Edit: 'Sick Codes confirmed that he believes John Deere failed to comply with its GPL obligations. "I'd love for them to come forward and explain how they are in compliance," he said.'
I wouldn’t really call that a “complete crack” (although it IS cool). There’s an _awful_ lot more firmware in a car or tractor than the display unit, and arguably it’s one of the less important modules in most architectures. Cracked versions of Deere Service Advisor are much more meaningful to the kinds of repairs farmers perform than firmware exploits are.
One of the most user-hostile companies on earth. My John Deere lawnmower came with a fuel gauge that runs off a CR2032 that's embedded in epoxy. The battery runs out of charge in about six months and the gauge stops working. If you saw the gauge open and replace the battery it doesn't start working again. If you disconnect the gauge the lawnmower won't start. Replacement gauges are $60.
This is where small claims court can have a HUGE impact.
Where I live, in small claims:
* Lawyers are not allowed
* There is no forced discovery. Sue John Deere, and they cannot ask for endless documents
* There is no way to assign costs on loss. If you lose, you never pay costs for the person you sued (which makes sense -- no lawyers)
* If you don't understand something, typically the judge will act as a mediator and explain it to you.
Yet meanwhile, suing in small claims will typically result in a big company using lawyers, who will try to pretend the above is not true. They will also rack up large costs for the company. In the end, sometimes a lawyer will appear in small claims court beside a company employee. However the company employee will do the talking.
My cost to file is $100. My cost to serve (via courier with tracking + sig) was $10. The company I went after, a fortune 500 company, I suspect spent >$50k on lawyers. While small to the company, it is truly a way to level the playing field.
What I find amusing here is, you could sue for a replacement unit. Explain what you found. Where I am, the max resolution is $30k, so you could easily get a refund for the tractor. Citing this issue while describing all of this, could result in two outcomes.
1) Deere employee claims (in their defense) that a batch of units were defective. They then deliver a fixed unit to you. While not perfect, it would be amusing, because they'll have just spent $50k in paying lawyers, along with making a proper unit.
2) You just claim that the tractor is defective, you can't sell it as it is, except maybe for parts. And you're not sure most of them are usable (weird electronics), and even cite that Deere stuff apparently is designed to break without authorized repairs. So how can you in good faith, even try to sell it to anyone??
So you ask for your time, costs, and full replacement costs with another brand.
Adding your wage/hr is somewhat typical here, for calls, research, sawing it open, all of it.
--
Anyhow.
If #1 is chosen and it breaks again, then you can repeat the whole fun process.
And I do mean it is fun.
$100 + I filled out a 2 page form, and then fedexed it to them. Their lawyers kept pestering me, to which I simply said "No" and "I don't need to give you anything, there's no forced discovery". This too was very satisfying, when I kept in mind how each call to me cost the company probably about $1k.
I mean, literally I'm sure each 5 minute call was around that ballpark. It was sheer joy.
(Just don't discuss any aspect of the case in these calls.)
Then there was a pre-trail meeting where I, the company rep, and a retired judge sat. I was told that "nothing said here can ever be used in court", which made it more fun. The system's attempt to resolve before trial. That too was fun, for I got to finally tell the company, over and over, how wrong they were.
Depends how its planned. If its planned to fail but designed in a way thats cheap and easy to replace its ok. Because sometimes it can be the case that to much is spent over engineering a high use part when would be more practical to let it break and replace it every 2 years or so.
Sure, if it's truly planned. I think the tricky part tends to be that it's hard to distinguish between "planned obsolescence" and "incidental obsolescence".
Don’t comment if you don’t want to actually contribute. How are people supposed to know these things before buying the equipment. What if they’re the only provider in their region? There’s a billion reasons why your comment doesn’t contribute.
"Don't buy their stuff" is exactly the right answer. You need to do your research before you buy big ticket items. It may not be true in every sector, but Deere has plenty of competition.
Do you seriously expect other companies not following suit? People need lawnmowers, so this can quickly turn into the same situation we have with the inkjet printer market.
