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

John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–137 of 137 posts

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#131

Post by scheeseman486 »

laughing_man wrote: post #128
not_kurt_godel wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not been to a grocery store that sells "Deere-brand Large Ag Equipment"[0] - aka $200k-1M John Deere tractors/harvesters/combines - that are the subject of the settlement. Have you? [0]: https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/gov.uscourts.i...

My point is "competition works".

You're posting in a thread discussing news of a legal outcome that showed that free market competition did not prevent anti-competitive practices and instead required legal/regulatory intervention to solve.

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#132

Post by 9rx »

shiroiuma wrote: post #129
9rx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I considered one for my last tractor purchase. The depreciation on them is hard to square. Units are selling or 1/3 of the original price with only a few hundred hours on them.

Why not pick up one of these barely-used units for cheap then?

I'm not sure I'd call them cheap. They're in the same price range as all the other brands with used machines of similar spec, plus some premium for being barely used. I am not sure there is any real price advantage. Agricultural markets are pretty efficient.

That might on the surface sound contradictory with high depreciation as that means someone has to pay for an expensive new machine. But they are not really at odds with each other when you think about it.

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#133

Post by laughing_man »

scheeseman486 wrote: post #131
laughing_man wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is "competition works".

You're posting in a thread discussing news of a legal outcome that showed that free market competition did not prevent anti-competitive practices and instead required legal/regulatory intervention to solve.

To say that these are "anti-competitive practices" is stretching the phrase beyond all meaning. If you don't like Deere's policies, you can always buy from Case IH or New Holland. There is plenty of competition in farm equipment.

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#134

Post by not_kurt_godel »

laughing_man wrote: post #133
scheeseman486 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're posting in a thread discussing news of a legal outcome that showed that free market competition did not prevent anti-competitive practices and instead required legal/regulatory intervention to solve.

To say that these are "anti-competitive practices" is stretching the phrase beyond all meaning. If you don't like Deere's policies, you can always buy from Case IH or New Holland. There is plenty of competition in farm equipment.

Most can't "always" immediately replace an incredibly expensive business asset that is only retroactively discovered to have been sold under deceptive terms. The free market works well in many instances, but it needs checks to ensure that it remains truly free and not captured by fraudulent actors that harm consumers and society at large.

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#135

Post by zdragnar »

collingreen wrote: post #64
zdragnar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of settling is to end legal action. Admitting wrongdoing will be used as evidence against them by others who weren't party to the original suit. Any future suits will have far higher settlement costs, if plaintiffs are even willing to settle, since there's an admission of guilt right there. You can thank the plaintiffs and their lawyers for accepting the settlement instead of pursuing a judicial remed…

It is going to be tough to get me to think the plaintiff is responsible for John Deere the company continuing to be dickheads. When I hear these kinds of "blame the consumer" apologetics it never resonates with me - I'm just not going to get on board with some hypothetical natural state where corporations are inherently bad like some sort of sick animal and it's on consumers to sacrifice and plan with care in order t…

I'm not saying John Deere isn't responsible for their own bad behavior. I'm responding to the bit about John Deere not admitting wrongdoing. It'd basically be legal malpractice for a lawyer to allow their client to do such a thing if they didn't have to.

Wanting them to behave better is really a very different topic, and I wholeheartedly agree that they should. I also don't mind that the plaintiffs took settlement money instead of going to trial; that's certainly their right.

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#136

Post by gettingoverit »

So basically they got fined a cost of single tractor repair, and it didn't even create a legal precedent due to settlement? Someone believed that "will make available" has any consequences, given decades-long tradition to just ignore such agreements? Well, great.

Re: John Deere to pay $99M in right-to-repair settlement

#137

Post by silexia »

shiroiuma wrote: post #71
silexia wrote: post #68

Farmer here. We only run equipment made before 2000 and all of our tractors are from the 1980s. We badly need right to repair.

You should check out Kubota stuff.

I own three Kubota tractors. The one with emissions stuff b3350 is garbage, the two from the 90s are good.
Post reply on HN