John Deere & GMC owns it???

Not that I support corporate activities on these issues, but I would like to share a concern. On the old forum, someone posted from an article on Monsanto and GMOs. Disturbed by what I read, I checked out the article, spending some time trying to verify the claims. While I don't dispute that Monsanto is indeed pursuing its own interests and doesn't have the consumer or farmer as a concern, I did decide that the original article quoted wasn't supported by data. I couldn't find anything to substantiate the claims by the writer of the article, and in fact found that he/she had either distorted or misinterpreted the data.

I wonder about this when I see something from a source I don't recognize. Karen, I want to make clear that I'm not criticizing you or your post - not in the least. I read all your posts and learn a lot from them.

Your second post describes the situation perfectly: a purchaser owns the physical item but not the software. I'm not sure how this is different from a situation which has existed for years. My concern though is aimed at the author, not at you or any of the posters here.

I'm wondering if this source really has all the relevant information. I googled the post and actually found one reference that was highlighted with a red warning sign, indicating McAfee didn't affirm the safety of that site. So I did NOT read the article cited. I found no other hits by sources that I recognized. So I looked up Deere's position: www.deere.com/privacy_and_data/policies_statements/en_US/data_principles/frequently_asked_questions.page. It's written quite cautiously, most likely by its legal staff as I recognize the couching terms and what some might consider CYA positions.

What I would really want to find is something from a recognized source, either a well known newspaper, or better yet, a legal IP site. Trying to find the latter could be time consuming, and for curiousity I will do it eventually because of the issues that could be raised with software in vehicles.

IP law is a very complex, specific area of law, which really requires interpretation by those who specifically practice in that field. But generally, software developers wouldn't consider software to be sold in consumer products, but rather "licensed." Read the terms of the software installed on computers. It doesn't provide for ownership, but rather licensing, subject to conditions established in the terms of service/licensing/use. We may own the computers, but most definitely do not own the software which operates them. Nor can we modify the code, as Ecsoehng wrote. This isn't a new concept. And I think it does have merit when applied to machinery.

I think the bigger, underlying issue, is the data generated. E.g., does the manufacturer of vehicles have a right to use, commercially or internally, the data generated by a GPS unit? Does Deere have a right to use data generated by owners of its farm equipment? And what would the range of data be?

I'm not a farmer and don't know what data is created, but I suspect it has something to do with level of use, performance of parts under various circumstances, life of those parts, etc. It would be helpful if someone who does have a tractor shares what other data could be used. The next question is whether that data would improve the use, longevity and of course safety of the equipment. I've been racking my brain trying to think what other use Deere could have for individual data. If the tractor was used in an area known for marijuana production in a state in which it's still illegal, I could see that such information might have value to law enforcement. But unless Deere has an arrangement with law enforcement, I wouldn't think it would bother to collect such data. What money could it make from it? And making money is one of its bottom lines (as well as maintaining its reputation).

I've read the quoted section several times and really think the author doesn't understand the nature of licensing IP data. (with apologies - quick quote isn't working for me right now....)

"In a particularly spectacular display of corporate delusion, John Deere—the world’s largest agricultural machinery maker —told the Copyright Office that farmers don’t own their tractors. Because computer code snakes through the DNA of modern tractors, farmers receive 'an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.' ”

I'm not an IP authority, but what from what I know of IP law, this quote is inaccurate. Farmers do own the tractor BUT NOT THE SOFTWARE. Explicit or implied licenses have been granted for use of equipment for years.
 
"It’s John Deere’s tractor, folks. You’re just driving it."   Not true. This sounds like an attempt to inflame consumers rather than provide accurate information.

Personally I think the individual who wrote this is just indulging in rhetoric designed to inflame its readers and garner more. I'd like to know what his/her qualifications are, but as I indicated, McAfee didn't entirely certify that site as safe so I won't even visit it to learn more about this individual.

And frankly, it REALLY angers me that people can write whatever they want and stir up anxiety and fear.

Pea, I agree with Ecsoehng and suspect that liability may be an issue in some cases. I recently was told by someone who had "souped up" his car that if GPS data, reflected by use, allowed the manufacturer to determine the vehicle was being raced at high speeds, that his insurance would be cancelled. I question this, unless the manufacturer also insured the car. It made more sense to me that the warranty would be voided because the car was modified and/or being raced at speeds which could damage the vehicle in a way "normal" driving wouldn't. If the engine blew because the owner was pushing the limits of the engine's performance, it does make sense that the car manufacturer shouldn't be held liable to replace the engine.


Karen, as to your comments on repair - I would think that Deere would, as other large manufacturers do, either contract or create some affiliation with certain repair shops in areas in which most of its tractors are sold to provide repairs. I can see this as an opportunity for local tractor mechanics to expand their operations, rather than lose business. I'll be interested to learn what Mumsey's friend has to say about this.

I do think though that owners of complex machinery shouldn't be allowed to modify software. We're all limited by the software in equipment, including in our electronic gadgets - it's not good in terms of computers and gadgets as I've discovered because sometimes the software is just defective. But software designed to run machinery is a different story and safety issues are definitely involved.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with this post; that was not my intention. It just irks the hell out of me when some nobody takes on areas of law in which he or she apparently has no real comprehension, let alone educational or career qualifications.

Oliver, this is what I was wondering about....the data that's collected.   So these tractors don't just plow or harvest?    Is fertilizer applied when plowing, or at some other time, and are the rates determined by some device onboard the tractor?    I can understand if the data is then coordinated with amounts of seeds and harvests, and determination is made either by onboard electronics or the manufacturer (to which the data is presumably transmitted electronically) that this would have commercial application, as it could present a total picture of field use literally from "cradle to grave" or seeding to harvest.   

Just want to make sure I understand the issues and potential uses, as all these is new to me.    I still thought tractors just plowed and turned over the soil, so the fact that there are so many measurements and applications that can yield data is quite interesting.

Thanks for sharing your perspective and insight on these issues.