Right to Repair...

[Dean Hoffman]

This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.
<https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>
I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would\'ve had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
<https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-4, dean...@gmail.com wrote:

This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.
https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8
I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would\'ve had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html

The photo is just a photo. Like when articles would run about the, then new, model 3, it would often be accompanied by a model S photo.

I read most of the article and can verify it is accurate. The power of corporations is clear in this matter. While some traction has been gained by the Right to Repair movement, companies like Apple find ways to make life difficult for third party repair in spite of following the new rules. John Deere is well known for their actions to force every farmer to pay them for every repair, even when they can\'t send anyone because it\'s planting season and there are lots of broken tractors, a time when it is most important to get the machine running again.

I was not aware they have such power because they have become effectively a monopoly. There used to be any number of manufacturers. But I guess it\'s like the auto industry, you have to be pretty big to remain in business. I\'m expecting the conversion to BEVs to be the death of a number of auto makers, such as whatever the Chrysler/Fiat company is called now. The head of the US arm has essentially said this effort, done rapidly, will put them in the ground. But the US will still have three automakers. Lose Chrysler, add Tesla.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:

This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.
https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8
I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would\'ve had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html

Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the
software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you
need to agree to the terms and conditions.

Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence
required.

Sylvia.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:26:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.

Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the
software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you
need to agree to the terms and conditions.

Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

Yeah, but if the software is only ever worked by the manufacturer\'s employees...

<https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/robot-garage-hijacks-cars.html>

the court battle can last a while...

 

[Don Y]

On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from
Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.
https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8

I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the
picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would\'ve had points and
a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.

https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html


Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the
software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you need to
agree to the terms and conditions.

Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs software in
your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

It\'s an authorized *license*. It doesn\'t give you any more rights
than a \"separately purchased\" license would afford. You don\'t
for example, \"own\" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
exists in your gear.

You don\'t, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it,
modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
(the software) if you think \"it\'s yours\".

The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further copies as
are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence required.

Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don\'t agree
with the terms of the (implied) license. Or, if the license terms
were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

I.e., you can\'t claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms
without your consent.

If you don\'t like John Deere\'s terms, buy a Kubota tractor! (if it isn\'t
as *good*, <shrug>, that\'s not John Deere\'s fault!)

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11-May-22 1:40 pm, Don Y wrote:

On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from
Ukraine.  John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors
remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair.
https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8

    I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true.  The tractor in
the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960.  That thing would\'ve had
points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used
magnetos back then.
https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html


Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use
the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that
you need to agree to the terms and conditions.

Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence
required.

It\'s an authorized *license*.  It doesn\'t give you any more rights
than a \"separately purchased\" license would afford.  You don\'t
for example, \"own\" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
exists in your gear.

You don\'t, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it,
modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
(the software) if you think \"it\'s yours\".

The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence
required.

Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don\'t agree
with the terms of the (implied) license.  Or, if the license terms
were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

I.e., you can\'t claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms
without your consent.

If you don\'t like John Deere\'s terms, buy a Kubota tractor!  (if it isn\'t
as *good*, <shrug>, that\'s not John Deere\'s fault!)

The starting point for a discussion about licences for computer programs
is not what the terms of the licence are, but whether a licence is
required at all.

It seems a pervasive notion that use of a computer program requires a
licence. But a licence is only required if the use of the program would
otherwise be a breach of copyright.

Usually, the way a computer program ends up in a computer is by the
owner of the computer copying it from a distribution medium or by
downloading (involves copying) over the Internet. Absent a licence, that
copying will be a breach of copyright.

But if the computer program is an integral part of the machine on which
it is installed, and the installation was done by, or with the authority
of, the owner of the copyright, then the purchaser of the machine has
not done any copying, and consequently did not need a licence.

They do not need a licence to use the software, because of (a)(1) in

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

Sylvia.

 

[Don Y]

On 5/10/2022 9:34 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 11-May-22 1:40 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from
Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.
https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8

I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the
picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would\'ve had points
and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html


Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the
software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you need to
agree to the terms and conditions.

Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs software
in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

It\'s an authorized *license*. It doesn\'t give you any more rights
than a \"separately purchased\" license would afford. You don\'t
for example, \"own\" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
exists in your gear.

You don\'t, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it,
modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
(the software) if you think \"it\'s yours\".

