ADVERTISEMENT

Farmers Fight John Deere Over Who Gets to Fix an $800,000 Tractor

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,228
62,128
113
The right-to-repair movement has come to the heartland, where some farmers are demanding access to the software that runs their equipment.
1200x-1.jpg

Inventory at Green Line Equipment in Grand Island, Neb.

Photographer: Walker Pickering for Bloomberg Businessweek

It’s Husker Harvest Days, Nebraska’s biggest agricultural trade show, and Kevin Kenney is working the pavilions. The engineer, inventor, and inveterate manure-stirrer is trying to be discreet. He has allies here among the sellers and auctioneers of used tractors and aftermarket parts. There are farmers, mechanics, and the odd politician or two who embrace him. But enemies lurk everywhere.

Kenney leads a grassroots campaign in the heart of the heartland to restore a fundamental right most people don’t realize they’ve lost—the right to repair their own farm equipment. By sheer dint of personal passion, he’s taking on John Deere and the other global equipment manufacturers in a bid to preserve mechanical skills on the American farm. Big Tractor says farmers have no right to access the copyrighted software that controls every facet of today’s equipment, even to repair their own machines. That’s the exclusive domain of authorized dealerships. Kenney says the software barriers create corporate monopolies—and destroy the agrarian ethos of resiliency and self-reliance.


“The spirit of the right-to-repair is the birthright we all share as a hot-rodding nation,” he says, channeling his inner Thomas Jefferson and Big Daddy Don Garlits. Tall and trim at 55, with gray-flecked hair and a passing resemblance to a corn-fed George Clooney, Kenney has kicked up significant pushback against the computerization of U.S. agriculture. His crusade to pass right-to-repair legislation in Nebraska has spread to proposals in 20 states. Last spring, Senator Elizabeth Warren, campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, called for a national law “that empowers farmers to repair their equipment without going to an authorized agent.”

At stake for Deere & Co. and other big manufacturers is the free rein they’ve had to remake farming with data and software. The transformation has helped U.S. farmers increase productivity, but at the cost of a steady shift in operational control from farmer to machine. One of the world’s oldest and most hands-on occupations has literally become hands-off.


Anything a farmer does on a modern tractor, beginning with opening the cab door, generates messages captured by its main onboard computer, which uploads the signals to the cloud via a cellular transmitter located, in many Deere models, beneath the driver’s seat. These machines have been meticulously programmed and tested to minimize hazards and maximize productivity, Deere says, and it’s all too complicated for farmers to be getting involved in. The issue isn’t actually repair, says Stephanie See, director of state government relations for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers—it’s agitators who insist on the right to modify the machines.

“One tweak could cascade throughout an entire software system and lead to unintended consequences,” says Julian Sanchez, Deere’s director of precision agriculture strategy and business development. In a fast-moving vehicle weighing as much as 20 tons, he says, that could mean carnage. It doesn’t take much imagination to envision a coding mistake by a hacker, or even a well-intended farmer or mechanic, that sends a 500-horsepower combine careening into a farmhouse or through a clutch of workers eating lunch in the fields.

600x-1.jpg

Kevin Kenney, prairie provocateur.
Photographer: Walker Pickering for Bloomberg Businessweek
For a decade, the right-to-repair battle cry has rattled around rarefied circles of digital-rights activists, techno-libertarians, and hands-on repair geeks—primarily on the East and West coasts. Now, largely because of Kenney’s persistence, it’s tugging at the Farm Belt. Why, activists ask, should the buyer of an espresso machine or laser printer have to get replacement pods and cartridges from the original manufacturer? Who is Apple Inc. to dictate that only its certified parts can be used to repair a broken iPhone screen? What gives Deere the right to insist, as it did in a 2015 filing with the U.S. Copyright Office, that its customers, who pay as much as $800,000 for a piece of farm equipment, don’t own the machine’s software and merely receive “an implied license” to operate the vehicle?

“We’ve been telling people for years that if it has a chip in it, it’s going to get monopolized,” says Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the Repair Association, a national coalition of trade, digital-rights, and environmental groups that promotes the repair and reuse of electronics. Gordon-Byrne serves as an informal adviser, mentor, and reality check to Kenney. She’s also helped him set a clear goal: a law modeled on a landmark Massachusetts statute, passed in 2012, that required the auto industry to offer car owners and independent mechanics the same diagnostic and repair software they provide their own dealers. After it passed, automakers relented and made all their repair tools available nationwide.

That’s what Kenney demands for farm equipment—and what Deere and its competitors reject.

