• Right to Repair

    From Dean Hoffman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 9 12:13:09 2022
    This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
    <https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Dean Hoffman on Wed Feb 9 15:54:42 2022
    On 2/9/2022 3:13 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
    <https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/>

    "But one major manufacturer has not budged. John Deere, the 180-year-old
    maker of tractors and other agricultural equipment, still requires
    proprietary software and tools to complete any repair, forcing farmers
    to use its authorized dealers and technicians."

    Sounds like management studied at the Volvo Institute

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to deanh6929@gmail.com on Wed Feb 9 16:45:51 2022
    On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 12:13:09 -0800 (PST), Dean Hoffman
    <deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote:

    This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
    <https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/>

    See <https://www.repair.org/>.

    Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Wed Feb 9 16:25:24 2022
    On 2/9/2022 2:45 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 12:13:09 -0800 (PST), Dean Hoffman
    <deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote:

    This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
    <https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/>

    See <https://www.repair.org/>.

    Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.

    Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.

    Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
    maintaining/repairing a product that they've purchased (vs. leased)?

    Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
    Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.

    OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
    Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component*
    level (vs. a board swap)?

    And, if the device is designed as an *entity* -- instead of a bunch
    of individual FRUs with predefined functionality -- then how
    much assistance should the manufacturer be required to provide
    in reintegrating that repaired/replaced subassembly/subsystem?

    I suspect there will eventually be a secondary market developed
    to replace "proprietary" modules/assemblies with aftermarket
    offerings -- and legislation to facilitate such "competition".
    So, a stubborn manufacturer may find himself (and his dealers
    and technicians) dealt out of the loop.

    [I suspect the lifespan of a megadollar bit of kit is considerably
    longer than a few growing seasons so being deprived of "maintenance
    income" for those long periods might pressure the dealers and
    technicians to pressure the manufacturer -- *or* violate their
    licenses with the manufacturer in order to remain viable]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Don WHY on Wed Feb 9 15:45:16 2022
    Don WHY wrote:
    =================

    This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
    <https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/>

    See <https://www.repair.org/>.

    Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.

    Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.


    ** Plenty of detailed info available re Deere and their loaded game playing on u-tube and elsewhere.

    Is looking at it too painful for a brainless POS like YOU ?
    Is making wild guesses your *only* talent and joy ?
    What a fucking asshole you are.




    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net on Wed Feb 9 17:10:01 2022
    On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:04:58 -0700, Grant Taylor
    <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

    On 2/9/22 4:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
    Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.

    Not really.

    Either manufacturers are hostile towards people repairing their own
    equipment or they are not.

    Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
    maintaining/repairing a product that they've purchased (vs. leased)?

    Anything they want to and have the capability to do so.

    Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
    Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.

    OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
    Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level
    (vs. a board swap)?

    Why shouldn't someone be able to repair an ECU if they have the
    capability to do so?

    Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified
    person from making the repair themselves?

    So the manufacturer can charge 10x what the repair parts are worth,
    and makes sure that nobody else can supply them.

    The obvious defense is to buy tractors from someone else.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Feb 9 18:04:58 2022
    On 2/9/22 4:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
    Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.

    Not really.

    Either manufacturers are hostile towards people repairing their own
    equipment or they are not.

    Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in maintaining/repairing a product that they've purchased (vs. leased)?

    Anything they want to and have the capability to do so.

    Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
    Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.

    OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
    Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level
    (vs. a board swap)?

    Why shouldn't someone be able to repair an ECU if they have the
    capability to do so?

    Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified
    person from making the repair themselves?

    And, if the device is designed as an *entity* -- instead of a
    bunch of individual FRUs with predefined functionality -- then how
    much assistance should the manufacturer be required to provide in reintegrating that repaired/replaced subassembly/subsystem?

    That's the quintessential warranty void sticker problem.

    IMHO individuals should be able to acquire the same parts that
    manufacturers make available to authorized repair centers. Similarly,
    the same information should be made available.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Grant Taylor on Wed Feb 9 19:00:39 2022
    On 2/9/2022 6:04 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
    On 2/9/22 4:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
    Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.

    Not really.

    Anyone who thinks Deere is THE problem is either naive or too stupid
    to merit being called an idiot!

    Either manufacturers are hostile towards people repairing their own equipment or they are not.

    How much should the design of the item be driven to make repair possible? Should we ban the use of solvent welded cases? ASICs? Trade secret *processes* (which may be essential to the fabrication of a functional product)?

    Don't you, the consumer, have the ability to BOYCOTT devices (and manufacturers) that don't allow you the freedom you'd like?
    Shouldn't the manufacturer be able to boycott the consumers
    that want to violate THEIR freedoms to innovate?

    Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
    maintaining/repairing a product that they've purchased (vs. leased)?

    Anything they want to and have the capability to do so.

    So, all source code, schematics, components that are available to
    the manufacturer should be available to the consumer, right?

    Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire. Broken
    *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.

    OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU? Or, in the >> case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level (vs. a board swap)?

    Why shouldn't someone be able to repair an ECU if they have the capability to do so?

    You are free to retrieve the ECU from the vehicle and tinker away at
    will with it. If you have the capability to repair it, you should
    be able to do so, right? If your vehicle catches fire, don't be upset if
    your insurance company declines your claim (and don't even think of suing
    the manufacturer!)

    What you're espousing is that the manufacturer should have to *enable*
    you to make those repairs... that "capability" includes more than just your innate skillset.

    Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified person from making the repair themselves?

    Go ahead and do so! But, why should the manufacturer have to facilitate that? You can reverse engineer YOUR item and repair or upgrade it. (you likely
    can't disseminate that information or profit from it, depending on license terms).

    I can deencapsulate chips and sort out what's inside to better understand
    (or mimic) a particular design. I don't "whine" that the manufacturer
    forced me to use that level of "capability" to do so!

    What should the manufacturer's turn-around time be for "spare parts"?
    Must he make them available to you "overnight"? (surely, you want to
    minimize your down time) Should he be responsible for maintaining
    a "will call" window so you can just drop in and pick up those items
    to avoid shipping costs/delays?

    I wrote a contract for a client, some years ago. The issue of "spares"
    came up: "what are the FRUs that should be available for purchase?"
    (note the issue of COST didn't even surface, at that point). We settled
    on placing no constraints on what the client could *ask* for. But,
    also placed no constraints on the price that could be charged or the
    lead time!

    If "spares" becomes an issue, then we likely need to revisit the
    design to see WHY you need them!

    And, if the device is designed as an *entity* -- instead of a bunch of
    individual FRUs with predefined functionality -- then how much assistance
    should the manufacturer be required to provide in reintegrating that
    repaired/replaced subassembly/subsystem?

    That's the quintessential warranty void sticker problem.

    IMHO individuals should be able to acquire the same parts that manufacturers make available to authorized repair centers. Similarly, the same information should be made available.

    So, the manufacturer does away with "authorized repair centers". Everything
    is returned to the factory for repair. And, because EVERYTHING is being processed in that one location, the backlog is even longer! Now, what leg
    are you left standing on?

    HP adopted the idea of replacing the entire printhead on their inkjets
    instead of reinking. So, customers end up paying more for ink -- because they have to buy a new printhead in the process! Some of their printers put all of the "value" in a "bag" on the rear of the printer. No doubt, their "service" procedure is: run standard tests; if fail, remove electronics from bag at rear and discard remainder. Again, customers end up with a lower quality product (effectively higher cost).

    I've seen companies sell "chipped" vials of distilled water (really? do
    you think the hospital buying that device doesn't have a source of
    distilled water available?). They can argue it is for "quality control"
    (i.e., to ensure the accuracy of the results) but you'll note that
    there's a helluva markup in that water! (and, no way around it)

    What do you do when the device you "purchased" relies on a *service*... and
    the manufacturer decides to no longer provide that service? Your device is
    not "broken" -- it just doesn't work, anymore!

    Should the manufacturer be forced to making available the "parts/technology" necessary for re-establishing that service (from an alternate provider).

    I've watched *tens of millions* of pounds of eWaste intended for landfills
    over the past two decades just "discarded" because some "change" has made
    those items no longer usable (the 2GHz computer is too slow for the newer
    OS -- which is required for the most recent APPLICATION updates; the smart
    TV no longer supports the more modern codecs; a cap/FET in a power supply
    has gone south; the magnetics required for the XY drivers are too costly, etc.)

    These things *can* be fixed -- with relatively modest skillsets. But,
    doing so *economically* (at least with the US wage structure) is just
    not practical. "Main board" quits in your TV? Some guy will sell
    you a "pull" (i.e., not even NOS!) for $100-200 -- plus a couple
    hundred dollars for labor -- and give you a 30-90 day warranty
    (likely only on the part, not the labor!). So, your $1000 TV cost
    you $300-500 to repair. And, the guy is *so* confident in his
    repair that he'll only give you 90 days "peace of mind".

    Who the hell is going to go down that road?

    We want items to cost less. And, never fail.

    And, the guy who has no interest in repairing his devices doesn't
    want to spend a dime (or any TIME) accommodating those who do!
    (why do I have to pay more so someone else can repair theirs?)

    In pharma, "best practices" have manufacturers making a lot of the design/installation of their products available to the purchaser.
    Much of this because of validation requirements. But, it also
    affords some ability to do minor repairs (replace an Opto-22,
    rewire the field, etc.).

    OTOH, they're not going to let you tinker with the design of
    the hardware or the software -- that's their IP and you are likely
    not qualified to do so (it is relatively easy to design something
    that far exceeds the ability of an *informed* user to understand
    in its entirety -- do you want to go to the FDA and explain how your modifications don't make the product less trustworthy?).