The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further copies
as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence required.

Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don\'t agree
with the terms of the (implied) license. Or, if the license terms
were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

I.e., you can\'t claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms
without your consent.

If you don\'t like John Deere\'s terms, buy a Kubota tractor! (if it isn\'t
as *good*, <shrug>, that\'s not John Deere\'s fault!)

The starting point for a discussion about licences for computer programs is not
what the terms of the licence are, but whether a licence is required at all.

You can\'t acquire software without (some) accompanying license. The license
imposes constraints on how the licensor is willing to let you use *his*
software (and it will forever be \"his\" until he transfers ownership to
another party).

It seems a pervasive notion that use of a computer program requires a licence.
But a licence is only required if the use of the program would otherwise be a
breach of copyright.

No. A license determines how you can use the IP.

\"By using your iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch (\"iOS Device\") you are agreeing to be
bound by the following terms: ... (license agreement)\"

\"Please read this software license agreement (\"License\") carefully before using
your iOS device or downloading the software update accompanying this license.
By using your iOS device or downloading a software update, as applicable, YOU
ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE (emphasis mine). IF YOU
DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE iOS DEVICE OR
DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE UPDATE\"

\"If you have recently purchased an iOS device and you do not agree to the terms
of the license, YOU MAY RETURN THE iOS DEVICE ...\"

This is a concensual agreement that you are willingly entering into.
If you don\'t like it, you can STOP USING THE DEVICE (i.e., return it)
and bear no cost for doing so. Find an alternative device (two tin cans
conjoined with string) that has license terms more to your liking.

Usually, the way a computer program ends up in a computer is by the owner of
the computer copying it from a distribution medium or by downloading (involves
copying) over the Internet. Absent a licence, that copying will be a breach of
copyright.

Or, by the software coming preinstalled -- OR AN INTEGRAL PART OF -- the
computer at acquisition (think BIOS, OS, etc.) So? A license still applies
to that IP.

A licensor can choose how liberally he wants to allow the software to be
used/applied (my current licenses essentially just assert that I retain the
right to use the software as I please -- even if I\'ve granted you the right
to go crazy with modifications!). Or, restrict it to very specific purposes
(e.g., you can\'t extract the software and put it in a similar device to endow
that device with the benefits of THIS software as that could be a potential
asset that I might want to exploit)

But if the computer program is an integral part of the machine on which it is
installed, and the installation was done by, or with the authority of, the
owner of the copyright, then the purchaser of the machine has not done any
copying, and consequently did not need a licence.

No. The license governs how you can use the software (or other IP),
not how/if you can copy it.

They do not need a licence to use the software, because of (a)(1) in

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

It doesn\'t matter how you got the license or the \"copy\" of the software.

I\'ve rescued several devices that contain software. I am still bound by
the license terms of those despite the fact that I never PAID to
purchase any of those items. My *use* of the item signifies my consent
to those terms. I can\'t weasel out of the terms by claiming \"I never
agreed to them by exchanging monies for the item so I should be free
to do <whatever>\"

You don\'t really think big corporations hire lawyers to write all this
jargon if it doesn\'t have some legal TEETH?

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11-May-22 3:36 pm, Don Y wrote:

On 5/10/2022 9:34 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11-May-22 1:40 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors
from Ukraine.  John Deere used kill switches to disable the
tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair.
https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8

    I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true.  The tractor in
the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960.  That thing would\'ve
had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used
magnetos back then.
https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html


Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use
the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that
you need to agree to the terms and conditions.

Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence
required.

It\'s an authorized *license*.  It doesn\'t give you any more rights
than a \"separately purchased\" license would afford.  You don\'t
for example, \"own\" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
exists in your gear.

You don\'t, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it,
modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
(the software) if you think \"it\'s yours\".

The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no
licence required.

Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don\'t agree
with the terms of the (implied) license.  Or, if the license terms
were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

I.e., you can\'t claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms
without your consent.

If you don\'t like John Deere\'s terms, buy a Kubota tractor!  (if it
isn\'t
as *good*, <shrug>, that\'s not John Deere\'s fault!)

The starting point for a discussion about licences for computer
programs is not what the terms of the licence are, but whether a
licence is required at all.