At Husker Harvest Days, an ag industry blowout held every September in Grand Island, Neb., Kenney moves warily. After lunch, he drops by to see Kenny Roelofsen, co-owner of Abilene Machine LLC, a five-state retailer of used equipment and spare parts based in Abilene, Kan. Roelofsen’s company is instrumental in keeping older tractors in the field, an essential service for smaller farmers on tight budgets. But he says software barriers in newer machines are killing his incentive to make and sell parts. “I’ve stopped developing parts for machines built after 2010, because I know my customers can’t work on them without software,” he says. “Only giant corporate farms can afford newer equipment. For the small guy, it’s not economically feasible.”

Deere’s pavilion at Husker Harvest Days occupies a huge corner lot decked out in green and packed with gleaming new machines. Kenney is talking quietly there beside an enormous 9000 Forage Harvester, priced at about $600,000, when a familiar face approaches. It’s Willie Vogt, executive director of content for Farm Progress Cos., the agricultural publishing company that produces Husker Harvest Days and several other big farm shows. Deere is one of three corporate sponsors here; it also sponsors Farm Progress’s namesake show, which will be held in Iowa in September.

Much more at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...deere-over-who-gets-to-fix-an-800-000-tractor
 
Cars and tractors have computers for one reason only, for preventing owners from doing in-expensive self repair.

Its a scam and many times computer malfunctions are the reason for repair in the first place.
 
Cars and tractors have computers for one reason only, for preventing owners from doing in-expensive self repair.

Its a scam and many times computer malfunctions are the reason for repair in the first place.

BS.
 
I have read about this before. Article in star tribune was highlighting how some old Deere tractors are going for big money at auction because of lower maintenance costs and ability to fix it yourself.
The big factor is the Tier 4 emissions requirement. It added about 30k of price and its a maintenance issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: royhobbs2
The big factor is the Tier 4 emissions requirement. It added about 30k of price and its a maintenance issue.

No, it is much more than that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...rmers-need-a-better-way-to-fix-their-tractors

Limiting vehicles functionality until a electronic clear code post repair (which dealers don't share) is one simple way to force users to limit / prevent maintenance on their own vehicles.

It is more common in all vehicles and the manufactures are now limiting 3rd party access.

@royhobbs2 , this is called citing your source. It is something necessary to prove your position vs tossing out lies and baseless accusations
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
No, it is much more than that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...rmers-need-a-better-way-to-fix-their-tractors

Limiting vehicles functionality until a electronic clear code post repair (which dealers don't share) is one simple way to force users to limit / prevent maintenance on their own vehicles.

It is more common in all vehicles and the manufactures are now limiting 3rd party access.

@royhobbs2 , this is called citing your source. It is something necessary to prove your position vs tossing out lies and baseless accusations
I don’t disagree with this....but I know for a fact that farmers are paying great prices for tractors made in the 3 years prior to the Tier 4 emission requirements
 
Cars and tractors have computers for one reason only, for preventing owners from doing in-expensive self repair.

Its a scam and many times computer malfunctions are the reason for repair in the first place.

For the love of God, man. Cars today are infinitely more reliable than they were when I started driving 40+ years ago. My brothers were all car guys and I dabbled at shade tree mechanics myself. I could install and adjust points and rebuild a carburetor. I wouldn't want any of that shit back. Cars have computers to do things like adjust ignition timing to the engine load. Like all things, technology may have gone too far, but computers weren't put on cars to prevent owners from working on them-they were put on them to keep them on the road instead of the shop. I have a 2012 Accord that has never been in the shop for a repair. I change the oil, filters, spark plugs, and rotate the tires. It has 150,000 miles on it with zero failures. That didn't happen forty years ago.
 
For the love of God, man. Cars today are infinitely more reliable than they were when I started driving 40+ years ago. My brothers were all car guys and I dabbled at shade tree mechanics myself. I could install and adjust points and rebuild a carburetor. I wouldn't want any of that shit back. Cars have computers to do things like adjust ignition timing to the engine load. Like all things, technology may have gone too far, but computers weren't put on cars to prevent owners from working on them-they were put on them to keep them on the road instead of the shop. I have a 2012 Accord that has never been in the shop for a repair. I change the oil, filters, spark plugs, and rotate the tires. It has 150,000 miles on it with zero failures. That didn't happen forty years ago.
Have you ever driven a Ford Focus?
 
No, it is much more than that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...rmers-need-a-better-way-to-fix-their-tractors

Limiting vehicles functionality until a electronic clear code post repair (which dealers don't share) is one simple way to force users to limit / prevent maintenance on their own vehicles.