    In gaming, tampering with the internals of a machine is likely
    cause for dismissal -- and "decertifying" the machine.

    These folks know the lay of the land and have baked that into their
    business practices/costs.

    Just like "consumers" plan on replacing their phones periodically.
    Or, TVs. Or, cars. (c'mon, damn near ANYONE can do an oil change;
    why doesn't EVERYONE?)

    Focusing on Deere is folly. The 2 million farmers in the US represent
    a prominent "special interest". But, the other 330 million citizens
    are similarly burdened and lack that megaphone.

    How keen would *you* be to open your design to the *few* who will
    "save" from your efforts? What if the farmer -- not some UNauthorized
    agent -- was required to make the repair? How vocal would he be in
    requiring this information? (he's objecting to the stranglehold
    Deere has on "repair centers")

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to palli...@gmail.com on Wed Feb 9 20:03:05 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 6:45:25 PM UTC-5, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
    Don WHY wrote:
    =================

    This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
    <https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/>

    See <https://www.repair.org/>.

    Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.

    Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.
    ** Plenty of detailed info available re Deere and their loaded game playing on u-tube and elsewhere.

    Is looking at it too painful for a brainless POS like YOU ?
    Is making wild guesses your *only* talent and joy ?
    What a fucking asshole you are.

    And this is
    ...... Phil
    on a good day!

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Wed Feb 9 20:11:27 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 8:10:16 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:04:58 -0700, Grant Taylor
    <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

    On 2/9/22 4:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
    Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.

    Not really.

    Either manufacturers are hostile towards people repairing their own >equipment or they are not.

    Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
    maintaining/repairing a product that they've purchased (vs. leased)?

    Anything they want to and have the capability to do so.

    Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
    Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.

    OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
    Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level
    (vs. a board swap)?

    Why shouldn't someone be able to repair an ECU if they have the
    capability to do so?

    Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified >person from making the repair themselves?
    So the manufacturer can charge 10x what the repair parts are worth,
    and makes sure that nobody else can supply them.

    The obvious defense is to buy tractors from someone else.

    Yeah, give that try! It's like the autos that are going to subscription features you have to pay to continue access. Several companies have done this and it is the new trend. It won't be long before you have no choice.

    --

    Rick C.

    -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Feb 9 20:06:56 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 6:25:54 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
    On 2/9/2022 2:45 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 12:13:09 -0800 (PST), Dean Hoffman
    <dean...@gmail.com> wrote:

    This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
    <https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/>

    See <https://www.repair.org/>.

    Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.
    Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.

    Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in maintaining/repairing a product that they've purchased (vs. leased)?

    Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
    Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.

    OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
    Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component*
    level (vs. a board swap)?

    And, if the device is designed as an *entity* -- instead of a bunch
    of individual FRUs with predefined functionality -- then how
    much assistance should the manufacturer be required to provide
    in reintegrating that repaired/replaced subassembly/subsystem?

    I suspect there will eventually be a secondary market developed
    to replace "proprietary" modules/assemblies with aftermarket
    offerings -- and legislation to facilitate such "competition".
    So, a stubborn manufacturer may find himself (and his dealers
    and technicians) dealt out of the loop.

    [I suspect the lifespan of a megadollar bit of kit is considerably
    longer than a few growing seasons so being deprived of "maintenance
    income" for those long periods might pressure the dealers and
    technicians to pressure the manufacturer -- *or* violate their
    licenses with the manufacturer in order to remain viable]

    You suspect a lot and seem to have looked for little information. On of the major clubs Deere uses is to prevent any repairs involving board swaps because they have copyrighted firmware on them. Yup, the DMCA in action!

    Deere is a major Dickc when it comes to repair. They want to crush the secondary market for parts just as they want to prevent users from doing any of the work.

    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Feb 9 20:30:27 2022
    On 2/9/22 7:00 PM, Don Y wrote:
    How much should the design of the item be driven to make repair
    possible? Should we ban the use of solvent welded cases? ASICs?
    Trade secret *processes* (which may be essential to the fabrication
    of a functional product)?

    Those are legitimate questions.

    Questions which are independent of of owners having access to the same
    parts and documentation that repair technicians have access to.

    Don't you, the consumer, have the ability to BOYCOTT devices
    (and manufacturers) that don't allow you the freedom you'd like?

    Not all options are even remotely equal. Take internet connectivity in
    many places in the U.S.A. You can have cable internet that's upwards of
    ten times the speed of DSL internet which is itself tens of times faster
    than dial up internet. As such, the choices aren't remotely comparable.

    Shouldn't the manufacturer be able to boycott the consumers that want
    to violate THEIR freedoms to innovate?

    I don't think so.

    They may want to not sell to the reverse engineer. But I believe they
    are required to treat all customers equally. So sell it to everybody, including the reverse engineer, or nobody.

    So, all source code, schematics, components that are available to
    the manufacturer should be available to the consumer, right?

    No.

    There is a huge difference in what's available to the manufacturer vs
    what's available to authorized repair technicians. Repair technicians
    don't have source code or custom chip schematics.

    You are free to retrieve the ECU from the vehicle and tinker away at
    will with it. If you have the capability to repair it, you should be
    able to do so, right?

    Yes.

    If your vehicle catches fire, don't be upset if your insurance company declines your claim

    It depends what components are involved. My hacking of the infotainment
    system doesn't have anything to do with a manufacturing defect causing
    the wheels to fall off.

    (and don't even think of suing the manufacturer!)

    I'll sue the manufacturer for the faulty wheel design.

    I'll also defend what I did / didn't change in court if I need to.
    Desoldering components from the stereo head unit face plate and
    soldering them onto a custom face plate to fit in a custom dash is
    independent of software bugs that cause bad radio data to brick the infotainment system.

    What you're espousing is that the manufacturer should have to *enable*
    you to make those repairs... that "capability" includes more than
    just your innate skillset.

    No, I am not espousing that the manufacturer enable anything differently
    than they are doing already.

    The manufacturer is already either making things possible for authorized technicians to repair things, or they are not.

    I'm espousing that I should have access to the same things that the
    authorized technician has access to.

    I'm not saying what is field serviceable and what is not. That's still
    up to the manufacturer.

    Go ahead and do so! But, why should the manufacturer have to
    facilitate that?

    See above.

    I'm not asking the manufacturer to facilitate anything that they aren't
    already doing.

    You can reverse engineer YOUR item and repair or upgrade it.
    (you likely can't disseminate that information or profit from it,
    depending on license terms).

    I can deencapsulate chips and sort out what's inside to better
    understand (or mimic) a particular design. I don't "whine" that the manufacturer forced me to use that level of "capability" to do so!

    What should the manufacturer's turn-around time be for "spare parts"?
    Must he make them available to you "overnight"? (surely, you want to minimize your down time) Should he be responsible for maintaining a
    "will call" window so you can just drop in and pick up those items
    to avoid shipping costs/delays?

    Treat the dealers and end users as a single line of consumers and
    prioritize based on volume of parts sales.

    What's the difference in the manufacturer shipping a part to a
    dealership vs my house? Assuming that the recipient is paying for the
    part and the expedited shipping.

    I wrote a contract for a client, some years ago. The issue of
    "spares" came up: "what are the FRUs that should be available
    for purchase?" (note the issue of COST didn't even surface, at
    that point). We settled on placing no constraints on what the client
    could *ask* for. But, also placed no constraints on the price that
    could be charged or the lead time!

    That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    If "spares" becomes an issue, then we likely need to revisit the
    design to see WHY you need them!

    You can ask me. I may tell you the truth. I may say "because I / my
    boss want them". I may not tell you. Maybe I'm choosing to use them as targets at the shooting range or as a boat anchor. Why do you care if
    I'm paying you for the parts?

    So, the manufacturer does away with "authorized repair centers".

    Nope. I never said nor implied that.

    Everything is returned to the factory for repair.

    The factory is effectively a really big authorized repair center. It
    doesn't matter /where/ the authorized technicians are located or who
    employs them. Someone has access to parts and directions to repair
    them. Those parts and directions should be available to anybody that
    wants them.

    Independent of cost and lead time.

    And, because EVERYTHING is being processed in that one location,
    the backlog is even longer! Now, what leg are you left standing on?

    The same one pointing to the authorized technicians.

    HP adopted the idea of replacing the entire printhead on their inkjets instead of reinking. So, customers end up paying more for ink --
    because they have to buy a new printhead in the process! Some of
    their printers put all of the "value" in a "bag" on the rear of the
    printer. No doubt, their "service" procedure is: run standard tests;
    if fail, remove electronics from bag at rear and discard remainder.
    Again, customers end up with a lower quality product (effectively
    higher cost).

    And yet I've seen people successfully refill HP ink jet cartridges.

    I've seen companies sell "chipped" vials of distilled water (really?
    do you think the hospital buying that device doesn't have a source
    of distilled water available?). They can argue it is for "quality
    control" (i.e., to ensure the accuracy of the results) but you'll note
    that there's a helluva markup in that water! (and, no way around it)

    What do you do when the device you "purchased" relies on a
    *service*... and the manufacturer decides to no longer provide that
    service? Your device is not "broken" -- it just doesn't work, anymore!

    I avoid those types of devices like my life depended on doing so and I recommend that friends and colleagues do the same.

    Should the manufacturer be forced to making available the
    "parts/technology" necessary for re-establishing that service (from
    an alternate provider).

    They should make the same thing available to the end user that is
    available to authorized technicians.

