John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement
166 points by djoldman 2 hours ago | 37 comments

taurath 45 minutes ago
> Deere must pay $1 million collectively to the five states for antitrust enforcement costs and will be subject to strict compliance oversight for the next 10 years.

$1 million fine for probably $10 billion in profit. I know what lesson I'd learn if my only personal value was maximizing shareholder value. The compliance part can be dealt with later.

reply
snypher 37 minutes ago
>probably $10 billion in profit

Can you expand on this number or is it vibes-based? I'd be surprised if $10b profit was made from Service Advisor.

Anecdata; we've had a handful of problems with our tractor "computers" recently, and we haven't been charged a dime by the dealer. Our newest is 2018 model so definitely not covered by warranty.

reply
syntaxing 28 minutes ago
Not OP but I went through some data and John Deere makes 5B NET profit for the worse years. 10B for their best (only looking back 10 years). I wouldn’t be surprised these anticompetitive (as in anti “consumer”) has netted them north of 10B.
reply
cyanydeez 5 minutes ago
google's ai says: The High-Margin Ecosystem: Collectively, parts and service agreements form a highly profitable ecosystem, generating over $4 billion annually in high-margin revenue. This system captures predictable revenue long after the initial equipment sale.

That's directly related to right to repair; their systems basically shut themselves down if they weren't give the proper codes, etc. So the only people who could work on them were "certified"

reply
Cider9986 34 minutes ago
Shout out to Louis Rossmann for doing a ton of work on Right to repair.

He started a website called Consumer Rights Wiki to document anti-consumer practices.

https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Main_Page

He's also involved with FULU Foundation which has a bounty of 25k to get Ring cameras working without Amazon's servers.

https://bounties.fulu.org/bounties/ring-video-doorbells

reply
aj_icracked 2 minutes ago
I agree with this. Louis has done a ton in the last decade and deserves thanks for sure.
reply
ggoo 43 minutes ago
Bananas that stuff like this needs to get litigated in our society - if you asked 100 random people "should farmers be able to repair their equipment", you would get 100 yes's.
reply
Gigachad 11 minutes ago
Because they don't ask it like that. It'll be "Woke communists want to confiscate the money of enterprising businesses." Combined with some AI generated video of the right to repair supporters laughing in an evil way or something.
reply
toomuchtodo 9 minutes ago
"Don't you believe in free markets and capitalism? It's their right to maximize profits."
reply
mothballed 40 minutes ago
Until you tell them how easy it makes it to bypass emissions restrictions. My tractor was shipped with a screw turned down to <25hp to bypass emissions controls. I could turn that screw back up and have a ~35hp tractor, but of course, that would be illegal and make lots of environmentalists cry.

Opening up John Deere tractors for right to repair virtually assures they will ~all be doing emissions deletes. Part of their lock-down was profit seeking, but the other half is that different vendors had different ideas interpretations of the law about how locked down the system had to be to prevent emissions tampering, and domestic companies more subject to US law were generally far more paranoid about it.

reply
hatsix 23 minutes ago
Right to repair doesn't change any of that. Farmers were adjusting that screw anyways, that was the entire point. I'm not mad at farmers for doing it, I'm mad at John Deere at cheating the system.
reply
mothballed 21 minutes ago
It's not John Deere that was doing that, just some Korean companies exploring the opportunity and importing to the US. John Deere is located in the US and too afraid of the whimsical interpretations of regulators to try something like that, I think.

There was no "screw" for the commercial John Deere tractors with emissions controls, that I know of.

reply
javawizard 15 minutes ago
Lot of armchair quarterbacking going on, on both sides. I'd love to hear an actual farmer weigh in on this.

Anyone in the room care to volunteer?

reply
mothballed 14 minutes ago
tractorbynet is one of the better forums for info on opinions on tractors by people that use them regularly
reply
snypher 33 minutes ago
If we could get our operators to just run regen when they should, it wouldn't be an issue. They don't mind filling DEF and we don't mind paying for it.
reply
triceratops 35 minutes ago
I don't understand, are 35hp tractors illegal under emissions rules? Then why even manufacture them and cripple them?
reply
mothballed 33 minutes ago
Tractors are legal above 25hp but it requires DPF, and at I want to say about 75, possibly more than that. Farmers generally hate DPF systems and will disable them the microsecond they get the right to repair.

>Then why even manufacture them and cripple them?

They cripple them because they know people want bigger tractor without emission control so they sell it as a less powerful tractor and then just expect people to break the law and turn the screw, and everybody is happy.

========= re: below due to throttling ========

>Thankfully, it's not illegal to own a screwdriver and nothing changes there. There's absolutely no relevance between right to repair (not right to break emission laws!) and the situation you describe.

There is because on the John Deere tractors you can't set the "screw" unless you have right to repair the engine system. John Deere has no screw because they're in the US and they're too afraid of US regulators.

reply
spaqin 11 minutes ago
Thankfully, it's not illegal to own a screwdriver and nothing changes there. There's absolutely no relevance between right to repair (not right to break emission laws!) and the situation you describe.
reply
ori_b 21 minutes ago
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is this prevented today or not by the denial of the right to repair?

