|
Post by gakaren on Apr 21, 2015 21:27:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Latitude33 on Apr 21, 2015 21:29:33 GMT -5
Time to go back to basics
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Apr 22, 2015 10:47:25 GMT -5
What do you suppose is the reason for this? Is that so if updates occur to the computers they will charge you for it or it won't work?
|
|
|
Post by ecsoehng on Apr 22, 2015 12:33:46 GMT -5
Because they are worried about liability if you change the code and then damage occurs. You don't own your cell phone either. You are not allowed to modify it the way you want.
|
|
|
Post by gakaren on Apr 22, 2015 22:54:09 GMT -5
You own the physical item, but not the software that runs it.
I kind of feel this is a way to make all repairs have to come to the dealership or buy only dealer parts. It might end up putting some independent mechanics out of business. And how is JD going to provide repair persons for every breakdown in the field??? Farmers often don't have time to wait for a repair to be done, the need it NOW! I used to live next door to a tractor/farm equipment repair man....he often worked all night long to get someone going again the next day while the weather was still good! And like one fella said near the end of the article, it may well curtail innovation since they won't be able to alter the software to suit a specific need.
|
|
|
Post by Mumsey on Apr 23, 2015 5:12:30 GMT -5
They have a long way to go on this one to make it work, especially for the break downs in the field. We have a friend who works for John Deere, will talk to him about this and see what his views are.
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Apr 23, 2015 9:28:40 GMT -5
If they are worried about liability, why the freakin' do it....duh! Is that ok to say????
|
|
|
Post by SpringRain🕊️ on Apr 23, 2015 11:23:26 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Apr 24, 2015 12:08:38 GMT -5
'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."
I don't take what you have said offensively generally, but I do with this last statement. Pundits the world over continually debate such issues. That is not uncommon in the least. What we the common people over the years is seeing our rights dismantled one by one, slowly. We all don't have all the inside info, you are right. But what we have seen over the years make us wonder where something like this is going.
Take the GMO issue. Big Corporate wants to tell us, we do not have the right to know what goes in our body. And our government has approved this which is why Monsanto fights every tooth and nail to uphold that. Even the health organization and industry tells us we need to know .... so we can make decisions about our own health and Monsanto tells us, we do not have a right to know what is in our food and they buy up companies to control ...and our government lets them do it.!!!
and their are many rights which have gone along the wayside for whatever reason, i.e., religion, free speech
So when a large company comes along and tells us we don't own the item, what else is going to hit the fan???? Is it going to erode more of our rights? Try to shut us up? How much is it going to cost us? We have seen it time and again!
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Apr 24, 2015 12:27:41 GMT -5
One thing I want to add...if we don't stay vigilant, it is our own fault for allowing things to happen to us and our rights.
|
|
|
Post by oliverman on Apr 24, 2015 21:44:29 GMT -5
"Big Data" as it is called is a much discussed issue in modern farming publications. Much of the issue appears to be the issue of the collection of aggregate data from the onboard electronics. With GPS guided steering, variable fertilizer and seed rates, herbicide applications, and yield monitoring being controlled by the electronic systems, data about those things is collected for the farmer to use to make decisions regarding best practices. Many of the companies that offer this software packages would like to collect this data for commercial gain. There is much potential for good things to come from this. This can allow the manufacturers to analyze what features and such are most utilized and tailor new developments to address these needs. Much like cell phone makers often collect data about device usage. Obviously there is a marketing side to this, but where isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by SpringRain🕊️ on Apr 24, 2015 22:08:31 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by oliverman on Apr 25, 2015 16:08:39 GMT -5
If anything needs to be pulled on a farm, a tractor probably does it. Many of the modern electronic controls have software that is compatible between machines, so the tractors doing the planting, fertilizer application, etc. can access records and maps from each other. Same for combines doing the harvesting and generating yield maps. Often, some fertilizer is applied with the planter.
|
|
|
Post by claude on Apr 25, 2015 22:38:55 GMT -5
Oh gee, better not tell my husband that he doesn't really own his baby... I understand the concept of hardware/software but IDE also like to hear your friends position, Mumsey.
|
|