    I've watched *tens of millions* of pounds of eWaste intended for
    landfills over the past two decades just "discarded" because some
    "change" has made those items no longer usable (the 2GHz computer is
    too slow for the newer OS -- which is required for the most recent APPLICATION updates; the smart TV no longer supports the more modern
    codecs; a cap/FET in a power supply has gone south; the magnetics
    required for the XY drivers are too costly, etc.)

    These things *can* be fixed -- with relatively modest skillsets.

    I absolutely agree with that statement.

    But, doing so *economically* (at least with the US wage structure)
    is just not practical.

    That is a symptom of a different problem. A problem that I think is exacerbated by manufacturers refusing to make parts and manuals
    available to end users that are already available to authorized technicians.

    "Main board" quits in your TV? Some guy will sell you a "pull" (i.e.,
    not even NOS!) for $100-200 -- plus a couple hundred dollars for
    labor -- and give you a 30-90 day warranty (likely only on the part,
    not the labor!). So, your $1000 TV cost you $300-500 to repair.
    And, the guy is *so* confident in his repair that he'll only give
    you 90 days "peace of mind".



    Who the hell is going to go down that road?

    I have, multiple times.

    I know multiple other people that have done so too.

    Some of us will buy a "for parts" unit that has obvious damage in an
    unrelated component. E.g. the back light is out on the TV but the
    picture is still visible. Then do the pull and the push ourselves.

    We want items to cost less. And, never fail.

    I don't mind if some items cost some higher amount. I have a realistic understanding that things fail.

    And, the guy who has no interest in repairing his devices doesn't
    want to spend a dime (or any TIME) accommodating those who do!

    I'm not asking him to.

    (why do I have to pay more so someone else can repair theirs?)

    You don't have to pay more so someone else can repair theirs.

    You /may/ have to pay more because the manufacturer made some changes
    and is passing the cost on to you. -- The /manufacturer/ made a
    decision to do something. Why the manufacturer made that decision
    doesn't matter. Either you will pay the manufacturer's price, or you
    won't. It's your choice.

    In pharma, "best practices" have manufacturers making a lot of the design/installation of their products available to the purchaser.
    Much of this because of validation requirements. But, it also affords
    some ability to do minor repairs (replace an Opto-22, rewire the
    field, etc.).

    And that seems to have worked out well in my opinion.

    OTOH, they're not going to let you tinker with the design of the
    hardware or the software

    They are going to have to try really hard to physically stop me.
    Especially when I have the thing in my possession.

    that's their IP

    Intellectual property has very little standing at stopping me from
    drilling out rivets.

    and you are likely not qualified to do so

    People do things all the time that they aren't qualified to do. The
    lack of qualification doesn't stop them.

    (it is relatively easy to design something that far exceeds the
    ability of an *informed* user to understand in its entirety

    I don't need to understand something in it's entirety to replace a power supply.

    It behooves me to understand the part that I'm messing with.

    do you want to go to the FDA and explain how your modifications don't
    make the product less trustworthy?).

    It depends what the thing is and what I've done to it.

    There's also the very likely fact that I'm not trying to peddle my
    modified version, much less with any warranty or guarantee.

    In gaming, tampering with the internals of a machine is likely cause
    for dismissal -- and "decertifying" the machine.

    Yes.

    Certification is it's own special thing.

    I'm free to purchase a slot machine and mess with it in my house so that
    I always win if I want to. I can't get that slot machine certified for
    use in a casino.

    These folks know the lay of the land and have baked that into their
    business practices/costs.

    Yes, manufacturers know what they have been able to get away with and
    likely will be able to continue getting away with and some of them make decisions that are hostile to their end users. That's their choice.
    But exercising that choice seriously calls into question their morality.

    Just like "consumers" plan on replacing their phones periodically.
    Or, TVs. Or, cars. (c'mon, damn near ANYONE can do an oil change;
    why doesn't EVERYONE?)

    It's "Right to Repair", not "Requirement to Repair". The right to do
    something does not mean that you must do it.

    Also, "damn near" is far from an absolute.

    Focusing on Deere is folly. The 2 million farmers in the US represent
    a prominent "special interest". But, the other 330 million citizens
    are similarly burdened and lack that megaphone.

    I believe everything that I've said is vendor agnostic.

    There is also a significant difference in the price of the items the 2
    million farmers are interested in vs most of 33 million citizens.

    How keen would *you* be to open your design

    Again, I'm not advocating for the design to be opened or altered in any
    way, shape, or form.

    I am advocating for the existing design to stay as is and for the
    existing repair documentation / tools that are already available to
    authorized technicians to be available to my neighbor.

    The root of my stance is equality between the authorized technicians and
    the general public who wish to repair things themselves.

    If the repair process requires a $333 tool to remove part of the dash
    board, and anybody that wants the tool can buy the tool, then okay.

    The equality, as in the availability of the existing tools and existing documentation, is the most important thing.

    The local car dealership isn't going to troubleshoot a component level
    failure in your car's CPU. They will replace the CPU module. They will
    follow manufacturer provided directions on how to remove, replace, and re-configure it. Some newer CPUs will need to be paired with other
    components in the car.

    to the *few* who will "save" from your efforts? What if the farmer
    -- not some UNauthorized agent -- was required to make the repair?
    How vocal would he be in requiring this information? (he's objecting
    to the stranglehold Deere has on "repair centers")

    Again, a right to do something is significantly different from
    requirement to do something.

    Miranda Rights informed people of their right to silence (read: to shut
    up and not incriminate themselves). They do not /require/ people to be
    silent.

    I have the right to walk into my backyard naked as the day I was born.
    I am definitely not required to do so when I take the puppy outside at
    03:00 to go to the bathroom.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Grant Taylor on Wed Feb 9 22:06:21 2022
    Grant Taylor wrote:
    ==================

    I am advocating for the existing design to stay as is and for the
    existing repair documentation / tools that are already available to authorized technicians to be available to my neighbor.

    The root of my stance is equality between the authorized technicians and
    the general public who wish to repair things themselves.


    ** You omit an important third player.

    The "non authorized" repair business whom Deere is trying to cancel.
    Owners have every right to chose them in preference to participants in a company run MONOPOLY on service.

    Right to Repair = free competition on repair work and all the benefits that owners will derive from same.

    Authorized repairers are needed for warranty work, done free.
    Typically they make little money from this.

    However, what they *want* is to monopolize all later, out of warranty work and charge like a wounded bull.
    Having the factory refuse to supply their competition is the key to this scam.

    Goes on here in Australia with electronic items - but is illegal under our consumer laws.
    Dumb excuses include:

    1. The part is out of stock - permanently.
    2. The manual or schematic is covered by copyright.
    3. You need to pay up front and it will take 6 months to get.
    4. You are not equipped to do such high tech repairs.
    5. You operate too close to one of our repair agents.

    etc ad nauseam....


    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Wed Feb 9 22:51:05 2022
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:04:58 -0700, Grant Taylor
    <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

    Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified >person from making the repair themselves?
    So the manufacturer can charge 10x what the repair parts are worth,
    and makes sure that nobody else can supply them.

    The obvious defense is to buy tractors from someone else.

    Obvious, but only AFTER you bought THESE tractors.
    The Deere folk probably charge for training/licensing their
    'authorized' folk, and without pay-in-advance and a year's financial
    commitment to being authorized, they're going to claim that
    the owners oughtn't repair their wonderful machines.
    The 'licensing' of software required for restarting the repaired units is
    just a legal dodge to make this a contractual issue instead of an improper restraint of trade.

    It amounts to a restraint of trade by suppliers who are too big to be boycotted.
    Authorized repair agents in your neighborhood means dealers who do warranty repair and are are therefore tethered to the large manufacturer anyhow.
    Owners, who aren't on a leash, aren't welcome.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Grant Taylor on Thu Feb 10 00:49:40 2022
    On 2/9/2022 8:30 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
    On 2/9/22 7:00 PM, Don Y wrote:
    How much should the design of the item be driven to make repair possible?
    Should we ban the use of solvent welded cases? ASICs? Trade secret
    *processes* (which may be essential to the fabrication of a functional product)?

    Those are legitimate questions.

    Questions which are independent of of owners having access to the same parts and documentation that repair technicians have access to.

    This is the crux of your argument, throughout. So, I'll address it in one place.

    If you write legislation to that effect, a manufacturer sidesteps it by purchasing all of the "authorized repair centers" so they are now *part*
    of the manufacturer's organization.

    Or, simply shedding that "network" entirely.

    [Of course, those authorized repair centers can likely sue for the "harm" incurred -- they previously had something of value (exclusive repair
    rights in their territory) and have been deprived of that.]

    Or, changing the parts/jigs/documentation that it makes available to them (likely, these are "Property of Manufacturer" and not the service center
    so reclaiming them is legally possible)

    [Detroit has extensive documentation regarding the internal settings of
    their various ECUs. I suspect much of that isn't made available to
    dealers -- because the dealer has no need to make many of those tweeks!
    They are available -- under the table -- to folks who customize "crate
    engines" for, e.g., racing... where, e.g., you may want to change the
    timing profile wrt engine RPM, etc. to optimize power output in a certain range. CT had a law on the books that required manufacturers to
    make available *schematics* for their products. See how far you get
    claiming that as your *right* as a consumer!]