You can\'t acquire software without (some) accompanying license.  The
license
imposes constraints on how the licensor is willing to let you use *his*
software (and it will forever be \"his\" until he transfers ownership to
another party).

It seems a pervasive notion that use of a computer program requires a
licence. But a licence is only required if the use of the program
would otherwise be a breach of copyright.

No.  A license determines how you can use the IP.

The is no such legal concept as \"using IP\". This is copyright law, pure
and simple.

\"By using your iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch (\"iOS Device\") you are
agreeing to be bound by the following terms: ... (license agreement)\"

\"Please read this software license agreement (\"License\") carefully
before using your iOS device or downloading the software update
accompanying this license. By using your iOS device or downloading a
software update, as applicable, YOU
ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE (emphasis mine).
IF YOU
DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE iOS DEVICE OR
DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE UPDATE\"

\"If you have recently purchased an iOS device and you do not agree to
the terms of the license, YOU MAY RETURN THE iOS DEVICE ...\"

There are usually such statements associated with a device. This does
not make them true. Even if one has to click \"OK\" to start using the
device, that does not mean that one has consented, just that one did
what one needed to to use the device one has paid for.

The issue of click-through agreements has been considered in the context
of shrink wrap software, but that\'s a rather different situation.

I\'m not aware of the matter ever being tested in court in the context
pre-installed software that is an integral part of the device.

This is a concensual agreement that you are willingly entering into.
If you don\'t like it, you can STOP USING THE DEVICE (i.e., return it)
and bear no cost for doing so.  Find an alternative device (two tin cans
conjoined with string) that has license terms more to your liking.

Usually, the way a computer program ends up in a computer is by the
owner of the computer copying it from a distribution medium or by
downloading (involves copying) over the Internet. Absent a licence,
that copying will be a breach of copyright.

Or, by the software coming preinstalled -- OR AN INTEGRAL PART OF -- the
computer at acquisition (think BIOS, OS, etc.)  So?  A license still
applies
to that IP.

A licensor can choose how liberally he wants to allow the software to be
used/applied (my current licenses essentially just assert that I retain the
right to use the software as I please -- even if I\'ve granted you the right
to go crazy with modifications!).  Or, restrict it to very specific
purposes
(e.g., you can\'t extract the software and put it in a similar device to
endow
that device with the benefits of THIS software as that could be a potential
asset that I might want to exploit)

Regardless of any purported limitations put there by a licence
agreement, extracting the software would involve copying, so would
trigger the copyright protections.

But if the computer program is an integral part of the machine on
which it is installed, and the installation was done by, or with the
authority of, the owner of the copyright, then the purchaser of the
machine has not done any copying, and consequently did not need a
licence.

No.  The license governs how you can use the software (or other IP),
not how/if you can copy it.

Again, there is no law about using IP. To get to the point where a
licence agreement has any force, there has to be copying involved.

They do not need a licence to use the software, because of (a)(1) in

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

It doesn\'t matter how you got the license or the \"copy\" of the software.

I\'ve rescued several devices that contain software.  I am still bound by
the license terms of those despite the fact that I never PAID to
purchase any of those items.  My *use* of the item signifies my consent
to those terms.  I can\'t weasel out of the terms by claiming \"I never
agreed to them by exchanging monies for the item so I should be free
to do <whatever>\"

You don\'t really think big corporations hire lawyers to write all this
jargon if it doesn\'t have some legal TEETH?

Of course they would. They don\'t care whether it would ultimately stand
up in court. The legalese is there to give them leverage, and it rarely
becomes a live issue.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 11-May-22 12:37 pm, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:26:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.

Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the
software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you
need to agree to the terms and conditions.

Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

Yeah, but if the software is only ever worked by the manufacturer\'s employees...

https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/robot-garage-hijacks-cars.html

the court battle can last a while...

Yes, the issues there are complex, and whether the system was sabotaged
is unclear.

Moral of the story - don\'t agree to a fixed licence term on software
that is essential to the operation of an asset whose life isn\'t
similarly fixed, not least because the scope for subsequent extortionate
fees is obvious.

I expect a competent electrical engineer could get the cars out in
fairly short order.

Sylvia.

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 9:26:32 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.
https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8
I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would\'ve had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html
Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the
software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you
need to agree to the terms and conditions.

Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence
required.

I believe the problem comes when a part is replaced with a non-OEM part that either requires that software to be installed in it, or that needs a serial number in such a way software elsewhere must be modified to work with it.. Teslas have such part numbering. I don\'t think they typically object to part replacements that aren\'t new OEM parts. But certain part replacements result in being disconnected from the charging network.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 12:35:07 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 11-May-22 1:40 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from
Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors
remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.
https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8

I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in
the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would\'ve had
points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used
magnetos back then.
https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html


Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use
the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that
you need to agree to the terms and conditions.

Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence
required.

It\'s an authorized *license*. It doesn\'t give you any more rights
than a \"separately purchased\" license would afford. You don\'t
for example, \"own\" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
exists in your gear.

You don\'t, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it,
modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
(the software) if you think \"it\'s yours\".

The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence
required.

Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don\'t agree
with the terms of the (implied) license. Or, if the license terms
were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

Not true, or at least not remotely universal. If you buy a PC with Windows installed, your choices are to accept the license terms, or not use Windows on the computer. PC makers no longer give you the right to return a machine because of the license, at least, none that I know of.

I.e., you can\'t claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms
without your consent.

If you don\'t like John Deere\'s terms, buy a Kubota tractor! (if it isn\'t
as *good*, <shrug>, that\'s not John Deere\'s fault!)
The starting point for a discussion about licences for computer programs
is not what the terms of the licence are, but whether a licence is
required at all.

It seems a pervasive notion that use of a computer program requires a
licence. But a licence is only required if the use of the program would
otherwise be a breach of copyright.

Usually, the way a computer program ends up in a computer is by the
owner of the computer copying it from a distribution medium or by
downloading (involves copying) over the Internet. Absent a licence, that
copying will be a breach of copyright.

But if the computer program is an integral part of the machine on which
it is installed, and the installation was done by, or with the authority
of, the owner of the copyright, then the purchaser of the machine has
not done any copying, and consequently did not need a licence.

They do not need a licence to use the software, because of (a)(1) in

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

\"a machine\" is at the heart of that section. The issue with tractor repair is buying non-OEM parts that must have the software copied onto them to work. Does \"a machine\" include parts that were not made by the OEM? Or in the case of PCs, does it include installation on another PC than the machine the software was originally installed on? The second machine could be an entirely different machine, or it could be a replacement machine, or it could be the original machine with enough replacement/upgraded parts that it is considered a \"new\" machine by the software.

I don\'t see an obvious way to interpret, \"in conjunction with a machine\" in these cases, or if this can be modified by language in the license.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Dean Hoffman]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 7:29:28 PM UTC-5, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-4, dean...@gmail.com wrote:
This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
It also has some stuff about right to repair.
https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8
I don\'t have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would\'ve had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html
The photo is just a photo. Like when articles would run about the, then new, model 3, it would often be accompanied by a model S photo.

The photo is one of the old Johnny Poppers. The sound of those is as distinctive to old farmers
as the Harley Davidson motorcycle sound is to bikers.

I read most of the article and can verify it is accurate. The power of corporations is clear in this matter. While some traction has been gained by the Right to Repair movement, companies like Apple find ways to make life difficult for third party repair in spite of following the new rules. John Deere is well known for their actions to force every farmer to pay them for every repair, even when they can\'t send anyone because it\'s planting season and there are lots of broken tractors, a time when it is most important to get the machine running again.

I was not aware they have such power because they have become effectively a monopoly. There used to be any number of manufacturers. But I guess it\'s like the auto industry, you have to be pretty big to remain in business. I\'m expecting the conversion to BEVs to be the death of a number of auto makers, such as whatever the Chrysler/Fiat company is called now. The head of the US arm has essentially said this effort, done rapidly, will put them in the ground. But the US will still have three automakers. Lose Chrysler, add Tesla.

The AKRS John Deere dealership pretty much rules Nebraska. It has about 25 locations scattered around the state.
About the only competition Deere has is from CaseIH. There are companies like Hesston
that specialize in hay equipment. I wanted a small tractor to mow our farmyard and do some
small chores last year. There were almost none to be found. I ended up with a Massey
Ferguson 1725 with a mid mount mower and a loader. Massey has a good reputation.
Even the smaller tractors run on diesel now. Most probably ran on gasoline until the
early to mid 60s or so.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209