The thing that strikes me, having read a couple of articles on the topic, is that the OEMs in these cases think the ownership of the code is valuable enough to jump through these legal hoops and take the hit for any negative reactions or PR that ensues. On the face of it the software would not seem to be a big component of what a farmer buys a John Deere tractor for. It has to be there, to run the thing, but does it really add that much proprietary value to the product? I don't blame the OEM for stumbling over how to deal with the ownership issues, but if I'm correct and the software is not a big part of the value prop for the equipment then just open source it and call it a day. Whats the downside of that? Someone will copy your code and start making their own tractors? Deere must feel their code is that much better than their competitors, but it's hard to believe that is really true in a practical sense.
We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
231–240 of 405 posts
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#232The 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…
"All they care about is whether or not it works." Which is why they care more about this issue than someone without a mega-tractor. These vehicles need to be operational when they're called upon, every minute of downtime costs a substantial amount of money that adds up incredibly fast. Sure, they have service contracts but waiting on a technician and waiting even longer for a replacement part is out of the question.…
Not to be nitpicky, but a vehicle with a blown head gasket is not a "perfectly functional vehicle." I'm amazed you were able to drive any distance with it at all. Must have been a tiny leak: I've blown head gaskets on two vehicles and the most I was able to get was about 5 miles before all the coolant went out the exhaust.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#233Bell did this with their telephones in the 60's and 70's. Customers could not own their own phone while using Bell's service. They even went so far as to stamp "BELL SYSTEM PROPERTY" into the molding. Even after they allowed 3rd party phones, they still charged a monthly fee for the privilege. It wasn't until their divestiture that they began allowing their customers to use their own phones without incurring a fee. Though it seems that was due to competitive pressure more than legal pressure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_500_telephone#Ownership_a...
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#234Why do people farm?
John Deere owns your tractor. Monsanto owns your seed. The Bank owns your farms.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people who try to make a living making music or writing are unable to do so, even if the music or the writing is pretty good, and that's due to obscurity, not piracy. Historically, even fewer people were able to. Pages and even chapters of books have been copied by photocopiers (found in many libraries!) for decades. The only limit to the copying was how many quarters you had. You need to give up the idea that p…
Historically creators didn't starve either, they worked on patronage assignments to pay the bills, and did whatever for the love of art once that was taken care of. Michaelangelo hated painting, but was commissioned for the Sistine chapel, one of the world's greatest works of art, because he was hungry.
Of course they did or else they worked at something different so that they wouldn't starve. You just don't know their names.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#236Does this really have anything to do with copyright law? Imagine I offer to sell you a tractor that contains no software, but comes with the condition that you hire me to fix it if it ever breaks down. Have I just 'destroyed the very idea of ownership'?
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is little wrong with DRM as a concept, "But" just because you call something DRM does not mean it should be able to do anything. IMO, a DRM bill of rights needs to exist to qualify for government protection. Data needs to be transferable FOR FREE to a new user. You can't shut down your DRM servers without first removing the DRM. You can't remotely change anything on a user’s system. Source code must be freely a…
> DRM can only protect information not the operation of a physical device. So I think it would actually be reasonable for the DRM to protect a physical device; but the contract should be structured as such. If I have title to my car and can dispose of it as I see fit; I shouldn't have to abide by DRM. If it is rented and doesn't actually belong to me, then I could see technological mechanisms such as limiting mileage…
In a hypothetical situation where DRM caused a car to shut down on the way to a hospital ‘slightly out of range’ that’s hard to justify. The other major issue is a 'hacker' being able to remotely shut down a fleet of rental cars is less than ideal. Just picture a corn harvest where no Tractor worked for 1 week.
However, I can see using something like DRM to protect information about how a rented device is operated or where it is being more reasonable. (You drove X miles, where speeding, did not change the oil on a leased car.)
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#238Richard Stallman spent the last 30 years telling us this would happen. As soon as books become computer files, you don't buy them anymore, you lease usage rights. As soon as tractors contain computer code, you don't own them anymore, you are granted a license to use them. When will it stop? More and more everyday objects are incorporating software and firmware in many different forms. I remember reading Stallman's sh…
This is getting meta and no longer directly responsive to the article, which I don't wholly disagree with. A tractor and a book are different situations. Books are hard to copy, while files are easy to copy. Writers have to get paid, and people are cheap and don't want to pay them... even while they will pay the same for a fancy cup of coffee. Hence a scramble for some way to set up a toll booth that is hard to circu…
> In his world, the creators of things starve.
Why can't John Deere make money selling tractors? The company was founded in 1837. Hasn't running a business for 178 years demonstrated that it is possible to eat and produce? Or is your comment unrelated to the article?
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#239I don't see how this is different than anything else software-driven. I "own" my iPhone, but I don't "own" iOS--I just have an implied license to use iOS with the phone.
If I own my phone (Android), why am I not "allowed" to install AOSP on it?
I can install Ubuntu on an HP laptop, why can't I install a ROM on my phone?
It's all B.S.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Create less and have a real job." Wow. I see lots of this kind of sentiment when I bring this up, but yours deserves credit for being exceptionally honest.
The world probably needs less content creation. We're long past the point where there are too many useful books to read in one lifetime. Even in narrow fields, we're producing comedy television, historical fiction novels, or cat pictures faster than one person could consume them all. You could spend a lifetime just researching what's worth consuming. With this kind of overproduction, it's no surprise creators can't m…
There are about seven billion people, and they all like different things. There's no overproduction.