The big story this week in tech news was a well-reported piece on farmers in the Midwest breaking the terms of their agreements with John Deere by using unauthorized software to fix their tractors.
The fight between farmers and John Deere over the right to repair connected tractors has been playing out for years in the nation’s breadbasket, but this story brought it to the fore again. This time there’s a twist.
Previous stories were focused on how John Deere used copyright law to force farmers to pay for access to the software that ran their tractors. Essentially, John Deere told farmers they were at risk of running afoul of copyright law if they tried to fix their own tractors. Copyright law can be a tricky business for a company to navigate without legal expertise; with the help of commercial law firms manchester, the mists of confusion can dissipate and legal issues and disputes can be sorted out with professionalism.
The farming giant argued that because the software was intrinsic to the value of a connected tractor, copyright law meant farmers didn’t actually own the machine. This claim was highly problematic, as typically when someone decides to buy a tractor, this normally entails that the tractor is owned by the buyer. Instead, John Deere granted farmers, “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.” This could have interesting implications in the case of an accident. Nonetheless, a legal representative like Stewart Law Offices would be able to clarify the situation.
That argument didn’t hold water with the copyright office and several state legislatures, and the company changed its tactics. Now, according to the Motherboard article, farmers sign an agreement that forces them to go to John Deere if they want to have their tractors repaired.
A license agreement John Deere required farmers to sign in October forbids nearly all repair and modification to farming equipment, and prevents farmers from suing for “crop loss, lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of use of equipment … arising from the performance or non-performance of any aspect of the software.” The agreement applies to anyone who turns the key or otherwise uses a John Deere tractor with embedded software. It means that only John Deere dealerships and “authorized” repair shops can work on newer tractors.
On last week’s podcast, I had a conversation with Phoebe Wilkinson, a partner at Hogan Lovells. Wilkinson handles class action litigation for big clients, and we spoke for a bit on the topic of warranties and license agreements that companies ask people to sign when they buy a connected device.
I am worried that in most cases when connected devices come with onerous clauses like those in the John Deere tractor, the only option a person has if they don’t agree to the terms is to not use the device. This may be fine for a $10 app, but it’s onerous for people who have purchased an expensive device that isn’t returnable or has a restocking fee associated with it.
There’s also the question of whether or not a consumer buying a tractor or a car even reads those terms. Or understands them.
On that last point, Wilkinson says she tells her clients to be as clear as possible up front in the buying process about how the company plans to use the data or if they plan to restrict consumers in a meaningful way. She points to the use of arbitration clauses as an example of how things can shift over time. Early efforts to implement arbitration clauses on consumers as part of an agreement could be hidden, but courts ruled against that.
Then companies disclosed their arbitration clauses up front and told consumers they could opt out, but said they would have to pay to send the item back or pay a restocking fee. Again, Wilkinson says, the courts said no to those terms.
“You really can’t put a burden on the consumer just to opt-out,” she says. “I can see something like [the implementation of opt-outs for arbitration clauses] happening for smart devices.”
So farmers who dislike John Deere’s terms going forward might have to buy their goods from another company such as Massey Ferguson.
Of course, there are plenty of people who aren’t in favor of arbitration clauses, which put more of the power in the hands of the larger corporation, but at least the courts have made it so consumers have a better sense of what they are getting into.
If Wilkinson is right, then customers buying connected devices that are really services will have that same option to decide if a John Deere tractor is the way to go.
In an ideal world, we’ll accrue more rights as consumers protecting us from a company interfering with a device’s operation or forcing onerous terms through these EULAs, but I think we’re going to have to wait a lot longer for that.
Sign up for my weekly newsletter to get analysis like this in your inbox.
This is a trend I’ve come across lately: my truck apparently, will have to go to the main dealer for any form of diagnosis (my main dealer is three hours drive away!) and new fridges are going to require you to get the manufacturers engineer to come out to switch the door opening (currently a simple DIY job with a screwdriver).
This is entirely understandable from the companies point of view, they want more of the value chain.. But what incentive is there for them to make their equipment more reliable? The next step will be to give us fixed price service agreements, which will give them an incentive for more reliable kit, but as consumers we will have one choice to make each time we purchase a new item, from then on we are at the mercy of the manufacturer.
Hopefully, this will leave room for smaller companies to make repairable products for those of us who want to keep control.
Regarding tractor development, I was speaking to some local farmers lately, talking about all the tech going into tractors. The assumption is that the tech requires a big new tractor in order for it to work, but of course there is nothing inherently stopping my 40 year old Ford 4600 being kitted out with a lot of this new technology, much of it is GPS based. Is that a business opportunity?