    If you claim the manufacturer is now an "authorized repair center",
    does he have to make available all of his staff that might be *consulted*
    by the folks actually doing the repairs? E.g., if a tech makes an ask
    of the design engineer on a product, should Billy Bob's Tractor Shop
    have access to that same tech/resource? Is "staff" different from
    "documents"? Aren't they both "reference materials"? "On page 27
    of the manual, it says 'Consult Engineering'" What a great way
    to lower the cost of that profit center! :>

    What if the manufacturer starts treating FRUs as disposable items?
    After all, it's YOU who will be paying the replacement price, not them!
    Now, do you require the manufacturer to make available to the customer
    all of their MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTS, jigs, etc.?

    Or, requiring units to be returned for repair/replacement?

    Or, charging outrageous prices for parts (that you can't source
    anywhere else!)

    [We charged $2000 for an ASIC used in an arcade piece. The entire
    GAME could be purchased for $2000! (so, silly to charge MORE than
    that for the chip!)]

    Or, not offering *any* repair parts! There is nothing that says
    a manufacturer must *remain* in a business -- or business segment.
    Then what do you do? Hope someone else makes a copycat product?

    [We sold a product that relied on a $5K license from another vendor.
    Vendor stopped making that license available. What recourse do we
    have? Can we FORCE him to sell us another license? Or, does *he*
    have control over his sales policies??]

    If the manufacturer considered "locking things down" to be essential to
    its business plan, you can bet their lobbyists (pre-legislation) and
    lawyers (post-legislation) will have sorted out how to maintain this capability. Things might be different in the EU but the US favors
    unbridled capitalism. There's nothing FORCING the user to buy THAT
    particular product! If you were foolish enough (or desperate enough)
    to make that decision, then that's *your* problem. "Want a time-share
    in Miami?"

    "If we reincorporate in MX, are we still subject to these requirements?

    Are none of the countries that export to the US market immune? Will
    there be linguists proofing Chinese documents to verify they are
    comprehensible after translation into English? Will they also have
    to make available Spanish language versions?? What liability for the
    accuracy of those documents?

    Or, developing new products where part of the product is *licensed*
    (not sold) to the user. (who owns the battery in your EV?) There
    are no user serviceable parts within -- return to factory for repair
    or replacement (all the service center could do is forward your
    component to the factory)

    SWMBO's vehicle came with a trial Sirius license. Did we end up having
    to pay for some hardware in the vehicle even though we never bought a subscription?

    Likewise, it came with real-time traffic monitoring, for a few years.
    Wanna bet that this vehicle is still providing data to that service
    to report on traffic conditions where we are driving? Were we
    compensated for this, in any way? What happens if I short out
    the antenna so the car can't phone home?? Do I have the *right*
    to do that? Even if some other aspect of the vehicle stops working??

    Legislation may "level the playing field" (between authorized repair centers and "others") -- but, at a level that is more costly to the end user than
    it is, presently! The authorized repair center won't care if they have
    to pay more for parts/services -- they will just be passing those costs
    on to the consumer, just like the *unauthorized* repair centers.

    So, the $1000 part with $200 of labor isn't much cheaper than the
    $1000 part from the "unauthorized service center" with the $50
    *discounted* labor! Gee, look at how much better this is over that
    $600 repair, previously!

    Increasingly, manufacturers want to cling to customers AFTER the sale.
    Whether that is through repairs, services or "other" (e.g., upgrades).
    Weening them of this idea is likely going to be tough. Do you write legislation so all Nest products *retain* their functionality even if
    Google abandons that market? What if Google spins off that business
    unit and then kills it? Should a manufacturer be required to fix
    a design flaw in a product -- even if it's "just software"? Should
    I be able to get software updates for every such appliance for N years
    after purchase?

    And, most consumers seem to just go along with these new policies
    without a whimper.
    "Want access to my personal data, for free? OK"
    "Want to *rent* me music? OK"
    "Want to peek at my credit score before disclosing it to me? OK"
    The classic role of The Market is a give-and-take between suppliers
    and consumers. If the market's "price" is too high, you go elsewhere.

    Europe has a different approach.

    But, if a supplier has an exclusive product and you *want* it, then
    they have you by the balls.

    I have the right to walk into my backyard naked as the day I was born. I am definitely not required to do so when I take the puppy outside at 03:00 to go to the bathroom.

    No, you only have that "right" if your back yard is secluded. We've had folks prosecuted for doing otherwise, here. (I make a point of always being able to claim I am no more "exposed" than if I was swimming in a backyard pool. And, certainly less exposed than many women/girls parade around "in public"! :-/ )

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 10 00:31:11 2022
    On 2/9/2022 11:51 PM, whit3rd wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:04:58 -0700, Grant Taylor
    <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

    Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified
    person from making the repair themselves?
    So the manufacturer can charge 10x what the repair parts are worth,
    and makes sure that nobody else can supply them.

    The obvious defense is to buy tractors from someone else.

    Obvious, but only AFTER you bought THESE tractors.

    Or, talked to a fellow farmer (in the case of tractors) who's bought one. Presumably, consumers aren't complete idiots! Especially with big ticket items!

    The Deere folk probably charge for training/licensing their
    'authorized' folk, and without pay-in-advance and a year's financial commitment to being authorized, they're going to claim that
    the owners oughtn't repair their wonderful machines.

    I'm sure the "owners" aren't interested in making the repairs.
    They, instead, want other "non-affiliated" vendors to be able
    to compete with the "authorized repair centers" -- presumably at
    a lower price.

    Note that the manufacturer also has a reputation to defend. People
    talking about problems they've had (with "off-brand" repairs) can
    harm that reputation (are you likely to preface your description of
    your experience with "I hired some non-authorized repair center to
    make this repair, much to my chagrin"? Will your audience hear that
    and attribute your problems to the repair center? Or, to the
    *product* being repaired?)

    The 'licensing' of software required for restarting the repaired units is just a legal dodge to make this a contractual issue instead of an improper restraint of trade.

    But not illegal. Is it illegal to inflate the cost of a drug 1000%?
    Or, just immoral?

    It amounts to a restraint of trade by suppliers who are too big to be boycotted.

    Or, who have a product that excels in some manner over the competition.
    If you want a Harley, you *wait* for whatever delivery time the factory
    quotes. And, have less leverage wrt price.

    If you want a Jap bike, you likely have a different experience!

    Authorized repair agents in your neighborhood means dealers who do warranty repair and are are therefore tethered to the large manufacturer anyhow. Owners, who aren't on a leash, aren't welcome.

    Again, owners don't necessarily want to make the repairs. They just don't
    want to be reliant on the authorized repair center (who KNOWS they have an exclusive arrangement in their territory) yet want to be able to benefit
    from the features, reliability, etc. of the product!

    If I want to buy a Lexus, I have one choice of dealership, locally. Should
    we legislate that ever car manufacturer have at least two dealerships (owned
    by separate entities) in every metropolitan area? To keep prices down?

    [Buy a Kubota tractor, instead! It's not like Deere (or Apple or Google or...) have a monopoly! Your problem is *wanting* the Deere (or iPhone, etc.) and resenting some of the other issues that are consequential to it's purchase]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Thu Feb 10 11:43:25 2022
    John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:04:58 -0700, Grant Taylor
    <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

    On 2/9/22 4:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
    Without more detailed information, it's hard to cast judgement.

    Not really.

    Either manufacturers are hostile towards people repairing their own
    equipment or they are not.

    Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
    maintaining/repairing a product that they've purchased (vs. leased)?

    Anything they want to and have the capability to do so.

    Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
    Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.

    OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
    Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level
    (vs. a board swap)?

    Why shouldn't someone be able to repair an ECU if they have the
    capability to do so?

    Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified
    person from making the repair themselves?

    So the manufacturer can charge 10x what the repair parts are worth,
    and makes sure that nobody else can supply them.

    The obvious defense is to buy tractors from someone else.


    Part of the issue from the manufacturer's side is the enormously
    intrusive regulatory environment, that they fear will make them liable
    for other people's bodges and screwups.

    For instance, the EPA has forced diesel tractors and harvesters to
    comply with Tier 4 emissions regulations, even though (a) there's
    significantly increased risk to life and limb from fires resulting from
    the far higher exhaust system temperatures; and (b) they're out in the
    middle of nowhere, not in Manhattan.

    (I work with a fire control company that has to cope with that stuff.)

    In general I'd like to see the law amended to make clear the limits of
    the manufacturers' liability for other people's repairs and
    modifications. Some of those harvesters cost nearly a million bucks apiece.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs
    Principal Consultant
    ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
    Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
    Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

    http://electrooptical.net
    http://hobbs-eo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Feb 10 12:04:35 2022
    On 2/10/22 12:49 AM, Don Y wrote:
    If you write legislation to that effect, a manufacturer sidesteps it
    by purchasing all of the "authorized repair centers" so they are now
    *part* of the manufacturer's organization.

    I believe I spoke to -- what I'll call -- in-housing repairs to the manufacturer.

    In short, all people, trained or otherwise, employed by the manufacturer
    or otherwise, should have the same opportunities to parts /
    documentation / tools.

    Or, changing the parts/jigs/documentation that it makes available
    to them (likely, these are "Property of Manufacturer" and not the
    service center so reclaiming them is legally possible)

    The manufacturer has the prerogative to change something frequently so
    that the old thing will no longer work.

    If service technicians have access to it, lay people should have access
    to it too.

    If you claim the manufacturer is now an "authorized repair center",

    I do.

    does he have to make available all of his staff that might be
    *consulted* by the folks actually doing the repairs?

    Staff is decidedly not part of my aforementioned list of parts /
    documentation / tools.

    E.g., if a tech makes an ask of the design engineer on a product,
    should Billy Bob's Tractor Shop have access to that same tech/resource?

    Tech as in technician, no. Resource as in document, yes.

    I could see a business case for staff to provide consulting or training
    at an hourly rate.