It is more common in all vehicles and the manufactures are now limiting 3rd party access.

@royhobbs2 , this is called citing your source. It is something necessary to prove your position vs tossing out lies and baseless accusations
You mean propaganda and lies like snopes the Soros funded sewer
 
Most farmers who have new and big equipment don't have time to do repairs on them, anyway. They are tilling, planting, harvesting when weather allows it because they are farming thousands of acres. There are foreign farm implement manufacturers who make smaller, less tech-heavy tractors for the smaller operations. John Deere is no different than any company-they are making the products their clientele want.
 
I don’t disagree with this....but I know for a fact that farmers are paying great prices for tractors made in the 3 years prior to the Tier 4 emission requirements
You went from a big factor, to you know for a fact. Improved emissions control must be a boogieman for you to cling to the argument.
Improved emissions control is good for the environment, which helps farmers. Improved emissions control keeps less pollution out of the lungs of the person working the equipment, too. It isn't clean technology, but it's better than sucking in the exhaust of older engines.
 
It’s not just computers. I posted about having the windshield explode on our JD payloader. The windshield saved me from losing my face, but other than saying Deere on it, there is nothing special about it. I called 3 different places and they can’t make it, they can only install it. Well of course! That windshield, from a square footage perspective, is about the same size as my truck but cost 3x the amount. It didn’t even come with a Deere sticker FFS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mnole03
You went from a big factor, to you know for a fact. Improved emissions control must be a boogieman for you to cling to the argument.
Improved emissions control is good for the environment, which helps farmers. Improved emissions control keeps less pollution out of the lungs of the person working the equipment, too. It isn't clean technology, but it's better than sucking in the exhaust of older engines.
My father sells farm machinery in SE Iowa. The Tier 4 rules are fantastic for the environment. There are farmers that really like them. There are also farmers that don’t like them and prefer the vintage engine in the years prior to the Tier.
 
Right-to-repair is a huge problem right now. It’s going on everywhere, and I mean everywhere.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/even-the-american-military-is-struggling-with-right-to-1841531517

That isn't a surprise at all, but is clearly an issue. One among many examples on how if we leverage for profit techniques and really reviewed how our military funding is mismanaged, we could reduce the budget needed, increase the effectiveness and maintain the existing capability. I'd wager a more real world fiscal approach would allow for a MORE capable military at a smaller budget. But the current bureaucracy is so institutionalized that it will take a generation to fix their short-comings. And being that we elect at 4-6 years at a time, there is little motivation to fix the big issues, just make little tweaks and declare a victory. Est $693 billion for 2019.
 
I know this isn’t the point of the discussion, but Deere also wouldn’t stand behind an oil leak on a new pay loader or a blown hydraulic pump on a new skid. We try to support our local economy with what we purchase but have been let down by them on multiple occasions.
 
I know this isn’t the point of the discussion, but Deere also wouldn’t stand behind an oil leak on a new pay loader or a blown hydraulic pump on a new skid. We try to support our local economy with what we purchase but have been let down by them on multiple occasions.

It is sort of an ancillary aspect that drives people away from new. If the warranty is easy to avoid for the manu, then it furthers the distrust with the brand and gives less reason to buy new but older and invest in long term self-service methods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jellyfish10
It is sort of an ancillary aspect that drives people away from new. If the warranty is easy to avoid for the manu, then it furthers the distrust with the brand and gives less reason to buy new but older and invest in long term self-service methods.

Not saying I disagree, but what it does is make me want to switch everything back to Case. The issue for us is living in a huge Deere community, there is a strong sentiment to buy Deere.
 
Not saying I disagree, but what it does is make me want to switch everything back to Case. The issue for us is living in a huge Deere community, there is a strong sentiment to buy Deere.
My parents live in a pretty heavy Deere area. My dad sells for Case IH. In the past two years some of the large farmers who have only had green tractors the past 60 years switched combines over to Case IH and some even moved to red tractors. It became a dealer issue apparently. If it was technology they would have switched in the 1990s
 
Not saying I disagree, but what it does is make me want to switch everything back to Case. The issue for us is living in a huge Deere community, there is a strong sentiment to buy Deere.

Yeah, that says a lot about the corporate money they have spent to build the relationship with various communities. Which is great, however IMO, eventually, most company's take advantage of that.
 
This isnt what most GM Master Mechanics have to say in private

Sure would like some source(s) for this. This makes no sense to me. I simply do not believe that car manufacturers introduced computers to cars so as to increase repair business.

Now, that may have been a side benefit to them, but I do not believe that was the reason.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT