If a Deere blows up out in the field, who's reputation gets damaged, Deere or the software company that the farmer had work on the tractor?

But isn't this the case with any after-market part replacement or non-dealer repair anyway? Regardless of whether it is ECU or software related? :confused3: Responsibility for an event, and any resulting impact on reputation, is a function of causality. How would allowing an OBD-2 (or similar) code reader to read error codes on a tractor, and then enable a reset after repair or replacement of parts, be much different on our tractors than on our automobiles and trucks? It wouldn't change causality. In fact, wouldn't it may make it easier to determine causality in a more objective, less self-interested manner?

5030 · Mar 6, 2020

Tier 4 final, common rail Kubota's are the same deal. All the software and hardware and the diagnostic tools are proprietary. Why my tractors are Pre-4 mechanical injection. Much simpler and less expensive to repair, even with OEM parts, which I prefer anyway.

Until the issues are litigated with a positive result for the end user, nothing will change. We are a long way off from the standardized OBD serial interface auto makers use. Until then, pre 4 units will command (and get) a premium price. My tractors are like owning gold. They are appreciating in value as the new ones get more complex and more difficult for the average owner to repair.

radios1 · Mar 6, 2020

we are taking greed here, plain and simple, it's a very strong motivator!.

it wasn't always that way though, decades ago you could get service information for free, not anymore!.. I do remember when I could get full service info on computers, and make my own peripherals!..

RickB · Mar 6, 2020

Here is some good reading on the topic.
Viewing a thread - Farmers fight John Deere

crashz · Mar 6, 2020

Playing devils advocate, if you were the CEO at John Deere and your IT division spent years and millions of R&D dollars developing the software for the "digital future of farming", would you want to give it away so that your foreign competitors can copy it and sell it dirt cheap?

The same goes for more tame software for the fuel mapping (for example) of a tractor. The software took significant time and development hours. Giving it out to customers does them very little good (who really can reprogram the computers) but opens the manufactures up to theft of intellectual property that can be reused in knock-off products.

I'm not sure why the manufacturers are fighting back with the liability thing. It' probably possible, but pretty unlikely. I just don't see a lot of demand for hot-rodding a combine or such vehicle. Nor do I think that a gaff made by a farmer re-programming his tractor will even allow it to operate.

That being said, they need to be better prepared to either provide cost effective service on demand or simple plug and play components that satisfy both the manufacture and the customer. I'm of the repair-it-yourself group. But I've never reprogrammed a vehicle computer.

WranglerX · Mar 6, 2020

Another article in the news...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Dale

jeepcj7 · Mar 6, 2020

Pretty much everything you need to know about right to repair in NA can be found at Right To Repair Solutions - r2rsolutions.org . It does a good job of explaining where the industry is at right now.

ericm979 · Mar 6, 2020

crashz said:
Playing devils advocate, if you were the CEO at John Deere and your IT division spent years and millions of R&D dollars developing the software for the "digital future of farming", would you want to give it away so that your foreign competitors can copy it and sell it dirt cheap?

The same goes for more tame software for the fuel mapping (for example) of a tractor. The software took significant time and development hours. Giving it out to customers does them very little good (who really can reprogram the computers) but opens the manufactures up to theft of intellectual property that can be reused in knock-off products.

Right to repair is not giving away engine control software! Or any of the software running the tractor or that could be used by competitors.

crashz said:
I'm not sure why the manufacturers are fighting back with the liability thing. It' probably possible, but pretty unlikely. I just don't see a lot of demand for hot-rodding a combine or such vehicle. Nor do I think that a gaff made by a farmer re-programming his tractor will even allow it to operate.

That being said, they need to be better prepared to either provide cost effective service on demand or simple plug and play components that satisfy both the manufacture and the customer. I'm of the repair-it-yourself group. But I've never reprogrammed a vehicle computer.

Right to repair as far as software goes means the manufacturer has to make repair information and interfaces available. Like OBD2 for cars. There are a standard set of error codes that the car emits in a standard protocol. (actually there's like 4 or 5 OBD2 protocols but that's another problem). OBD2 was the best thing that came out of emissions regulations besides the reduced emissions themselves. It's not nearly standard enough. I still have to have different software for each make of car/truck I own because most of the detailed interesting stuff is manufacturer specific.

Another repair right is the right to buy parts and have work done the mechanic of your choice, or by yourself. Most car and truck makers do that (Moss-Magnusen act requires it for auto warranties. Tractors are not subject to that act). Tesla being one partial exception. Also consumers should not be forced into a shrink wrap type license where they don't actually own the car or tractor they bought. If we had effective consumer protections that stuff would be illegal.

Big ag tractors are more complex than cars so the laws would have to take that into account. But as it is now Deere is leading the way towards a model where the manufacturer controls all and the customer has no rights. I'll never own another Deere (or ever a Tesla) as long as they follow this anti consumer model.

I have reprogrammed ECUs. Turbo cars are fun that way, you can make a lot more power. Or blow them up if you're not careful. Of course then it's your fault and the company would know from the ECU.

mred2 · Mar 6, 2020

Deere will sale a license to their diag. software to use on a laptop. I work with a Deere dealer. However, that software does not give the end user to right to reprogram an ecu. The dealers can not reprogram an ecu without going thru Deere. Mostly due to the EPA. We can't sell you an old rebuild engine without turning in an old engine block.
EPA doesn't want you to replace a new tier 4 engine with one before their stuff. This is being driven as much by our government telling us what we can do, as it is by the corporations. I still remember the old days when I parked my old car at the top of the hill, so it could roll down to start it. I couldn't afford a new battery. And more than once have pull started a tractor.

pmsmechanic · Mar 6, 2020

All the diagnostic and adaptation software could be in the tractor with a easy to use interface for customers. A simple conversation with a service manager and the right parts could be waiting at the dealership with the farmer being enabled to install the parts. Right now farmers are being held at ransom by some tractor manufacturers. I have very little sympathy for equipment manufacturers. This isn't any thing but about money with very little regard for the farmer who needs to get his crop off.

Threepoint · Mar 6, 2020

ericm979 said:
[snip]
Another repair right is the right to buy parts and have work done the mechanic of your choice, or by yourself. Most car and truck makers do that (Moss-Magnusen act requires it for auto warranties. Tractors are not subject to that act).[snip]

Ericm979, curious why you say that our CUTS are not subject to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act? In what way are they not "consumer products", and we not "consumers" buying them for personal use? :shocked:

RandyT · Mar 6, 2020

pmsmechanic said:
All the diagnostic and adaptation software could be in the tractor with a easy to use interface for customers. A simple conversation with a service manager and the right parts could be waiting at the dealership with the farmer being enabled to install the parts. Right now farmers are being held at ransom by some tractor manufacturers. I have very little sympathy for equipment manufacturers. This isn't any thing but about money with very little regard for the farmer who needs to get his crop off.

It is not that simple. I agree that customers are being held hostage, but the issue is even if the farmer installs the parts, the dealer has to flash the ECU so it will recognize the new parts in some cases. And this is not limited to just JD tractors, Try automobile from all the manufactures, but also Husqvarna and Stihl products. With the new advances in lawnmowers and EFI with some of the new units now using CAN bus systems. You now have to have 2 separate diagnostics software packages, one for the engine and one for the mower. And the EFI software for the engine is not an OBD type system. Each mower engine manufacturer has their own software.

pmsmechanic · Mar 6, 2020

RANDYT said:
It is not that simple. I agree that customers are being held hostage, but the issue is even if the farmer installs the parts, the dealer has to flash the ECU so it will recognize the new parts in some cases. And this is not limited to just JD tractors, Try automobile from all the manufactures, but also Husqvarna and Stihl products. With the new advances in lawnmowers and EFI with some of the new units now using CAN bus systems. You now have to have 2 separate diagnostics software packages, one for the engine and one for the mower. And the EFI software for the engine is not an OBD type system. Each mower engine manufacturer has their own software.

What you say is true but all of the software necessary for flashing the ECU could be in the ECU. All the diagnostic software packages could be built into the equipment that needs it. If it was designed properly the dealer wouldn't even need to come to the equipment.

LouNY · Mar 7, 2020

ruffdog said:
The issue with Deere and others with software is they don't want to expose the goods to the public. Do you think Tesla would be OK with unlocking the software for everyone to see? That is never going to happen without a court battle. I'm thinking this thing with Deere is being pushed by people looking for a money making opportunity selling reprogram kits that might even cause damage to the tractor. If a Deere blows up out in the field, who's reputation gets damaged, Deere or the software company that the farmer had work on the tractor?

No, this is being pushed by people buying a product and then being told it's not theirs to be worked on as they wished.
In automotive with the OBD standard readers can read error codes and provide guidance on what is going out.
As far as it being too technical for the owners and mechanics that is pure bull,
I have had code readers and scanners for years and even if I go to the dealer for warranty work after a CEL I have scanned it and have a good idea of the issues.

And to other posters , manufactures not wanting to expose the software so other manufacturers can copy it, that's also bull.
Any one with the resources to build one has the resources to clone copy and modify the software.
Leasing the parts that operate a piece of equipment is theft, if I buy it belongs to me, if I want someone other then the manufacture to work on that is my right and to make the interfaces that need to be accessed propitiatory should be criminal.

ruffdog · Mar 7, 2020

LouNY said:
No, this is being pushed by people buying a product and then being told it's not theirs to be worked on as they wished.
In automotive with the OBD standard readers can read error codes and provide guidance on what is going out.
As far as it being too technical for the owners and mechanics that is pure bull,
I have had code readers and scanners for years and even if I go to the dealer for warranty work after a CEL I have scanned it and have a good idea of the issues.

And to other posters , manufactures not wanting to expose the software so other manufacturers can copy it, that's also bull.
Any one with the resources to build one has the resources to clone copy and modify the software.
Leasing the parts that operate a piece of equipment is theft, if I buy it belongs to me, if I want someone other then the manufacture to work on that is my right and to make the interfaces that need to be accessed propitiatory should be criminal.