Nobody is saying you can't relate your experience with this equipment. What we're saying is consumer action is enough to solve this problem. It just takes some time.
There's a certain type of customer that wants the dealer to handle parts and repair. But those guys aren't the lawn mower segment.
As an outsider, that’s literally what I’m doing: paying attention to the reviews. And some people are telling the reviewer to shut up and quit whining, thus encouraging them not to leave the review that I want to be reading.
Make up your mind. Do you want people to read and write reviews, or don’t you?
All great in theory, but in importing farm machinery, you need to take into account servicing options and warranty claims. Would be painful if you need to truck a harvester or even mower interstate for a warranty claim.
And it's not like these things are always available from a source with reviews. Reviews for new models are less likely to cover repair-access issues that will arise in a few years' time.
You're getting downvoted, but this is really the only answer here. Companies won't stop acting this way as long as their shitty behavior is rewarded, and people keep rewarding their shitty behavior.
No amount of legislation is going to prevent them from doing this. This settlement even proves that they can keep doing it with impunity!
Seems like a small price for a big company. Shouldn’t there be some higher punitive fine for even trying this tactic? It’s basically zero cost for companies to be abusive.
Yes there should be. But there won’t be until US stops lobbying and American public elects lawmakers that work for people instead of their own pockets.
And people that are likely to not be bought wouldn't enter politics in most cases. To enter and succeed in politics needs ambition and skillset that is diametrically opposite to a honest person.
They settled, and paid pennies for being able to continue the status quo. Given that the headline is journalistic malpractice at best; and you asking this question kinda proves that.
> While the agricultural manufacturing giant pointed out in a statement that this is no admission of wrongdoing
Welp, gotta sue again in the future, hopefully lobbied laws in place to prevent whatever forced them to settle by then!
The whole point of settling is to end legal action. Admitting wrongdoing will be used as evidence against them by others who weren't party to the original suit. Any future suits will have far higher settlement costs, if plaintiffs are even willing to settle, since there's an admission of guilt right there.
You can thank the plaintiffs and their lawyers for accepting the settlement instead of pursuing a judicial remedy such as an injunction or finding of illegal behavior.
It is going to be tough to get me to think the plaintiff is responsible for John Deere the company continuing to be dickheads.
When I hear these kinds of "blame the consumer" apologetics it never resonates with me - I'm just not going to get on board with some hypothetical natural state where corporations are inherently bad like some sort of sick animal and it's on consumers to sacrifice and plan with care in order to help the rest of society deal with them.
Corporations are just big groups of people. If their victims can choose self sacrifice in order to help the group then the corporation people could just as easily do the same and that feels far more just to me.
IANAL but my understanding with settlements is that It removes the possibility of the defendant risking a judgement of wrongdoing and causing more problems down the road, like having to fix their mistakes.
The market doesn't care. It is a big deal to some people here, but to the vast majority it doesn't change a thing (or doesn't seem to) and so the markets don't care.
There is a premium on risk reduction. I believe this is one of the reasons why companies like to incorporate in Delaware as the courts there are notoriously fast (I'm going off my memory of a Planet Money episode so could be wrong here).
Anticipating 10.01 years from now, when John Deere sends a new over the air update and the situation goes right back to where it was, with no one having access to their equipment.
There was a MoU between the American Farm Bureau and John Deere signed in 2023 that outlined right to repair. This consequently already altered Deere's business model with respect to IP and right to repair, and gave signals that a settlement was coming. In other words, the stock price already accounted for the change. Very few things catches stock prices by surprise in the long term.
The second paragraph likely answers some of your immediate questions
> The settlement also includes an agreement by Deere to provide “the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis, and repair” of tractors, combines, and other machinery for 10 years. That part is crucial, as farmers previously resorted to hacking their own equipment’s software just to get it up and running again. John Deere signed a memorandum of understanding in 2023 that partially addressed those concerns, providing third parties with the technology to diagnose and repair, as long as its intellectual property was safeguarded. Monday’s settlement seems to represent a much stronger (and legally binding) step forward.
