We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership • Hacker News Board

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#31

Post by coldpie » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:14 PM UTC

MrZongle2 wrote: post #6

pragone wrote: post #2

Very interesting. I did not know this issue extended all the way to farming equipment. At the same time, I can't say I'm terribly surprised given the state of things currently. Thread hijack: Am I the only one who finds Wired's... "unique"... styling of links absolutely obnoxious?

In support of your hijacking: no, you're not. I find it annoying. It has the stink of "we've got to do something different but we don't know what...let's mess with something that isn't broken!" As abhorrent as I find John Deere's anti-ownership approach, I say let them continue down that road. It will provide another entrepreneur the opportunity to create and sell a more easily maintainable, you-bought-it-so-you-own-…

And in the meantime, everyone who exists now just gets boned. Sorry, everyone who lives in the present instead of some theoretical future!

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#32

Post by rimantas » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:14 PM UTC

Why do you think that the very idea of ownership is so good?

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#33

Post by fsloth » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:15 PM UTC

Open source answer is:http://opensourceecology.org/gvcs/

(I'm not saying it's a viable answer at this point but the work they are doing is intrguing.)

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#34

Post by unwind » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:16 PM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #14

Come to think of it, linux and gnu don't come from the US. So isn't open source bad for the US economy ?

Linus is from Finland, but of course RMS is from the US. So you're right, and wrong. :)

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#35

Post by sologoub » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:19 PM UTC

An earlier article did a much better job layout why this is a huge problem for independent farmers:

"The family farmer who owns this tractor is a friend of mine. He just wanted a better way to fix a minor hydraulic sensor. Every time the sensor blew, the onboard computer would shut the tractor down. It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor. So for two days, Dave’s tractor lies fallow. And so do his fields.

Dave asked me if there was some way to bypass a bum sensor while waiting for the repairman to show up. But fixing Dave’s sensor problem required fiddling around in the tractor’s highly proprietary computer system—the tractor’s engine control unit (tECU): the brains behind the agricultural beast."

Source: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-ni...

So basically, the concerns are very reasonable - operations cannot rely on systems that are put out of commission without a way to fix relatively minor issues on the spot.

While the system is trying to protect the farmer for liability purposes, if that farmer overrides the safe guard, liability shifts. The choice should be with the farmer and not John Deere lawyers.

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#36

Post by Loughla » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

paulornothing wrote: post #28

This article is really interesting to me as I just bought a John Deere (sure it is just a lawn tractor). During the course of the sale I was chatting with the salesman about their larger agriculture tractors as this store mostly does sales for farmers. He informed me about all the technological advances, soil sampling they do and data they collect and give to the farmer. Then the farmer can load this in their tractor…

It is fantastic to watch.

Custom farming was the wave of the future in the early 2000's, when you had to have special equipment to do it. Now anyone can do it themselves with this equipment. You can spot apply chemicals and fertilizer, reducing cost and environmental impact. There is a literal overhead map with red-zones, for when you get bored and want to watch something. Combine this technology with gps guided auto-steer, and the machine operator becomes a bag of meat sitting there to turn it on and off as needed. I have a long-time friend who does custom farming. He's really good on his PSP and Gameboy something-or-other.

As for "However from the way things seemed when I spoke with the salesman it is the very opposite." That's a salesman. He wants to sell whatever he has; if he had old equipment, the market would be swinging that way if you asked him. His impression will always be that people want what he's selling. . . .

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#37

Post by sanderjd » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

chainsaw10 wrote: post #3

I am not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong on some of the finer points here, but I'm going to postulate an analogy here. Why can't we equate the software inside a computer inside a vehicle with the mechanical equivalent? What then would our rights be? It obviously doesn't require permission to move a valve or a gear around. Therefore, it shouldn't require permission to move a few bits. It also doesn't require permissio…

I always wonder whether the legal framework for software has ended up different than other things because of its fundamental differences, or whether it's because it was invented in a different era. Is it software that is different or is it the modern legal structure that is different?

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#38

Post by bsimpson » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:21 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #5

Why can't we simply ask if this could be done for 'mechanical programming' and apply the same logic. You don't own that full mechanical engine's construction, you just have a license to use it for the lifetime of the vehicle. If that wouldn't stand, then how is it any different than code except that code is on a much smaller and and more detailed level. At the end of the day, it is still physical components following…

The intangibility of code makes the marginal cost of a copy $0, which in turn raises the spectre of copyright law.

You can't copy an engine made of steel, so copyright law is moot.

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#39

Post by hharnisch » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #12

The people who have the money to buy the mega-tractors you see in the article don't care. That's why, unless someone outside the industry makes a stink, nothing will happen. These are giga-corporations who are 'family owned' in name only. If they don't rent, they operate that machine for a few years, play the tax game, and trade it even-money for a new one. To them, ownership doesn't matter. Their service contracts w…

Disagree. The family owned farmers care too. For the big equipment, like combines, there's a handful of people everyone pays to have their fields harvested. This person get's compensation in the form of money and other services (someone else will plow their field for instance).

People own their own tractors and share time to get things done, otherwise you'd have to own all of the equipment (which is only justified when you've got a giant factory farm). More of the small farms own new tractors, as the 70s era tractors have been overhauled to the point of junk.

This is the current status of small town Iowa at least.

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#40

Post by bsimpson » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

unwind wrote: post #34

jokoon wrote: post #14

Come to think of it, linux and gnu don't come from the US. So isn't open source bad for the US economy ?

Linus is from Finland, but of course RMS is from the US. So you're right, and wrong. :)

And he lives in Portland.