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

Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 359 posts

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#341

Post by michaelmrose »

arkis22 wrote: post #336
michaelmrose wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You address two different issues here competition and users. In the case of users you have no right after sale to feel a right to control how your users make use of your product. Just because software and contracts give you two venues to potentially do so doesn't mean it would be rational to allow you to. The world is 99.99% users. On the second point, competition has always quite legally taken apart the competitors…

No, In this case I have complete right to control how my users make use of my product because we agreed to it. It might not be rational because I might lose to an open competitor, but that's a completely different subject. There's trade secrets at every company in existence that they don't share with their competition. They can't patent them, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve protection. Companies exist becaus…

Properly we limit what you are allowed to contract away all the time. This isnt any different. You want to retain control see leasing.

Regarding trade secrets you misunderstand them. Please see

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_secret

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA") defines a trade secret as: information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable through appropriate means by other persons who might obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy

There are two basic situations in which obtaining the use of a trade secret is illegal; where it is acquired through improper means, or where it involves a breach of confidence. Trade secrets may be obtained by lawful means such as independent discovery, reverse engineering, and inadvertent disclosure resulting from the trade secret holder's failure to take reasonable protective measures.

Anything that can be gleaned from tearing your product to pieces that isn't suitable for patenting gets zero protection.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#342

Post by arkis22 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #341
arkis22 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, In this case I have complete right to control how my users make use of my product because we agreed to it. It might not be rational because I might lose to an open competitor, but that's a completely different subject. There's trade secrets at every company in existence that they don't share with their competition. They can't patent them, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve protection. Companies exist becaus…

Properly we limit what you are allowed to contract away all the time. This isnt any different. You want to retain control see leasing. Regarding trade secrets you misunderstand them. Please see https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_secret The Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA") defines a trade secret as: information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that derive…

I understand they don't get legal protection. That's not my point. My point is that companies don't just dump out information on how they operate. They protect their trade secrets, which as the definition you provided says, are worthy of protection. Thanks.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#343

Post by JdeBP »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #319
LVB wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK I've gotta ask, with such a strong push for "eliminating intellectual property protections", why bother with this footer on your site: © 2017 Objective Bias. All rights reserved.

Good call. That was built in to the Ghost template I am using and I never changed it. I've been meaning to update some things on my site so I will relicense as Creative Commons. Thanks for pointing that out!

Plus, of course: http://jdebp.eu./FGA/law-copyright-all-rights-reserved.html

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#344

Post by JdeBP »

dustinls wrote: post #197
throwaway_jddev wrote: post #92

Hey all, I worked on software for John Deere. This is a throwaway account for obvious reasons. Opinions expressed here are MY OWN. I no longer work for John Deere or am associated with them in any way. I was part of one of the many teams that work on this software. Specifically I was part of John Deere's ISG division also known as the Intelligent Solutions Group. The ISG division (was at the time) responsible for tyi…

Sounds like you're talking about the code that handles safety features. What does that have to do with the code specifically written to force farmers to pay John Deer for maintenance and repairs? The stuff they could normally do themselves? There is an obvious trend to make simple things complicated. Like how you have to remove the whole front end of a car to change a headlight. This sounds exactly like that.

Actually, that latter is a trend to make things more compact. The engine compartment of my current car, which has the very requirement that you mention, has nowhere near the amount of extra unused volume as the engine compartment of the car that I was driving a couple of decades ago had, permitting access to many components without other components being in the way. The engine compartment is also, itself, smaller overall.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#345

Post by tzs »

cookiecaper wrote: post #328
tzs wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, people seriously underestimate the damage done by carrying over the near-absolute monopolies granted by copyright, which were originally intended for superfluous creative works. Explain the use of "superfluous" in that sentence, please. > One example: copies of content kept in RAM qualify as infringing copies under the Copyright Act. Judges have been lamenting that in their decisions since the first one, but t…

Early disclaimer: IANAL. >Explain the use of "superfluous" in that sentence, please. Meaning works that were thought to enhance culture, or, as the Constitution puts it "Science and the Useful Arts", but which were not strictly necessary for anything to function. Patents were the separate mechanism of intellectual property intended to protect inventions. Patents are correspondingly much weaker and required a disclosu…

> The exception added for computer programs arose from this case, but did not address the RAM copy doctrine. It makes an explicit exemption for "(c)Machine Maintenance or Repair." only. If you're not maintaining or repairing your friend's machine, but you still load up a game he's installed, you've technically made an infringing copy, just as this computer tech had, because you are not doing it for "maintenance or repair".

This should fall under 17 USC 101(a)(1), "Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy".

> Another contrived example under RAM copy doctrine: if you've downloaded a song illegally, you are not on the hook for only the copy on your hard disk, but the number of plays, since each one is a distinct infringing copy created by your computer loading the music into its memory repeatedly.

When a plaintiff sues for copyright infringement and wins, he can ask for actual damages plus the infringer's profits (17 USC 504(b)), or he can ask for statutory damages (17 USC 504(c)).

If he asks for actual damages and profits, then the number of times the song was played will only be relevant if somehow the more it was played the more it caused actual damage to the plaintiff or if the downloader was doing something that made money from playing the song repeatedly.

If he asks for statutory damages, they are awarded per work infringed, not per infringing copy. The number of times the copy was actually played would probably only have an affect on the outcome if the defendant was trying to argue that they had not intentionally downloaded the song. (The "a virus must have downloaded it!" or "it must have been one of my kids!" approach is popular).

