Why the Right to Repair is a Crucial Fight we Must Win

[furrowtickler]

There are many many examples on here over the past few years of parts way overpriced.
Kinda sounds like a machinery dealer ???
Maybe not but really ? Have you not had to buy parts the past 3-4 years ? It’s ridiculous now

[Klause]

A couple of points on this issue: much of the complexity of ag equipment today arises not from features that end users actually want, but features that the green movement wants, such as the ability to run a diesel engine indoors. This adds exponentially to the cost of the equipment, and manufacturers literally invest tens of millions of dollars creating the means to achieve these goals.

No, that's only on engine emission equipment... Controlling your radio through a touch screen you set your hydraulic flow is not required by law, it's not something farmers ask for, it's a software engineer's wet dream "because I can". This is one example....

When you buy a computer, you buy the hardware. Usually, it comes with Windows, but you have the choice to load any one of hundreds or thousands of variants of Linux or BSD on it. You have a choice on what software you want to run.

If you build a tractor, and don't give the buyer the ability to repair the equipment, then you need to make it so other software can be loaded onto it that is repairable. Don't confuse emissions requirements and design engineering with what's actually the real question here.

Aside from this, no manufacturer should ever be compelled to hand out proprietary information such as design drawings and schematics for software. Manufacturers have never done this, mainly because if end users can access this information, so can competitors. If ever passed into law, ag manufacturing will just move offshore. It's very telling that socialists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are all in favor of this kind of central planning.

When you buy a new directional drill, you receive a CD with the control software for diagnosis, repair, and setting limits of the machine. That's one example.

There's also the fact that manufacturers have been doing so all along - it's called the patent system. In exchange for granting a manufacturer exclusive rights to a new idea, technology, system, or component for 20 years (USA) or 17 years (Canada), the manufacturer makes the idea public, for the good of all. That's the tradeoff. If you buy something, the diagrams, service instructions, and specifications, along with the maintenance software need to come with it. Otherwise, you are forever tied to a manufacturer that can do whatever they'd like at a whim.

In today's day where additive manufacturing can make metal parts faster than castings this is becoming ever more important.

R2R laws exist for common goods, cars, and even other appliances (EU/US) already. Moving assembly offshore will not change the fact that if they want to sell HERE they have to provide documentation as per laws HERE.

This isn't central planning in any way shape or form.

[Klause]

I just disagree with the legislation route.
Because if it is OK for farmers to force regulations on our suppliers, then we haven't a foot to stand on when we try to defend ourselves against regulations imposed on us for chemical, fertilizer, manure, water, emissions, animal rights, noise, dust etc.

Those regulations are coming one way or another, there's no "defending" against what the public wants in a democracy. Rule of majority, or rule by those who have government's ear... That's a silly argument IMHO. "Let's just bend over and take it because otherwise we might have to do things.... that we already are being forced to do".

Needs to be a market based solution to avoid that. I just don't see any easy path to get there.
Unless it reaches the point where one manufacturers equipment has no resale value due to this policy, while others scoop their market share by avoiding this approach. Hard to buy new if you can't sell it again.

Well, what's the market based solution, then? I'm all for open enterprise... Do we start companies like CCIL was and manufacture equipment that's basic, works, and is competitive? Would that force other companies to follow suit?

If consumers have protections, why can't those extend to us as well? We have the Canada Grain Act to (theoretically) protect us from being held hostage by grain companies, is that also legislation that shouldn't exist?



That's all for now. I'm off to try combining peas again!

[Rareearth]

It is getting better/easier slowly with the internet and most manufacturers posting owners manuals, parts books with part numbers, etc. This we should call first step.

Next step, as Klause outlined, software programming, actual CAD drawings, etc

[Austrian Economics]

"When you buy a computer, you buy the hardware. Usually, it comes with Windows, but you have the choice to load any one of hundreds or thousands of variants of Linux or BSD on it. You have a choice on what software you want to run." True to some extent. But you can't get the source code for Windows from Microsoft.

"If you build a tractor, and don't give the buyer the ability to repair the equipment, then you need to make it so other software can be loaded onto it that is repairable." No. There is no such "need".

If anyone wants to create after market computerized systems that will run farm equipment they are free to do so. The fact that this is not widespread indicates that such firms would not be able to compete cost wise. Since features are added every model year, just keeping up with the pace of them would be cost-prohibitive all on its own.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Well, what's the market based solution, then? I'm all for open enterprise... Do we start companies like CCIL was and manufacture equipment that's basic, works, and is competitive? Would that force other companies to follow suit?