The second to last sentence I copied over talks about after 10yrs, basically saying they have to provide the knowhow to 3rd party tool makers and repair technicians, and that this settlement makes that more certain. (as I read it)
I bought a ~completely mechanical tractor without ECU right under the 25hp cutoff that requires computer and emissions controls to get around this bullshit. The adding of DPF and/or SCR to agricultural diesels gave vendors cover to fuck the customer using the excuse of preventing emissions tampering.
Up to one third of that $99m goes to attorneys. Named plaintiffs get $25k each and class members get what's left over, which could be anything from $50 to $5k according to ChatGPT.
I wonder if they'll throw in free credit monitoring with that?
The complete crack of Deere's firmware in 2022 must have had some impact on this.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/16/john_deere_doom/
Edit: 'Sick Codes confirmed that he believes John Deere failed to comply with its GPL obligations. "I'd love for them to come forward and explain how they are in compliance," he said.'
I wouldn’t really call that a “complete crack” (although it IS cool). There’s an _awful_ lot more firmware in a car or tractor than the display unit, and arguably it’s one of the less important modules in most architectures. Cracked versions of Deere Service Advisor are much more meaningful to the kinds of repairs farmers perform than firmware exploits are.
Woah, childs play money for the amount of pain, lock in, and money they’ve cost farmers.
Literally. It’s less than a week of profit for JD. Not income, _profit_.
One of the most user-hostile companies on earth. My John Deere lawnmower came with a fuel gauge that runs off a CR2032 that's embedded in epoxy. The battery runs out of charge in about six months and the gauge stops working. If you saw the gauge open and replace the battery it doesn't start working again. If you disconnect the gauge the lawnmower won't start. Replacement gauges are $60.
Chances are you might find a compatible replacement from China on Ali and the other usual sites for a fraction of the price.
That’s wild.They had to go out of their way to not wire it to the 12V.
This is where small claims court can have a HUGE impact.
Where I live, in small claims:
* Lawyers are not allowed
* There is no forced discovery. Sue John Deere, and they cannot ask for endless documents
* There is no way to assign costs on loss. If you lose, you never pay costs for the person you sued (which makes sense -- no lawyers)
* If you don't understand something, typically the judge will act as a mediator and explain it to you.
Yet meanwhile, suing in small claims will typically result in a big company using lawyers, who will try to pretend the above is not true. They will also rack up large costs for the company. In the end, sometimes a lawyer will appear in small claims court beside a company employee. However the company employee will do the talking.
My cost to file is $100. My cost to serve (via courier with tracking + sig) was $10. The company I went after, a fortune 500 company, I suspect spent >$50k on lawyers. While small to the company, it is truly a way to level the playing field.
What I find amusing here is, you could sue for a replacement unit. Explain what you found. Where I am, the max resolution is $30k, so you could easily get a refund for the tractor. Citing this issue while describing all of this, could result in two outcomes.
1) Deere employee claims (in their defense) that a batch of units were defective. They then deliver a fixed unit to you. While not perfect, it would be amusing, because they'll have just spent $50k in paying lawyers, along with making a proper unit.
2) You just claim that the tractor is defective, you can't sell it as it is, except maybe for parts. And you're not sure most of them are usable (weird electronics), and even cite that Deere stuff apparently is designed to break without authorized repairs. So how can you in good faith, even try to sell it to anyone??
So you ask for your time, costs, and full replacement costs with another brand.
Adding your wage/hr is somewhat typical here, for calls, research, sawing it open, all of it.
--
Anyhow.
If #1 is chosen and it breaks again, then you can repeat the whole fun process.
And I do mean it is fun.
$100 + I filled out a 2 page form, and then fedexed it to them. Their lawyers kept pestering me, to which I simply said "No" and "I don't need to give you anything, there's no forced discovery". This too was very satisfying, when I kept in mind how each call to me cost the company probably about $1k.