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#346

Post by rebeccaskinner »

burfog wrote: post #339
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I co-founded a company in this space a few years ago. We ultimately pivoted out of the space because for all of the user buy-in that we got, the legal encumbrances were way too high to be able to successfully operate without raising a lot of money just to pay lawyers. If we'd decided to go the VC route instead of bootstrapping we might have been able to make a go of it, but raising VC money for a startup in the midwe…

Couldn't you make a full electronics replacement kit? It's a bit more involved, but DMCA and other DRM issues just go away. All the original electronics just get removed, to be boxed up and maybe discarded. You run your own software on your own computer with your own sensors.

It might have been with a much longer team, and a much longer time to market. We were 4 people, and as I mentioned in another comment, getting VC funding for a company in the rural midwest is essentially impossible.

The other issue is that I'm not sure we would have gotten as many buy-ins from the farmers. Many of them were very frustrated by the lack of interoperability between different pieces of equipment, their sensor data being locked behind DRM schemes, etc. They wanted to integrate the hardware and software that they owned, and wanted something that would let them do it piecemeal and with relatively little risk to their hardware. A complete overhaul wouldn't have helped with integrating their historic data, and would have definitely had a higher upfront cost and risk associated with bricking their equipment.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#347

Post by michaelmrose »

arkis22 wrote: post #342
michaelmrose wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Properly we limit what you are allowed to contract away all the time. This isnt any different. You want to retain control see leasing. Regarding trade secrets you misunderstand them. Please see https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_secret The Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA") defines a trade secret as: information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that derive…

I understand they don't get legal protection. That's not my point. My point is that companies don't just dump out information on how they operate. They protect their trade secrets, which as the definition you provided says, are worthy of protection. Thanks.

I would argue that the consumers right to have access to a lot of that information is considered normal and is vastly more important that the companies need to protect it. Enough so that we ought to legally protect the consumer even at the expense of the company. After all there are more of us than them why shouldn't we protect ourselves?

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#348

Post by arkis22 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #347
arkis22 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand they don't get legal protection. That's not my point. My point is that companies don't just dump out information on how they operate. They protect their trade secrets, which as the definition you provided says, are worthy of protection. Thanks.

I would argue that the consumers right to have access to a lot of that information is considered normal and is vastly more important that the companies need to protect it. Enough so that we ought to legally protect the consumer even at the expense of the company. After all there are more of us than them why shouldn't we protect ourselves?

The law you cited seems to do that. Companies have no right to stop consumers from purchasing goods that use their trade secrets without their consent.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#349

Post by cookiecaper »

tzs wrote: post #345
cookiecaper wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early disclaimer: IANAL. >Explain the use of "superfluous" in that sentence, please. Meaning works that were thought to enhance culture, or, as the Constitution puts it "Science and the Useful Arts", but which were not strictly necessary for anything to function. Patents were the separate mechanism of intellectual property intended to protect inventions. Patents are correspondingly much weaker and required a disclosu…

> The exception added for computer programs arose from this case, but did not address the RAM copy doctrine. It makes an explicit exemption for "(c)Machine Maintenance or Repair." only. If you're not maintaining or repairing your friend's machine, but you still load up a game he's installed, you've technically made an infringing copy, just as this computer tech had, because you are not doing it for "maintenance or re…

>This should fall under 17 USC [117](a)(1), "Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy".

It says that the owner may "make or authorize the making of" a copy for this purpose. This means that whether or not the copy is infringing will hinge on the language of the authorization granted by the owner.

It's noteworthy that despite the language of "...or authorize the making of..." being in place prior to MAI v. Peak, the Peak technicians were not considered sufficiently "authorized" to make a copy by running a program that the computer's owners had purchased, even though doing so was a necessary component in fulfilling their duties. One would think that logically, the owner's authorization to make the copy would've applied.

Going back to the decision to see the reasoning on this, I find nothing specific discussing why the authorization from the software's owners would not have applied. [0]

There is some commentary about how in a prior case, copying the program onto "silicon chips", meaning the fixed medium of a diskette (non-floppy), was ruled infringement because it was "not an essential step" in using the software, since it could be used by copying it only into RAM. Since the software could be used from RAM after being read from disk, it was "fixed" copy under the statute.

That's all well and good (not really, but discussed above), but it doesn't say why the authorization of the owners of MAI software was insufficient to allow the computer technician to make copies as his/her agent, necessitating the addition of subsections (c) and (d) in 1998.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/991_F2d_511.htm#...

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#350

Post by tzs »

cookiecaper wrote: post #349
tzs wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The exception added for computer programs arose from this case, but did not address the RAM copy doctrine. It makes an explicit exemption for "(c)Machine Maintenance or Repair." only. If you're not maintaining or repairing your friend's machine, but you still load up a game he's installed, you've technically made an infringing copy, just as this computer tech had, because you are not doing it for "maintenance or re…

>This should fall under 17 USC [117](a)(1), "Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy". It says that the owner may "make or authorize the making of" a copy for this purpose. This means that whether or not the copy is infringing will hinge on the language of the authorization granted by the owner. It's noteworthy that despite the language of "...or authorize the making of..." being in place prior to MA…

> It says that the owner may "make or authorize the making of" a copy for this purpose. This means that whether or not the copy is infringing will hinge on the language of the authorization granted by the owner.

It says "owner of a copy". That's referring to the person who owns the particular copy of the program installed on the machine, not to the owner of the copyright.

Post reply on HN