If there was a market for NEW simple easy to repair, affordable equipment, someone would have filled that void by now.

Truth is, anyone who acn afford/justify/needs new equipment, apparently is more concerned about features and comforts and shinyness. Manufacturers aren't making something and forcing it onto the market, they are responding to customer demands. The farmer who buys 15 year old equipment to fix themselves isn't the target demographic, and likely still wouldn't buy new if there was a cheaper simpler alternative.

How well are the new Kirovets selling in North America?
Or the Versatile combines?

[Klause]

If there was a market for NEW simple easy to repair, affordable equipment, someone would have filled that void by now.

This argument.... "If that's such a great idea, it would have been done by now!" Has got to be the absolutely most regressive argument ever. I'm sure people told Thomas Eddison, Henry Ford, Elon Musk, and thousands of other people that have progressed technology, systems, and inventions the exact same thing.

Remember a few years ago when Versatile built bare-bones 4WDs that were destined for Russia, but couldn't get shipped? They were 375HP tractors, no bells and whistles and sold for around $220,000. They were gone within two months... A hundred tractors.

Trust me, there's demand. Comparing that to Russian tractors selling here is foolhardy. The North American market is notoriously hard to penetrate for other manufacturers, much less the "quirky" Russians. Look how long it took Claas to gain a foothold, and they had to start with completely hiding their name and plastering CAT on the side.

Truth is, anyone who acn afford/justify/needs new equipment, apparently is more concerned about features and comforts and shinyness. Manufacturers aren't making something and forcing it onto the market, they are responding to customer demands. The farmer who buys 15 year old equipment to fix themselves isn't the target demographic, and likely still wouldn't buy new if there was a cheaper simpler alternative.

Exactly. You made my point perfectly. So, since the 2nd, and 3rd owners aren't the "target demographic", who allows them to keep repairing their equipment? Or are all those guys supposed to roll over and sell out to the BTOs that can trade multiple units every year. If that's the case, what happens to those trades? Just pile them in a junk yard?

Doesn't work.


I agreed a market based solution would be great, and asked you to provide possible solutions... Instead, you decided tearing apart my example was a better idea. I'm still waiting for an actual "market" solution that would save us from needing legislation to protect the rights of those that own equipment.

[Klause]

True to some extent. But you can't get the source code for Windows from Microsoft.

Actually, MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) provides massive amounts of documentation for Windows. They also provide SDKs (Software Developer Kits), APIs (Application Programming Interfaces), and development & Debug tools for Windows. What R2R does, is force the manufacturers of equipment to do the same.

"If you build a tractor, and don't give the buyer the ability to repair the equipment, then you need to make it so other software can be loaded onto it that is repairable." No. There is no such "need".

There's no such need... because you say so? And you are who exactly to be able to make that determination?

If anyone wants to create after market computerized systems that will run farm equipment they are free to do so. The fact that this is not widespread indicates that such firms would not be able to compete cost wise. Since features are added every model year, just keeping up with the pace of them would be cost-prohibitive all on its own.

See point one. Without APIs and SDKs. Documentation. It's nearly impossible, and incredibly slow to develop anything. I can go into the specifics of CAN addresses and sensor values, but there is no need.

Suffice to say, if I need to recalibrate the ILS suspension on my 8220, I don't want to pay a dealer $1500 to "hook up the laptop and run the routine". I want to know which HCU address it is, and do it myself.

[farming101]

Right to Repair kicks in when you are dealing with older equipment.
Machinery today will just quit working completely due to some phantom electronic bug. The days of jerry-rigging machinery is over. It has to work as advertised or its scrap iron.

10 grand for a couple of upgraded boards (because you can't get the old ones anymore) is common. The new ones come complete with a glitch or two because for some reason it is not 100% compatible.
Proprietary equipment should mean pride of workmanship. Instead, I am convinced there is no more quality in electronic ag machines these days than in your bedside clock radio. Mushy buttons, archaic software and two bit screens.

When you get the tech guy out and he starts swapping out parts till something different happens you realize what a jam you are in.
In the new environmentally friendly world how is all of this sustainable?

[GDR]

How well are the new Kirovets selling in North America?
Or the Versatile combines?

I dont get why buyers keep looking for more and more technology on the equipment, just more stuff to fail for very little gain.

There was a demo on one of those 4wd Kirovets in our area a while back so thought I would check the price out. I'd be willing to try something off brand if the price was right but they aren't cheap. I bet the depreciation on them would be higher than any of the mainstream tractors.