I mean, literally I'm sure each 5 minute call was around that ballpark. It was sheer joy. (Just don't discuss any aspect of the case in these calls.)
Then there was a pre-trail meeting where I, the company rep, and a retired judge sat. I was told that "nothing said here can ever be used in court", which made it more fun. The system's attempt to resolve before trial. That too was fun, for I got to finally tell the company, over and over, how wrong they were.
Anyhow.
It's a fun process.
Hot take: it takes mental gymnastics to think that planned obsolescence is not fraud.
Depends how its planned. If its planned to fail but designed in a way thats cheap and easy to replace its ok. Because sometimes it can be the case that to much is spent over engineering a high use part when would be more practical to let it break and replace it every 2 years or so.
Sure, if it's truly planned. I think the tricky part tends to be that it's hard to distinguish between "planned obsolescence" and "incidental obsolescence".
Is there a bright line between cost reduction and planned obsolescence?
Obviously a small unreplaceable battery is not a good example for that discussion.
Going out of your way to make sure the gauge doesn't work after the battery is replaced surely is.
Don’t buy their stuff then.
Don’t comment if you don’t want to actually contribute. How are people supposed to know these things before buying the equipment. What if they’re the only provider in their region? There’s a billion reasons why your comment doesn’t contribute.
"Don't buy their stuff" is exactly the right answer. You need to do your research before you buy big ticket items. It may not be true in every sector, but Deere has plenty of competition.
Do you seriously expect other companies not following suit? People need lawnmowers, so this can quickly turn into the same situation we have with the inkjet printer market.
Yes, I expect that. Low sales will concentrate the mind.
How can you do research without victims complaining?
Why wouldn't victims complain?
Because when they do, they receive snide remarks like "just don't buy their stuff then".
Nobody is saying you can't relate your experience with this equipment. What we're saying is consumer action is enough to solve this problem. It just takes some time.
There's a certain type of customer that wants the dealer to handle parts and repair. But those guys aren't the lawn mower segment.
> What we're saying is consumer action is enough to solve this problem.
Citation needed
Might be hard for them to do that given this lawsuit is hard proof that it isn't true.
John Deere has had a terrible reputation for over a decade now. They've always used proprietary parts for the tractors. Do 5 minutes of research.
bruh dont sweat it. mainly everyone here is SF tech bros who have never worked a hard day in their life lol
>How are people supposed to know these things before buying the equipment.
By looking at reviews or paying someone to evaluate the product.
>What if they’re the only provider in their region
Then there is an opportunity for competition. Or you can import a product from another region.
As an outsider, that’s literally what I’m doing: paying attention to the reviews. And some people are telling the reviewer to shut up and quit whining, thus encouraging them not to leave the review that I want to be reading.
Make up your mind. Do you want people to read and write reviews, or don’t you?
All great in theory, but in importing farm machinery, you need to take into account servicing options and warranty claims. Would be painful if you need to truck a harvester or even mower interstate for a warranty claim.
And it's not like these things are always available from a source with reviews. Reviews for new models are less likely to cover repair-access issues that will arise in a few years' time.
Under that logic we don’t need any consumer protection laws.
Undoubtedly the poster to whom you're replying unironically agrees.
You're getting downvoted, but this is really the only answer here. Companies won't stop acting this way as long as their shitty behavior is rewarded, and people keep rewarding their shitty behavior.
No amount of legislation is going to prevent them from doing this. This settlement even proves that they can keep doing it with impunity!
Seems like a small price for a big company. Shouldn’t there be some higher punitive fine for even trying this tactic? It’s basically zero cost for companies to be abusive.
Yes there should be. But there won’t be until US stops lobbying and American public elects lawmakers that work for people instead of their own pockets.
Unfortunately most people has a price in this world. Those who can’t be bought are just so rare.
And people that are likely to not be bought wouldn't enter politics in most cases. To enter and succeed in politics needs ambition and skillset that is diametrically opposite to a honest person.