It sounds like you are saying everyone is doing it today, so denying the right to repair doesn't affect the situation.

reply
mothballed 19 minutes ago
If you're a US company the vagueness of emissions law likely prevents a US company from hazarding doing it and instead locking down the repair of their power trains to ensure emission compliance. Korean companies get away with it because they don't give much a shit if they're banned from import, it can always be washed through another foreign company. John Deere can't try that sort of thing since being a household-name US company is their bread and butter for commanding a premium in the first place.

======= re: below due to throttling ========

>You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines.

Everyone is doing it on the import tractors with the screws. They are not doing it with John Deere tractors, which are locked down for emission compliance. John Deere is handicapped by the fact they're located in the US and regulators have more leverage on them to prevent the sort of right-to-repair which would enable emission bypassing.

>Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair?

What is happening today is people with John Deere are not able to unlock their tractor for repair and turn the "screw" like they can with import tractors. The very first thing they will do once they can "repair" is delete emissions controls.

reply
ori_b 14 minutes ago
Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair?

You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Is that wrong?

reply
q3k 13 minutes ago
Doing that is already illegal and should be enforced using appropriate tools. We shouldn't be relying on unrelated technical measures to enforce laws.
reply
trinsic2 27 minutes ago
reply
BorisMelnik 3 minutes ago
so happy to hear this, I know many farmers that went with other brands or used equipment without chips. most farmers I know just want pure mechanics anyway
reply
MarkMarine 39 minutes ago
Great news, the fine is so small doesn’t matter, but curing the wrong does. My hope is this standard will apply to modern cars as well, repair manuals and the software tools to interact with the cars are also heavily restricted by the manufacturers.
reply
doginasuit 11 minutes ago
The very concept of IP was a mistake. I understand it helped make a lot of work possible. But virtually nothing useful came from nothing, and the reservoir of human knowledge belongs to all of us. Unless you are Isaac Newton, you took a good idea and made it better or more applicable. Pretending like you own it is just dishonest.

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

--Isaac Newton

reply
dreambuffer 35 minutes ago
There's a cognitive dissonance on this site where everyone claims to hate this attempt at regulatory capture, yet they would do it too if it was their tech company and call it a "moat", and many are actively working towards that.
reply
esseph 2 minutes ago
[delayed]
reply
josefritzishere 4 minutes ago
1 Million isn't enough. The CEO should personally pay 1 million, the Deere corp should have to pay 100 M.
reply
aceki 38 minutes ago
As much as I hope this is a turning point, I’m not holding my breath.

John Deere was one of the most egregious offenders in the right-to-repair movement, especially with how expensive their tractors are. There’s definitely a difference paying for the repair of a ten of thousands of dollars machine versus having to buy new AirPods.

I’m no expert in US law, but my understanding is an FTC settlement doesn’t create any precedent like a court case would, so I don’t anticipate this leading to other offenders, like in tech, being held accountable. Their support is too important right now.

Ultimately, I think the underlying motive for the administration is scoring a win for a core constituency, farmers. Tariffs and immigration enforcement have really harmed the viability of their farms, but at least the admin can say the did something for them.

Nevertheless, I’m glad that John Deere is being forced to provide parts and information to individuals and repair shops.

reply
ourmandave 5 minutes ago
The suit was brought be Dems in a 3-2 commission vote in Jan just before Trump took office. I'm not sure he cares since he's not running again and I don't see a way he can use it for graft.
reply
frollogaston 55 minutes ago
Good. It's a tractor, not some tiny glued-together tech gadget.
reply
dugite-code 52 minutes ago
Shouldn't we be able to repair a tiny glued togethee tech gadget as well?
reply
sublinear 46 minutes ago
This is only getting this level of scrutiny because it's related to big ag, and John Deere is the worst example.

They're a political football now and it's more of a feel good measure.

reply
rayusher 36 minutes ago
Most movements don't start out big. They are won by small steps. Personally I want a law that allows people to bypass security measure after a company stop supporting the device. I have unsupported amazon echo, google home, and apple ipads that work perfectly well and I would love add custom software or even put a different os too.
reply
brikym 37 minutes ago
"...Deere will now be required to make diagnostic and repair tools available to equipment owners and independent repair shops..."

This is only the tip of the iceberg. They make the parts deliberately proprietary to prevent competition. The classic example is curved cabin windows instead of flat commodity glass.

Laissez-faire capitalism is efficient at extraction not productivity.

reply
snypher 30 minutes ago
Having operated a ~1995 7800 with flat glass and a ~2015 7270 with curved, I know which one I'm picking.

Are automobiles using curved windshields so they have a stranglehold on the replacement windshield market?

Your example doesn't pass my sniff test.

reply
e44858 20 minutes ago
How is a curved window better on a tractor?
reply
nttylock 53 minutes ago
[flagged]
reply