    Is "staff" different from "documents"?

    Absolutely.

    Aren't they both "reference materials"? "On page 27 of the manual,
    it says 'Consult Engineering'" What a great way to lower the cost of
    that profit center! :>

    I would call that a bad document.

    However said bad document should be made available to authorized
    technicians as well as do it yourselfers.

    I think there is also an opportunity for a class action lawsuit if the manufacturer purposely starts updating all documents to be 'Consult Engineering' type.

    What if the manufacturer starts treating FRUs as disposable items?

    That doesn't change anything in my opinion.

    After all, it's YOU who will be paying the replacement price, not them!
    Now, do you require the manufacturer to make available to the customer
    all of their MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTS, jigs, etc.?

    Manufacturing is decidedly different than service / repair.

    Since I'm discussing service / repair, that means that manufacturing is
    out of scope to me.

    Or, requiring units to be returned for repair/replacement?

    If the (in-house) authorized technicians are also required to return the
    units for repair / replacement, then so be it.

    Again, this is a slippery slope that would likely end up in a class
    action lawsuit.

    There would probably have to be strict division between the authorized technicians that take components out of the larger unit, ship them off
    to the manufacturer (down the hall), and install the new / repaired
    component.

    Do it yourselfers should also be able to ship components off to the manufacturer (across town), and install the new / repaired component.

    Or, charging outrageous prices for parts (that you can't source
    anywhere else!)

    How is that different than we have now?

    Also, as long as it's the same for authorized technicians and do it yourselfers, then so be it.

    [We charged $2000 for an ASIC used in an arcade piece. The entire
    GAME could be purchased for $2000! (so, silly to charge MORE than
    that for the chip!)]

    I would be very careful doing something like that. That seems to be
    opening yourself up for a lawsuit.

    Or, not offering *any* repair parts! There is nothing that says
    a manufacturer must *remain* in a business -- or business segment.

    I agree. Despite my dislike for it.

    Then what do you do? Hope someone else makes a copycat product?

    [We sold a product that relied on a $5K license from another vendor.
    Vendor stopped making that license available. What recourse do we
    have?

    Probably not very many. Almost certainly not any good ones.

    Can we FORCE him to sell us another license?

    Nope.

    Or, does *he* have control over his sales policies??]

    Yes.

    The same availability apply equally to both authorized technicians and
    do it yourselfers.

    If the manufacturer considered "locking things down" to be essential
    to its business plan, you can bet their lobbyists (pre-legislation)
    and lawyers (post-legislation) will have sorted out how to maintain
    this capability.

    Maybe. Maybe not.

    I'd bet that they have a plan. Only time will tell if that plan will
    hold up.

    Things might be different in the EU but the US favors unbridled
    capitalism.

    I'm routinely depressed if not distressed by this fact.

    There's nothing FORCING the user to buy THAT particular product!

    Nope. Yes there is. And it depends.

    See my comments about cable internet vs DSL vs dial-up elsewhere in this thread.

    If you were foolish enough (or desperate enough) to make that decision,
    then that's *your* problem. "Want a time-share in Miami?"
    This seems to be the purview of class action lawsuits, especially if
    there is evidence that the manufacturer exploited a (monopolistic)
    market advantage to coerce consumers to buy their product.

    "If we reincorporate in MX, are we still subject to these requirements?

    I would counter with how are you doing business in country without an established point of presence?

    I would argue that any parts / documentation / tools that you make
    available to authorized technicians in country must be made available to
    do it yourselfers in country.

    I dislike the idea of no in country repair centers. But that's an issue
    that's outside of what I consider to be right to repair.

    Are none of the countries that export to the US market immune?

    My opinion is that all countries should be treated the same. Sadly, I
    expect politicians will have different ideas.

    Will there be linguists proofing Chinese documents to verify they
    are comprehensible after translation into English? Will they also
    have to make available Spanish language versions?? What liability
    for the accuracy of those documents?

    That's immaterial to my stance. The existing parts / documents / tools available to authorized technicians, whatever quality they are, should
    be made available to everybody.

    If someone has to translate a document from one language to make use of
    it, that's on them as the user of said document.

    Or, developing new products where part of the product is *licensed*
    (not sold) to the user. (who owns the battery in your EV?)

    That's a different issue.

    There are no user serviceable parts within -- return to factory for
    repair or replacement (all the service center could do is forward
    your component to the factory)

    That's a farce in my opinion.

    If there are authorized technicians, possibly located in the factory, in
    this country then the parts / documents / tools that they have access to
    should be made available to do it yourselfers.

    SWMBO's vehicle came with a trial Sirius license. Did we end up
    having to pay for some hardware in the vehicle even though we never
    bought a subscription?

    You purchased what the manufacturer sold to you. If you didn't use all
    of the capabilities of it, that's on you.

    Likewise, it came with real-time traffic monitoring, for a few years.
    Wanna bet that this vehicle is still providing data to that service to
    report on traffic conditions where we are driving?

    Maybe. There are privacy concerns that cause me to not say probably.

    Were we compensated for this, in any way?

    That's out of the scope of right to repair.

    What happens if I short out the antenna so the car can't phone home??

    I don't know.

    Try it and find out.

    Do I have the *right* to do that?

    Right to repair is the union of a right and repairing something. So I
    think "repair" is extremely germane. There's a good chance that
    "repair" will only extend to as designed and constructed by the
    manufacturer.

    As such, altering the design / operation contrary to the manufacturer's
    intent probably doesn't qualify as "repair".

    Now we get into do you actually /own/ the vehicle? Or is there some
    form of lease like you were alluding to?

    If you /own/ the vehicle, then I think you have the right to do just
    about anything you want to, including altering it from the original manufacturer's intention. Possibly by disabling the ability to report
    traffic information.

    Even if some other aspect of the vehicle stops working??

    If you completely own it, sure. If you don't completely own it, then
    things get murky really fast.

    Legislation may "level the playing field" (between authorized repair
    centers and "others") -- but, at a level that is more costly to the
    end user than it is, presently! The authorized repair center won't
    care if they have to pay more for parts/services -- they will just be
    passing those costs on to the consumer, just like the *unauthorized*
    repair centers.

    I question the veracity of that statement and believe that it opens manufacturers up to class action lawsuits.

    So, the $1000 part with $200 of labor isn't much cheaper than the $1000
    part from the "unauthorized service center" with the $50 *discounted*
    labor! Gee, look at how much better this is over that $600 repair, previously!

    One of the first things that the manufacturer will have to defend is why something that used to cost $600 now costs $1000. They had better have
    a VERY good explanation. Lest they be guilty of what is effectively
    price gouging.

    Increasingly, manufacturers want to cling to customers AFTER the sale. Whether that is through repairs, services or "other" (e.g., upgrades). Weening them of this idea is likely going to be tough.

    The best way I've found / heard of to retain customers, is to provide
    them with value, even if it's only a perception.

    I know many people that will pay a higher price for parts & service from
    a dealership if they feel value from and like they can trust the dealership.

    Do you write legislation so all Nest products *retain* their
    functionality even if Google abandons that market?

    Nope.

    You write legislation that 1) clearly explains that the hardware is
    dependent on a subscription service and 2 that said subscription service
    will be available for (at least) a specified amount of time (be it X
    number of months / years or until Y date).

    What if Google spins off that business unit and then kills it?

    Google has the right to do that as a business as long as it's beholden
    to the second clause above.

    Failure to do that falls back on traditional breach of contract problems
    and solutions.

    Should a manufacturer be required to fix a design flaw in a product
    -- even if it's "just software"? Should I be able to get software
    updates for every such appliance for N years after purchase?

    I have heard discussion about legislation for both of these very things.

    And, most consumers seem to just go along with these new policies
    without a whimper.
       "Want access to my personal data, for free?  OK"
       "Want to *rent* me music?  OK"
    "Want to peek at my credit score before disclosing it to me? OK"

    There is a derogatory term for this, "sheeple".

    There also various legal actions afoot related to this.

    The classic role of The Market is a give-and-take between suppliers
    and consumers.

    Yes. I give you money and I take the product to do with it what I please.

    If the market's "price" is too high, you go elsewhere.

    Baring monopolistic complications, agreed.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Thu Feb 10 12:07:03 2022
    On 2/9/22 11:06 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    ** You omit an important third player.

    The "non authorized" repair business whom Deere is trying to cancel.

    I'm lumping non-authorized repair businesses in with the owners / do it yourselers.

    I see no need to distinguish the different groups that are outside of
    the authorized technicians / manufacturer.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Grant Taylor on Thu Feb 10 12:04:31 2022
    Grant Taylor wrote:
    ===============
    Phil Allison wrote:

    ** You omit an important third player.

    The "non authorized" repair business whom Deere is trying to cancel.


    I'm lumping non-authorized repair businesses in with the owners / do it yourselers.

    ** Sure - but did not MENTION that anywhere.

    Farmers are a rare example of long time DIY repairers.

    I see no need to distinguish the different groups that are outside of
    the authorized technicians / manufacturer.


    ** Well - even important differences will disappear if one *chooses* to not see them....

    What other things are you choosing to ignore ?



    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Grant Taylor on Thu Feb 10 13:55:12 2022
    On 2/10/2022 12:04 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
    On 2/10/22 12:49 AM, Don Y wrote:
    If you write legislation to that effect, a manufacturer sidesteps it by
    purchasing all of the "authorized repair centers" so they are now *part* of >> the manufacturer's organization.

    I believe I spoke to -- what I'll call -- in-housing repairs to the manufacturer.

