Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I wasn't attempting to misrepresent the case, I was just bringing up an example of a headline I remembered using the first link I found on Google.

I don't disagree that my link may not be the best story to illustrate the point.

Having said that, here's some additional context to the same story:

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

>> a neighbor, Kerry Adams, hasn’t been able to fix an expensive transplanter because he doesn’t have access to the diagnostic software he needs. He’s not alone: many farmers are opting for older, computer-free equipment.

http://boingboing.net/2015/05/13/john-deere-of-course-you-ow...

Has a scan of John Deere's response to the Wired story above.

Paraphrase: John Deere is opposed to a revision to the DRM law that "would allow owners of equipment, including Deere competitors or software developers, to access or hack Deere's protected software to repair, diagnose or modify vehicle software".

I get that most simple repairs to tractors might be just mechanical parts, but when you're dealing with add-ons (transplanters?) or fine tuning issues like emissions systems (ahem, Volkswagen), I am guessing you usually need access to the diagnostics systems or computer to see and/or understand what's going on before being able to fix it.




Ah the Wired article presents your case in a much better light. If the software in the tractor prevent you from replacing a broken mechanical part, then that can lead to the law blocking you from literally repairing any part of your tractor.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: