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

351–359 of 359 posts

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#351

Post by beachy »

michaelmrose wrote: post #161
beachy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than adding laws, another good market-driven outcome would removing any laws that inhibit a healthy industry in providing plug-in replacement kits for the brains of the tractor. Yes, official warranties would be voided, so new providers of warranty services would spring up.

Every aspect of this is hypothetical and most likely imaginary. Can you provide example's of similar situations that have played out like this?

Well the engine rechipping industry is somewhat similar.

But indeed, this is hypothetical - but maybe more likely than the OP's desired outcome that "manufacturers of capital goods such as tractors are by law required to fully document what they sell including schematics, board lay-outs and source code or even a reproducible build package."

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#352

Post by makomk »

Cyph0n wrote: post #52
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this constantly but it doesn't ring true to me. Look at the 3D printer inventors from the 1980's who rested on their laurels selling $30,000 3D printers until their patents expired and the open source community started producing them for under $1000. Ten years after the patents expired, you can get a 3D printer for $199 that genuinely rivals the quality of a $30,000 printer just 10 years ago. There are all man…

But would the innovation that led to the creation of 3D printers have taken place if patent law didn't exist? And since the open source movement is based entirely on those patents (as I understand), would cheap 3D printers exist if the 1980s tech was never developed? I think these are the questions you should be thinking about when arguing against IP protection laws. Edit : One thing you failed to mention is that the…

The current wave of 3D printers are not based entirely on those patents. They use the same basic principle of extruding plastic filament in layers, but as I understand it the details of how to do this effectively were re-engineered by the RepRap project through years of careful experiments. One of the major tricks used to save material cost and printing time - adjustable density infill - is, as far as I know, entirely unique to the RepRap project and the wave of printers building on its work. I think the use of PLA for 3D printing might be solely their doing too.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#353

Post by cookiecaper »

tzs wrote: post #350
cookiecaper wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yeah, I know. That's what I'm referring to. Peak was shut down for copyright infringement, despite being authorized to use MAI software by owners of the copy of that software, their clients, who would have granted "authorization", and despite the statute's statement that owners of a copy can authorize the making of additional copies insofar as it's an essential step in the use of the program. Why would this authorization of the copy's owner not cover Peak's use of the software?

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#354

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

cmurf wrote: post #39
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because software as a service is the wrong model for farmers. When equipment breaks in the middle of the field during harvest you do what needs to be done to fix it right then and there. Edit: grammar

I'd have less of a problem with this if it were a free and open source license, and therefore there's competition available for the service, including do it yourself service should you choose. But most farms are now corporate so it sorta makes sense those types will drive this kind of closed loop proprietary fixed cost maintenance model.

That's a good point. If they're corporate and the tractor driver is paid by the hour then the pressure to fix isn't there. Though I suspect a corporate farm would contract out harvesting so they pay a fixed cost per unit-area, and now the contractor is under pressure to fix asap.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#355

Post by arkho »

dymk wrote: post #220
guelo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said there were 150-300 engineers working on this code. That is at least an order of magnitude less than the number of people developing Linux.

Yes, but they're getting paid, which is going to easily make up for the larger number of individuals developing Linux. Not to mention that 10x the devs does not come close to 10x the productivity.

For next time: if you don't know how something works (in this case, how linux is developed and by whom), ask! It's better than assuming and jumping to conclusions.

Most linux developers are paid to develop linux. Based on Jonatan Corbets stats less than 15% of the changes could possibly be from volunteers. More than 1200 developers affiliated with ~200 companies contributed to the last release alone. There are nuances here (some developers might not be full time _kernel_ developers) but the argument that linux development isn't professional and mostly paid work has been invalid for years.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#356

Post by cookiecaper »

ska wrote: post #272
keyme wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interoperability. At the very least this is a gray area.

"Gray area" here means: budget an awful lot of money for lawyers. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea, but being naive about it won't get you anywhere useful.

And to be clear, don't expect to win after that awful lot of money is spent. The law makes it really hard to succeed on these types of issues, and judges generally have very stringent/impractical interpretations (such as the interpretation that RAM copies are sufficiently fixed to infringe copyright).

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#357

Post by cookiecaper »

goodplay wrote: post #133
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.

Not the author, but I similarly support eliminating (well, severely limiting) intellectual property protections and make use copyright at the same time (GPL term enforcement). With current laws, it's one reasonable way to get close to my ideals. It's the same reason why the Apache 2.0 license is against the friction caused patents by acknowledging them and addressing the issues they raise. It's using ip law against i…

Yes, the FSF has long warned that weakening copyright may also weaken or endanger copyleft.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#358

Post by xorblurb »

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…

> This software is by FAR the largest, most complex codebase I have ever interacted with.

This is a problem.

Edit: I want to add something.

Serious 3rd party serious mechanical shops have had the ability to intervene on this kind of equipment - I suppose. The same way that independent serious and competent car repair shops exists.

One problem we are about to all observe, and which actually has already began, is not typically that owners would like to rewrite the software and run their car/tractor/whatever with the modified/rewritten version.

The problem is that vendors are taking the dangerousness argument and (mis)using it as an economic weapon in the same time to gain anticompetitive in the maintenance market -- like the comment to which I'm replying to does, in effect (concentrating on the risks of unrelated open changes, instead of discussing the initial problem! )

And moreover in the same time, car vendors, for example, have proven several time we can not trust them with critical software.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#359

Post by xorblurb »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #184
plinkplonk wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But trust me on this,... isn't a way to make a good argument. From TFA "Only dealerships have the software to make those parts work, and it costs hundreds of dollars just to get a service call. Schwarting worries about being broken down in a field, waiting for a dealer to show up with a software key." and from a comment above "Plus, many of them don't get any update after the product launch. When you are in rush to…

This may be related to farmers not taking the tractors to repair shops. The automotive component I worked on was firmware updated every time the customer took the car to a service for eg. to change oil, and an update was necessary. The tools needed for this were pretty expensive though, and needed some expertise, as the process was somewhat complicated. I understand why this is not trusted to owners.

> The tools needed for this were pretty expensive though, and needed some expertise, as the process was somewhat complicated.

This is a problem.

Post reply on HN