    In short, all people, trained or otherwise, employed by the manufacturer or otherwise, should have the same opportunities to parts / documentation / tools.

    Yeah, that's an admirable goal. But, I don't think it's gonna happen
    in a *real* way!

    It would be nice if no child went hungry, but...

    Or, changing the parts/jigs/documentation that it makes available to them
    (likely, these are "Property of Manufacturer" and not the service center so >> reclaiming them is legally possible)

    The manufacturer has the prerogative to change something frequently so that the
    old thing will no longer work.

    If service technicians have access to it, lay people should have access to it too.

    "Apply ALL of the more recent updates (hardware and software) to your product before applying this solution. They are available in our parts store at standard prices."

    I *rarely* apply updates to (software) products. Because its a huge nuisance. As a result, if I encounter a recognized problem that is solved at patch level 13, I have to debate if I want to apply all of the patches between "my current" and "13", just to get a fix for that problem.

    And, any *consequences* of those patches are now mine to endure.

    [I had to replace the power inlet on a friend's laptop. The manufacturer
    had made a change to the (aluminum) case casting in the time since his purchase. So, the new inlet wouldn't mechanically fit. I was forced to
    grind away the excess aluminum to make accommodations for the inlet.
    A better strategy may have been to just leave a wire dangling out the ass
    end of the laptop!]

    If you claim the manufacturer is now an "authorized repair center",

    I do.

    So, he has to partition his organization (physically and virtually) so
    there are distinct cost centers and documentable information flows
    to which legislation could be applied.

    The tech from "service" can't chat with the design engineer over the
    lunch-room table because DIYers wouldn't have that same level of access. Instead, the tech will have to submit his question through the "portal"
    where it could be processed along with DIYer questions.

    does he have to make available all of his staff that might be *consulted* by >> the folks actually doing the repairs?

    Staff is decidedly not part of my aforementioned list of parts / documentation
    / tools.

    E.g., if a tech makes an ask of the design engineer on a product, should
    Billy Bob's Tractor Shop have access to that same tech/resource?

    Tech as in technician, no. Resource as in document, yes.

    I could see a business case for staff to provide consulting or training at an hourly rate.

    What if they don't want to be in the consulting business?

    Is "staff" different from "documents"?

    Absolutely.

    Aren't they both "reference materials"? "On page 27 of the manual, it says >> 'Consult Engineering'" What a great way to lower the cost of that profit
    center! :>

    I would call that a bad document.

    Have a look at most "user manuals" under "troubleshooting". Notice how often they refer to "factory" as remedy for certain problems. Do you think they
    mean "Call us up and we'll put an engineer on the phone to troubleshoot
    your problem"?

    However said bad document should be made available to authorized technicians as
    well as do it yourselfers.

    I think there is also an opportunity for a class action lawsuit if the manufacturer purposely starts updating all documents to be 'Consult Engineering' type.

    What if the manufacturer starts treating FRUs as disposable items?

    That doesn't change anything in my opinion.

    To the *user*, it may! Now, he can't buy *just* that defective part.
    Instead, he has to buy the smallest/cheapest FRU that *contains*
    that part!

    "Sure, we'll sell you a new engine!"

    After all, it's YOU who will be paying the replacement price, not them! Now, >> do you require the manufacturer to make available to the customer all of
    their MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTS, jigs, etc.?

    Manufacturing is decidedly different than service / repair.

    Since I'm discussing service / repair, that means that manufacturing is out of
    scope to me.

    But you're also claiming that the manufacturer can fill two *distinct* roles. And, that different rules should apply to each role, even if under the same roof and by the same staff.

    Or, requiring units to be returned for repair/replacement?

    If the (in-house) authorized technicians are also required to return the units
    for repair / replacement, then so be it.

    Again, this is a slippery slope that would likely end up in a class action lawsuit.

    There would probably have to be strict division between the authorized technicians that take components out of the larger unit, ship them off to the manufacturer (down the hall), and install the new / repaired component.

    Do it yourselfers should also be able to ship components off to the manufacturer (across town), and install the new / repaired component.

    Yes, and turn-around time -- and price -- will be determined by the
    amount of business you do with the firm. "Sorry, there are many higher-priority service requests ahead of you in the queue. Those
    customers represent greater value to us than your 'one-off'
    transaction".

    Or, do you legislate equality in pricing, turn-around time, etc.?

    And, NOT expect the manufacturer to reflect this requirement
    somewhere in its pricing/service structure?

    Or, charging outrageous prices for parts (that you can't source anywhere else!)

    How is that different than we have now?

    It's a matter of degree. A $600 sensor repair can turn into a $1000 sensor repair. You're "whole" after each repair. But, considerably poorer in
    the second case. "We no longer sell the bare sensor as an FRU..."

    [We have a *small* convection/toaster oven that will be needing new heating elements, soon. Replacement parts are nowhere to be found. So, buy a new
    oven (the small size being the tough criteria to meet) or hope to find
    an identical one "in decent shape" at a thrift store. In either case,
    the "cost" to me (time + money) is considerably higher.]

    Also, as long as it's the same for authorized technicians and do it yourselfers, then so be it.

    [We charged $2000 for an ASIC used in an arcade piece. The entire GAME could
    be purchased for $2000! (so, silly to charge MORE than that for the chip!)]

    I would be very careful doing something like that. That seems to be opening yourself up for a lawsuit.

    If so, never materialized. The purpose of the ASIC was to discourage counterfeiters (while adding functionality). As you can't stop a
    counterfeiter from buying whole *games*, you can offer to sell him
    just the chip -- for the price of a game!

    Of course, if it is a genuine *repair*, you'll have returned the *defective* ASIC and we can credit you $1980 on the replacement part's price (because we WANT to be friendly to our legitimate customers -- and, because the ASICs
    won't fail! Encounter many "bad CPUs" over the years?)
    Or, not offering *any* repair parts! There is nothing that says a
    manufacturer must *remain* in a business -- or business segment.

    I agree. Despite my dislike for it.

    Then what do you do? Hope someone else makes a copycat product?

    [We sold a product that relied on a $5K license from another vendor. Vendor >> stopped making that license available. What recourse do we have?

    Probably not very many. Almost certainly not any good ones.

    So, a $5K license ends up costing us hundreds of kilobucks to redesign
    the product to use their *new* offering.

    Wanna bet that will similarly be obsolescent?

    (What reason to refuse to offer something that only *costs* you a sheet
    of paper -- license -- to sell?)

    Can we FORCE him to sell us another license?

    Nope.

    Or, does *he* have control over his sales policies??]

    Yes.

    The same availability apply equally to both authorized technicians and do it yourselfers.

    If the manufacturer considered "locking things down" to be essential to its >> business plan, you can bet their lobbyists (pre-legislation) and lawyers
    (post-legislation) will have sorted out how to maintain this capability.

    Maybe. Maybe not.

    Apple clearly has decided that "repairs" aren't worth the trouble to defend that practice. They're sitting pretty with retail sales. And, can charge outrageous amounts for repair parts (iPhone 12 screen is $250!) because they are the sole source -- and folks would obviously WANT "genuine Apple"!

    I'd bet that they have a plan. Only time will tell if that plan will hold up.

    Nothing to say that they can't have an alternative in store *if* that plan fails. It's *their* product. Maybe they churn their offerings so, after
    a few years, there are no common parts currently in production for ~10 year
    old tractors. Or, those that are available are stocked in a warehouse with
    a staff of 5 that takes weeks to locate and deliver items from "old stock".

    Things might be different in the EU but the US favors unbridled capitalism.

    I'm routinely depressed if not distressed by this fact.

    Agreed, but life is too short for me to fret over the realities. Instead, I figure out how to get what *I* want at a cost that I'm willing to pay. If
    the cost is too high, then I resign myself to living without!

    I like a certain type of "biscuit" that I know to be sold in northern massachusetts. It is impractical for me to import them in sufficient
    quantity -- 20 pounds cost $20 and $29 for shipping. That's probably
    two weeks worth. (purchasing in larger quantities -- to lower effective shipping costs) would pose a problem with freshness and, likely, damage
    in transit.

    So, my options are:
    - buy as above
    - find a closer/cheaper source
    - make my own

    I've decided that make my own is the only long term solution that
    makes sense.

    Of course, the bakery isn't going to tell me how to make their
    product!

    A local source makes a similar product with an entirely "wrong"
    (for my palate) taste/texture. And, similarly refuses to share
    their Rx. Given that I'm NOT going to purchase their product
    (because the taste/texture is "wrong"), wouldn't you think they
    would be willing to share their secret?

    OTOH, I *never* give out my Rxs. I give out *approximations*
    that will allow folks who are interested in the item to INVEST
    THEIR TIME to come up with a good version. But, you can *watch*
    me make an item and still never be able to reproduce it.
    (that's intentional, on my part!)

    I am willing to experiment with developing my own Rx (I've a great
    track record, in taht respect), but the minimum batch size is ~5
    pounds. That's a lot of "mistakes" to consume -- or foodstuffs to
    discard!

    There's nothing FORCING the user to buy THAT particular product!

    Nope. Yes there is. And it depends.

    See my comments about cable internet vs DSL vs dial-up elsewhere in this thread.

    If you were foolish enough (or desperate enough) to make that decision, then >> that's *your* problem. "Want a time-share in Miami?"
    This seems to be the purview of class action lawsuits, especially if there is evidence that the manufacturer exploited a (monopolistic) market advantage to coerce consumers to buy their product.

