Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 405 posts

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

#71

Post by userbinator »

bsimpson wrote: post #38
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.

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

That's an interesting point, because you can literally build a copy of substantial portions of a car (engine, transmission, axles, brakes, etc.) from entirely aftermarket parts, for certain popular components. Many of these parts don't make any claims about licensing the designs from the original company but they do claim "drop-in" compatibility.

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

#72

Post by Qworg »

jimmytucson wrote: post #59
sologoub wrote: post #35

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 day…

Why doesn't the market handle this? If John Deere is only willing to sell lifetime licenses to operate their vehicles, thus putting the farmer at risk in ways like you described, why do farmers still buy these "licenses"? Naively, they must represent some advantage (despite their shortcomings), otherwise John Deere wouldn't be able to sell these things.

Lock in and capital expense - the market is terrible at providing what is currently a financial service coupled with large equipment delivery. You need both halves - the sheet bending/engine manufacturing and the cash on offer to float the loan to the farmer.

There's a lot of strength to being incumbent in both of these areas.

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

#73

Post by briantakita »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #25
briantakita wrote: post #9

> John Deere may be out of touch, but it’s not alone. Other corporations, including trade groups representing nearly every major automaker, made the same case to the Copyright Office again and again. In Capitalism, the game is to make monetary profit & control the market, above all else. It makes sense what John Deere is doing. They are just being good Capitalists.

> the game is to make monetary profit & control the market What you describe, basically is monopolism. It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market. > They are just being good Capitalists. When this is true, than something is very wrong with Capitalism itself.

> It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market.

In ecology, there's a concept call Ecological Succession. Likewise, in Capitalism, the free market is a stage in a succession toward monopoly. Capital tends to pool, leading to monopolies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession

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

#74

Post by icebraining »

Qworg wrote: post #72
jimmytucson wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't the market handle this? If John Deere is only willing to sell lifetime licenses to operate their vehicles, thus putting the farmer at risk in ways like you described, why do farmers still buy these "licenses"? Naively, they must represent some advantage (despite their shortcomings), otherwise John Deere wouldn't be able to sell these things.

Lock in and capital expense - the market is terrible at providing what is currently a financial service coupled with large equipment delivery. You need both halves - the sheet bending/engine manufacturing and the cash on offer to float the loan to the farmer. There's a lot of strength to being incumbent in both of these areas.

Why can't a manufacturer partner up with a financial company to provide the bundle?

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

#75

Post by Nursie »

tomswartz07 wrote: post #54

I'm not a lawyer, and I have a fairly pedestrian grasp of the DMCA. My understanding is that the law, created in the Internet's infancy, is meant to protect and prevent direct copyright infringment. Can anyone explain why they're allowed to (seemingly) abuse this act? They're not selling pirated copies of the tractor control software?

Under the DMCA anyone breaking a digital lock, no matter how trivial it is, has broken the law, regardless of whether the sell their results.

For a good example of how it has been abused in the past, look up Lexmark and how they tried to use crypto code to lock out competitors from providing third-party ink refills. I'm not sure what the eventual outcome was there.

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

#77

Post by Qworg »

acveilleux wrote: post #60
bryanlarsen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polyculture farming may be the next big thing in farming, enabled by machine vision automated systems. A typical small farmer in Saskatchewan can harvest 100-200 acres of wheat by himself on a single day using a modern combine harvester. Manual harvesting is not an option.

I don't think people outside of the prairies understand the scale of some of these farms. The average Sask farm was 1668 acres as of 2011.

As that many acres is difficult to understand, that's a little over 2.6 square miles.

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

#78

Post by betenoire »

Shivetya wrote: post #57
sologoub wrote: post #35

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 day…

People have been doing this years with lawn mowers, both push and riding, for as long as I can remember. The complexity of work require to skirt the system increases but the reasons never really change. If the system is so unreliable there are many other farm tractor manufacturers who can step in and likely are already exploiting the issues John Deere has. If anything, perhaps lemon laws could be applied to farm mach…

grew up urban, married a farmer... learned everything I know (not much) about fixing things with spit tape and wire from them.

what you say makes sense, but meanwhile Dave is still standing in his field with a useless machine and lots of work to do.

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

#79

Post by beat »

themartorana wrote: post #53
bryanlarsen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of family farms own tractors worth more than $200K, and combines worth more than $500K. They're paying significant interest to the bank for the privilege, but owning equipment that can cover twice the land in a day is a lot cheaper than buying and maintaining two smaller tractors (and accompaning accessories) and hiring a farmhand.

Like my family. Also, small farmers buy a lot of tractors second, third, fourth-hand. Many are still running 50 years later. This is as much an attempt to kill the secondary market and the right to resell. Without being able to buy and fix up used farm parts/equipment, many (including my family) would be fiscally unable to farm - full stop.

This is something to consider with any software-driven systems now... what's the realistic lifetime of the system? Will the vendor always be there to support the software? Ten year old software is a problem. Twenty year old software is a HUGE problem, from a vendor point of view.

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

#80

Post by AnimalMuppet »

rimantas wrote: post #32

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

The abstract answer: Legally enforceable protection for private property turns out to have some significant benefits for a society. It helps society develop past the warlord stage.

The concrete answer: The article gives some ways that the John Deere idea is bad. In particular, a tractor isn't just a thing that I buy. It's a tool, and I need it to work so that I can plant and harvest my crops. This "ownership" question isn't just a matter of me strutting around announcing to the world that I own it. The question is whether I have the right to repair it in order to get it back to work, or whether I have to wait for the authorized person to do the work.

Post reply on HN