The disgusting part is it’s not even that much money. $20k here, $50k there gets you a lot of political leverage.
no the settlements include many other conditions, but I agree the financial penalties should be larger
The stock is up 5% today. What’s the catch?
They settled, and paid pennies for being able to continue the status quo. Given that the headline is journalistic malpractice at best; and you asking this question kinda proves that.
> While the agricultural manufacturing giant pointed out in a statement that this is no admission of wrongdoing
Welp, gotta sue again in the future, hopefully lobbied laws in place to prevent whatever forced them to settle by then!
The whole point of settling is to end legal action. Admitting wrongdoing will be used as evidence against them by others who weren't party to the original suit. Any future suits will have far higher settlement costs, if plaintiffs are even willing to settle, since there's an admission of guilt right there.
You can thank the plaintiffs and their lawyers for accepting the settlement instead of pursuing a judicial remedy such as an injunction or finding of illegal behavior.
It is going to be tough to get me to think the plaintiff is responsible for John Deere the company continuing to be dickheads.
When I hear these kinds of "blame the consumer" apologetics it never resonates with me - I'm just not going to get on board with some hypothetical natural state where corporations are inherently bad like some sort of sick animal and it's on consumers to sacrifice and plan with care in order to help the rest of society deal with them.
Corporations are just big groups of people. If their victims can choose self sacrifice in order to help the group then the corporation people could just as easily do the same and that feels far more just to me.
> What’s the catch?
99m is a drop in the bucket. They were probably expecting more.
IANAL but my understanding with settlements is that It removes the possibility of the defendant risking a judgement of wrongdoing and causing more problems down the road, like having to fix their mistakes.
The market doesn't care. It is a big deal to some people here, but to the vast majority it doesn't change a thing (or doesn't seem to) and so the markets don't care.
There is a premium on risk reduction. I believe this is one of the reasons why companies like to incorporate in Delaware as the courts there are notoriously fast (I'm going off my memory of a Planet Money episode so could be wrong here).
Anticipating 10.01 years from now, when John Deere sends a new over the air update and the situation goes right back to where it was, with no one having access to their equipment.
The market expected a worst outcome ?
No, all US equities are up after the Iran ceasefire news.
You need to look at Deere stock after taking out the beta to the market.
There was a MoU between the American Farm Bureau and John Deere signed in 2023 that outlined right to repair. This consequently already altered Deere's business model with respect to IP and right to repair, and gave signals that a settlement was coming. In other words, the stock price already accounted for the change. Very few things catches stock prices by surprise in the long term.
The second paragraph likely answers some of your immediate questions
> The settlement also includes an agreement by Deere to provide “the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis, and repair” of tractors, combines, and other machinery for 10 years. That part is crucial, as farmers previously resorted to hacking their own equipment’s software just to get it up and running again. John Deere signed a memorandum of understanding in 2023 that partially addressed those concerns, providing third parties with the technology to diagnose and repair, as long as its intellectual property was safeguarded. Monday’s settlement seems to represent a much stronger (and legally binding) step forward.
Yeah but it's only for 10 years...
it's not, they have to provide the knowhow to 3rd parties so they can carry on indefinitely
10 years for the buyer or the manufacturer?
So it’s back to as before in 10 years?
The second to last sentence I copied over talks about after 10yrs, basically saying they have to provide the knowhow to 3rd party tool makers and repair technicians, and that this settlement makes that more certain. (as I read it)
Good! Wonder if Louis Rossmann already mentioned that.
this is awesome. beyond happy to see it
I bought a ~completely mechanical tractor without ECU right under the 25hp cutoff that requires computer and emissions controls to get around this bullshit. The adding of DPF and/or SCR to agricultural diesels gave vendors cover to fuck the customer using the excuse of preventing emissions tampering.
Needs another zero, likely made 9 figures in revenue from this scheme.
Up to one third of that $99m goes to attorneys. Named plaintiffs get $25k each and class members get what's left over, which could be anything from $50 to $5k according to ChatGPT.
I wonder if they'll throw in free credit monitoring with that?