    But these aren't monopolistic products. Other folks manufacture tractors. Other folks manufacture cell phones. etc. The manufacturers aren't doing anything to prevent competition; rather they are just offering a product
    that exceeds the value of other products.

    "If we reincorporate in MX, are we still subject to these requirements?

    I would counter with how are you doing business in country without an established point of presence?

    You've never bought something from a vendor in china?

    I'm looking to buy some pillows from a Japanese firm. *No one* sells them in the US. Does that mean I can't acquire more of them?

    I would argue that any parts / documentation / tools that you make available to
    authorized technicians in country must be made available to do it yourselfers in country.

    I dislike the idea of no in country repair centers. But that's an issue that's
    outside of what I consider to be right to repair.

    Are none of the countries that export to the US market immune?

    My opinion is that all countries should be treated the same. Sadly, I expect politicians will have different ideas.

    That's naive to the point of laughter.

    *My* opinion is that things shouldn't break so "repair" isn't an issue!
    (you are free to start laughing, now)

    Will there be linguists proofing Chinese documents to verify they are
    comprehensible after translation into English? Will they also have to make >> available Spanish language versions?? What liability for the accuracy of
    those documents?

    That's immaterial to my stance. The existing parts / documents / tools available to authorized technicians, whatever quality they are, should be made
    available to everybody.

    If someone has to translate a document from one language to make use of it, that's on them as the user of said document.

    So, chinese manufacturer who just tends to hire chinese-americans to work
    in *their* repair centers can legally leave all of their documentation in chinese? And, provide exactly this documentation to their DIYer customers?

    How long before folks start whining that the documentation isn't in English?
    Do we need further legislation to address THAT issue (because it is a
    practical impediment to their repair activities)? Ditto any software
    tools that are used -- must the software developer arrange all of the
    strings and other "resources" in some easily locatable manner so they
    can *all* be found and translated by some third party (hired by the DIYer group)? "Gee, I've never seen THIS screen, before! Anyone know what it
    says?" (days later) "Yes, it says your catalytic converter is overheating
    and must be shut down immediately to avoid damage to the vehicle!"

    Ooops!

    Or, developing new products where part of the product is *licensed* (not
    sold) to the user. (who owns the battery in your EV?)

    That's a different issue.

    I offer these as examples of how manufacturers can skirt legislation.

    AT&T didn't *make* anything. And, AFAICT, Western Electric's sole customer
    was AT&T. Yet, "your phone" (*owned* by AT&T; they just let you *use* it!) came from AT&T and that's who you contact in case of a problem.

    There are no user serviceable parts within -- return to factory for repair or
    replacement (all the service center could do is forward your component to the
    factory)

    That's a farce in my opinion.

    Why? Do you really think Alexa speakers are "repaired"? Maybe in some third-world country but US labor rates wouldn't make that profitable.
    Discard and write-off.

    I've targeted a ~$15 cost (DM) for my designs. So, *if* you can recover
    any value from a "defective" unit, you'd have to do so with very little
    labor before the labor costs exceed the value of the components POTENTIALLY recovered. I.e., depot test procedure is "run standard manufacturing test;
    if pass, recondition -- else discard"

    If folks notice a high percentage of similar failures, they will likely
    consult a manufacturing/support engineer to look further into it. That
    person (resource) will have access to design materials that aren't available
    to "technicians" and can decide if a design change is warranted.

    DIYer would have to make that determination on his own -- based on his "capabilitites".


    If there are authorized technicians, possibly located in the factory, in this country then the parts / documents / tools that they have access to should be made available to do it yourselfers.

    So, we subject our techs to an 18 month training program. There are no "manuals", just "know how" acquired from that course. We'll make that
    course available to you end users. It is held in Podunk, Iowa, starting
    every December. The cost for tuition (which we bear for our employees)
    is $35,000.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_University>

    "Hey, we're spending a lot on training our employees! Why don't we *buy* the company that we've hired to do our training? 'Outsiders' can still pay
    for the course. Employees will just be handled by transfering the tuition
    on a balance sheet between subsidiaries"

    SWMBO's vehicle came with a trial Sirius license. Did we end up having to >> pay for some hardware in the vehicle even though we never bought a subscription?

    You purchased what the manufacturer sold to you. If you didn't use all of the
    capabilities of it, that's on you.

    Likewise, it came with real-time traffic monitoring, for a few years. Wanna >> bet that this vehicle is still providing data to that service to report on >> traffic conditions where we are driving?

    Maybe. There are privacy concerns that cause me to not say probably.

    If the data is being provided to a server that *they* exclusively control,
    then are the privacy concerns any greater than the vehicle reporting my
    usage so they can tell me when service is due?

    Were we compensated for this, in any way?

    That's out of the scope of right to repair.

    You didn't tell me I was going to be "working for you" in the purchase agreement. I *may* be willing to work for you -- if properly compensated.
    I want to be able to prevent you from STEALING my services in the event
    that we don't come to an agreement.

    What happens if I short out the antenna so the car can't phone home??

    I don't know.

    Try it and find out.

    What recourse do I have if something goes wrong? How long will I be
    without the use of the vehicle? How much will the "repair" cost?

    [My curiosity doesn't rise to that level of potential consequences]

    Do I have the *right* to do that?

    Right to repair is the union of a right and repairing something. So I think "repair" is extremely germane. There's a good chance that "repair" will only extend to as designed and constructed by the manufacturer.

    As such, altering the design / operation contrary to the manufacturer's intent
    probably doesn't qualify as "repair".

    Why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? And, provided the tools/information
    to facilitate that?

    Imagine I discover making a particular change to the design -- something I've learned from the documentation that legislation made available to me -- will allow me to improve the performance of the product. Maybe making it
    behave exactly as an "upscale" offering from the same manufacturer. I
    now have the ability to deprive that manufacturer of those revenues
    simply by sharing my knowledge with their customers (maybe via one of
    their forums? Or, a 3rd party forum that caters to XYZ customers?)

    [Sure, this happens now -- but, the bar is higher because folks "tinkering" have less information to act on]

    Now we get into do you actually /own/ the vehicle? Or is there some form of lease like you were alluding to?

    If you /own/ the vehicle, then I think you have the right to do just about anything you want to, including altering it from the original manufacturer's intention. Possibly by disabling the ability to report traffic information.

    What if the product alters its behavior (or even refuses to operate) in
    the presence of that change -- intentionally or otherwise.

    I have several legitimate pieces of software that "stall" on startup...
    because they want to phone home to check for updates, "news", etc.
    Eventually, they will offer me the functionality that I purchased.
    But, I have to endure a long (in the PC user sense) delay to do so.
    Others want me to log into my "account".

    [The problem, of course, is that my machines aren't routed so those
    connections never materialize -- and the software is too stupid to
    demote them to "background" tasks]

    Some "friendly" applications make this clear prior to purchase.
    Or, provide hooks to minimize the impact of these behaviors (e.g.,
    "disable updates"). Others, not so much.

    Even if some other aspect of the vehicle stops working??

    If you completely own it, sure. If you don't completely own it, then things get murky really fast.

    But, do you *know* the limits of what you can do to the product while
    retaining its intended functionality? If you unplug the WAN from your
    WiFi router (not even part of your Alexa device), should you still
    expect it to be able to turn your lights on/off? (after all, the lighting controller talks to the router just like the Alexa device!). If your
    Nest thermostat can't talk to the outside world, can it still "learn"
    your HVAC needs/living habits? (a major selling point for the product)

    I own the product but, perhaps, not all of the things on which it relies.

    Legislation may "level the playing field" (between authorized repair centers >> and "others") -- but, at a level that is more costly to the end user than it >> is, presently! The authorized repair center won't care if they have to pay >> more for parts/services -- they will just be passing those costs on to the >> consumer, just like the *unauthorized* repair centers.

    I question the veracity of that statement and believe that it opens manufacturers up to class action lawsuits.

    How much do you think the US legislature is going to impose itself in "how businesses do business"? Businesses are constituents, too!

    So, the $1000 part with $200 of labor isn't much cheaper than the $1000 part >> from the "unauthorized service center" with the $50 *discounted* labor! Gee,
    look at how much better this is over that $600 repair, previously!

    One of the first things that the manufacturer will have to defend is why something that used to cost $600 now costs $1000. They had better have a VERY
    good explanation. Lest they be guilty of what is effectively price gouging.

    Sure! We no longer support repairs at that fine-grained level. Now, for manufacturing economies (which benefit the customer at time of sale), we
    just offer larger FRUs. These assemblies COST us more to produce.
    Hence the reason the repair (replace) costs so much more!

    Which legislator considers himself a qualified expert in manufacturing technology in THAT particular market to be able to argue that the choice
    of supported FRUs was the "right one"?

    Increasingly, manufacturers want to cling to customers AFTER the sale.
    Whether that is through repairs, services or "other" (e.g., upgrades).
    Weening them of this idea is likely going to be tough.

    The best way I've found / heard of to retain customers, is to provide them with
    value, even if it's only a perception.

    Exactly. And value comes in many forms. I "provide value" to clients by standing behind my work; they know that they will get what they've contracted for the agreed upon price/timeframe. And, that I'm not going to "string them along" with an endless stream of add-ons to keep the income stream in place.

    Other firms provide value by offering good "support" -- but only to legitimate customers. Or pricing (e.g., the IBM vs. DEC approach) Or, "superior products".

    Sadly, many companies do none of these things and treat their customers with disdain. And, keep throwing money at trying to get NEW customers (that haven't yet been f*cked)!

    I know many people that will pay a higher price for parts & service from a dealership if they feel value from and like they can trust the dealership.

