SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
'Right to repair' taken up by the ACCC in farmers' fight to fix their own tractors:
The 'right to repair' movement has finally bent the ear of Australia's competition and consumer watchdog, the ACCC, in its pleas to be able to fix their own farm equipment.
[...] Farmers have emerged as an unlikely force in the global right to repair movement.
The movement eschews the disposable culture of consumer electronics in favour of letting independent repairers and home tinkerers fix broken smartphones, tablets, and laptops.
Proponents want access to the code that makes modern machines hum, putting them at loggerheads with tech giants including Apple who own the proprietary software.
In the United States, farmers have risked voiding their warranties by hacking their own John Deere tractors with torrented software so they can carry out their own repairs.
[...] In its first deep dive into the modern agricultural machinery market, the ACCC published its discussion paper on the matter in late February and is seeking accounts from those who buy and use farm machinery, or repair it for a living.
"Broadacre croppers with large tractors, harvesters, seeders … and particularly tractors seem to be an area of some contention," Mr Keogh said.
"We have heard from dealers who say that they have no issues with providing service, yet we hear from independent service providers that they can't get access to the [software] diagnostic tools they need.
"In some cases they can't get access to the [manufacturers'] parts they need.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday April 22 2020, @08:40PM (1 child)
I suspect the article has that wrong. No one is too worried about voiding a warranty, for several reasons. First, the warranty may be worthless. For instance, LG stipulates that their warranty covers only parts, not labor, and that to qualify for parts, the work must be done at one of their blessed and approved shops that, naturally, charges inflated labor rates. Trying to exercise that warranty can well cost more than going outside the warranty, to an independent shop. Might even be more than junking the broken equipment and buying new.
The warranty can be far from full. Like, it might cover only the stainless steel parts, while it is of course the plain steel and aluminum that corrodes and breaks.
Finally, and worst, the warranty can be a dishonest, veiled scare tactic, intended to frighten the owner into believing the equipment is much too complicated and powerful and dangerous for mere mortal consumers to repair, while also laying out lots of conditions and exceptions that make it worthless, even attempting to take back provisions in consumer law, suggesting the item isn't returnable if disassembled or used in an unapproved manner, which could be any manner at all. That sort of malarkey is why people are right not to even read warranties. I'm a bit disappointed that the media fell for that one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23 2020, @03:14PM
The people buying these tractors need to negotiate all of these terms before buying or else find a competitor. Small businesses that purchase machinery can in fact negotiate terms and they have negotiating power. Big companies don't want to lose revenue even from small customers and they will work with them to find agreeable terms if the small business threatens to go to a competitor.
If the problem is that there isn't enough competition then that's something that should be discussed separately. Why isn't there enough competition? Too much intellectual property? Tractors are an old technology and it shouldn't be too difficult for a competitor to build a basic tractor without having to violate someone's IP forcing the tractor company to make their product at least competitive with a basic tractor. Unless there is IP that's being retroactively applied to older technology but that's something that should be specifically discussed separately.
Are there newer environmental, safety, or other laws that make it more difficult for a startup to build a tractor the old way so they have to do it a new way and the new way violates intellectual property? If so that should be discussed and addressed separately as well.
Is there a government agency that needs to approve tractors before they can be placed on the market and that limits approvals? That too needs to be discussed.
If these tractor companies are making so much money off of ridiculous terms and whatnot what's stopping competitors from taking their cake?