Colorado sends agricultural right to repair bill to governor State legislators in Colorado have advanced an agricultural right to repair bill to Governor Jared Polis's desk for signature that, if passed, would be the first law of its kind in the United States. The Consumer Right To Repair Agricultural Equipment bill would require manufacturers of agricultural equipment like tractors, …
It's one of those things where it's taken a long time to reach this bad state of affairs - like the old story about boiling a frog where (supposedly) if you sit it in cold water and then heat the water, it will sit there until it eventually dies from overheating rather than just jumping out.
Go back "not very long" and tractors were fairly basic mechanical things. Heck, the old "Grey Fergie" mostly used just two sizes of nut/bolt head so that the one "Fergie Spanner" (which also included a measure (inches only :)) for setting up certain implements) was all you needed for many tasks.
Then electronics started creeping in, but weren't all that troublesome in terms of repairs - initially it was "add ons" that didn't affect the ability to use the basic functions if it went wrong. E.g. if the GPS failed then you could still use the tractor/harvester, but would lose some of the information the GPS could give you. With engines, it initially only meant a standalone engine management system - where the ECU would be manufacturer specific, but the injectors would be off the shelf parts from a diesel engine specialist and could still be changed without too much hassle.
And eventually manufacturers realised that they could incorporate electronics into many more parts "because they can" and then lock things down. Also bear in mind that many of the first buyers of new machinery are larger outfits that would tend to use the franchised dealer anyway (especially while it's under warranty), and that creates a lag of at least a few years until the problem trickles down to the second hand buyers who will be more likely to use independents or repair stuff themselves. Interestingly, I have a relative who's a farmer and they've just updated some of the tractors - one has gone from "no electronics apart from in the dash display" to "if the electronics fails, it's good for nothing" (all the back end hydraulics are electronically controlled, it's taking some time to learn how to drive that !). When I commented that it would need more than a hammer and adjustable spanner to fix, the response was "I guess it'll be a return to dealer job if anything electronic fails". I'm not sure how much is actually "useful" functionality, and how much is "because we can" - but I guess some users were asking for the twiddly knobs to set response rates and the like.
So it's taken "a long time" to reach this position, and then it takes a long time for enough grumbling to work itself up so that the legislators start to take notice. And of course, even before the legislators start getting a significant amount of pushback, the businesses concerned will be lobbying hard to create a mindset that the restrictions are actually a good thing - especially by pushing the "only authorised people can maintain safety" narrative.
That further delays things until the grumbling reaches a level that the legislators can't ignore.
But at least there was a genuine benefit from that - which is supported by the the fact that these days almost everything is 3-point mounted.
At least with something patented there is the option for a third party (manufacturer) to negotiate a licensing fee to use it. And failing that, the presence of the 3-point mounting didn't prevent use of trailed implements in the least. Nor did it prevent DIY repairs or repairs from your local blacksmith turned mechanic.
"Deere and other manufacturers have expressed concerns that right to repair laws would require them to expose trade secrets, a carve-out for which was included in the Colorado bill."
This loophole will cause John Deere to claim everything is a trade secret, and thus exempt. There should be no loopholes at all. The only people who are a threat to their "trade secrets" are large companies who can be sued for copying these secrets. Farmer Bob isn't going to make his own tractor from the trade secrets in John Deere's documents. Still, given how angry John Deere is, this bill is an excellent start. Next up, we need to expand this law to electronic devices too. Take that Apple and Samsung!
I'm astonished that this bill ever came to pass. Surely the lobbyists would have 'donated' to the campaign the right people to kill it? Thats the normal political way to do things in the land of the free bribe.
As a previous commenttor has said, all the manufacturers will claim everything is a trade secret, so we'll see how much traction (pun intended) this bill gets in the courts.
I suspect it will be passed and ignored, but it's a start :)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