    Do you write legislation so all Nest products *retain* their functionality >> even if Google abandons that market?

    Nope.

    You write legislation that 1) clearly explains that the hardware is dependent on a subscription service and 2 that said subscription service will be available for (at least) a specified amount of time (be it X number of months /
    years or until Y date).

    So, you know your purchase has a limited lifespan -- and you know what that limit likely is. How does that help you a day after that limit expires?
    Will there be an alternative product that offers you the same functionality, possibly from a different vendor?

    What if Google spins off that business unit and then kills it?

    Google has the right to do that as a business as long as it's beholden to the second clause above.

    Failure to do that falls back on traditional breach of contract problems and solutions.

    Think: breast implants.

    Should a manufacturer be required to fix a design flaw in a product -- even >> if it's "just software"? Should I be able to get software updates for every >> such appliance for N years after purchase?

    I have heard discussion about legislation for both of these very things.

    And you KNOW that the manufacturer will reflect those additional requirements in his updated pricing.

    When I take on a contract, I agree to fix "bugs" (deviations from *specified* behavior) for free, forever. I factor this into my initial price (fixed cost) and schedule (I want to be sure the finished product is REALLY "finished" and not going to distract me from my next undertaking, complicating that delivery).

    Manufacturers that don't update their pricing risk closing their doors.

    And, most consumers seem to just go along with these new policies without a >> whimper.
    "Want access to my personal data, for free? OK"
    "Want to *rent* me music? OK"
    "Want to peek at my credit score before disclosing it to me? OK"

    There is a derogatory term for this, "sheeple".

    There also various legal actions afoot related to this.

    But how many John Does do you know that are actually arguing for it?
    (not people you've read about but your friends, family, neighbors, etc.)
    By and large, they just "click to accept" and move on with their life.

    The classic role of The Market is a give-and-take between suppliers and
    consumers.

    Yes. I give you money and I take the product to do with it what I please.

    And you can, currently! You can hit it with a sledge hammer, burn it in
    a fire, systematically tear it down into smaller and smaller pieces, etc.
    You might not be able to "reverse engineer" it (whatever that means for THAT item) -- but, you KNEW THAT when you purchased the item. Arguing that you should be able to change the terms of the sale afterwards is disingenuous.

    "Oh, we've decided that the price of the item that you've already bought
    and paid for is now five times higher. Will you be paying with cash or check?"

    If the market's "price" is too high, you go elsewhere.

    Baring monopolistic complications, agreed.

    Ah, but there is obviously some desire to own *that* product -- despite all
    of these misgivings. Else farmers would be driving Kubotas!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Thu Feb 10 14:54:28 2022
    On 2/10/22 1:04 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    ** Sure - but did not MENTION that anywhere.

    Yes I did.

    As soon as you pointed out, I freely admitted and clarified in my reply
    to your comment.

    Farmers are a rare example of long time DIY repairers.

    I think there are other examples. But they are smaller groups.

    ** Well - even important differences will disappear if one *chooses*
    to not see them....

    Sure.

    But I did not /choose/ to not see a difference between DIYers and 3rd
    party repair personnel.

    I still don't see a difference between them with regard to this thread.

    Both DIYers and 3rd party repair personnel equally benefit from the 1st
    party manufacturer making parts / documentation / tools available to
    anyone outside of the manufacturer.

    If you believe there is a difference between how DIYers and 3rd party
    repair personnel benefit, please share it as I don't see it.

    What other things are you choosing to ignore ?

    I didn't /choose/ to ignore anything.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Thu Feb 10 14:10:11 2022
    Grant Taylor= Colossal LYING PEDANT wrote:
    ===============================
    Phil Allison wrote:

    ( replacing the OVER SNIP )

    ** You omit an important third player.

    The "non authorized" repair business whom Deere is trying to cancel.

    I'm lumping non-authorized repair businesses in with the owners / do it yourselers.

    ** Sure - but did not MENTION that anywhere.

    Yes I did.

    ** Blatant LIE.

    As soon as you pointed out,

    ** Now you are a time bandit and a lying fuckwit.


    Farmers are a rare example of long time DIY repairers.

    I think there are other examples. But they are smaller groups.

    ** Look up the word " rare " - fuckwit.

    ** Well - even important differences will disappear if one *chooses*
    to not see them....

    Sure.

    ** Genius...


    But I did not /choose/ to not see a difference between DIYers and 3rd
    party repair personnel.

    ** Blatant fucking LIE !!!

    I still don't see a difference between them with regard to this thread.

    ** So you are totally blind as well now.

    Both DIYers and 3rd party repair personnel equally benefit from the 1st
    party manufacturer making parts / documentation / tools available to
    anyone outside of the manufacturer.

    ** Nonsense.
    Read my first post to YOU again and again.

    If you believe there is a difference between how DIYers and 3rd party
    repair personnel benefit, please share it as I don't see it.

    ** One is a business, the other not.
    The former know how to do repairs correctly and safely - often better than fake " authorized" people.
    DIY types are often a menace.

    Just how fucking DUMB are you ?
    ===========================


    What other things are you choosing to ignore ?

    I didn't /choose/ to ignore anything.

    ** Look in the mirror - pal.
    See a GREAT BIG LIAR .



    ....... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Thu Feb 10 16:05:15 2022
    On 2/10/22 3:10 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
    ** One is a business, the other not.
    The former know how to do repairs correctly and safely - often better than fake " authorized" people.
    DIY types are often a menace.

    That does not describe how the business or the DIYers benefit any
    differently from the availability of parts / documentation / tools.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Don Y on Thu Feb 10 16:01:21 2022
    On 2/10/22 1:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
    Yeah, that's an admirable goal. But, I don't think it's gonna happen
    in a *real* way!

    What is stopping it?

    It would be nice if no child went hungry, but...

    I believe there are far more real logistical things preventing anyone
    from being hungry than there are preventing people from having access to
    parts / documentation / tools.

    Why limit the hunger question to just children?

    "Apply ALL of the more recent updates (hardware and software) to
    your product before applying this solution. They are available in
    our parts store at standard prices."

    I *rarely* apply updates to (software) products. Because its a huge nuisance. As a result, if I encounter a recognized problem that is
    solved at patch level 13, I have to debate if I want to apply all
    of the patches between "my current" and "13", just to get a fix for
    that problem.

    Yes.

    And, any *consequences* of those patches are now mine to endure.

    Yes.

    [I had to replace the power inlet on a friend's laptop. The
    manufacturer had made a change to the (aluminum) case casting in the
    time since his purchase. So, the new inlet wouldn't mechanically fit.
    I was forced to grind away the excess aluminum to make accommodations
    for the inlet. A better strategy may have been to just leave a wire
    dangling out the ass end of the laptop!]

    I believe you used the wrong part (new design) for your friend's old laptop.

    If you had access to the proper part (old design) you would have not
    needed to choose between modifying the case or leave a wire hanging out.

    I also chose to modify the case when I last ran into this problem. But
    I chose to buy a part from the local electronics store vs deal with the manufacturer.

    So, he has to partition his organization (physically and virtually)
    so there are distinct cost centers and documentable information flows
    to which legislation could be applied.

    I trust that we both know that most organizations that fall into the
    scope of this discussion already have the partitioning that you're
    talking about.

    The tech from "service" can't chat with the design engineer over
    the lunch-room table because DIYers wouldn't have that same level
    of access. Instead, the tech will have to submit his question through
    the "portal" where it could be processed along with DIYer questions.

    What part about parts / documentation / tools are conflating?

    That does not preclude the friends that work in different departments
    from talking.

    If the technician can't do her job based on the documentation and needs clarification, well, that's an indication that the company needs better documentation.

    I trust that we both know that the parts / documentation / tools are
    restricted for outsiders and that's a much larger problem than friends
    talking over lunch.

    What if they don't want to be in the consulting business?

    Then they don't have to be.

    Have a look at most "user manuals" under "troubleshooting". Notice how
    often they refer to "factory" as remedy for certain problems.

    I trust that we both know that "user manuals" are a crock when it comes
    to repairing things. There are almost always other manuals / documents
    that that are far better for repairs.

    Do you think they mean "Call us up and we'll put an engineer on the
    phone to troubleshoot your problem"?

    I'm well aware that it's a ploy for the company to not write better documentation and / or gimmick to drive service to the manufacturer.

    To the *user*, it may! Now, he can't buy *just* that defective part. Instead, he has to buy the smallest/cheapest FRU that *contains*
    that part!

    That's the way that it is today, has been for a long time, and likely
    will be for the foreseeable future.

    At least from the manufacturer. There are often other sources for many,
    but not all, parts.

    "Sure, we'll sell you a new engine!"

    But you're also claiming that the manufacturer can fill two *distinct*
    roles. And, that different rules should apply to each role, even if
    under the same roof and by the same staff.

    Sure.

    $ComputerVendor has engineers that design the computer and technicians
    that service the computer. They are two very distinct departments / individuals / pay structures / etc. They may or may not be under the
    same roof, possibly depending on the size of the manufacturer.

    See the comment above about the already established partitions.

    Yes, and turn-around time -- and price -- will be determined by
    the amount of business you do with the firm. "Sorry, there are
    many higher-priority service requests ahead of you in the queue.
    Those customers represent greater value to us than your 'one-off' transaction".

    Yes.

    Or, do you legislate equality in pricing, turn-around time, etc.?

    No.

    See my previous comments around "volume discounts".

    And, NOT expect the manufacturer to reflect this requirement somewhere
    in its pricing/service structure?

    My entire premise has been that parts / documentation / tools are
    available. Their availability is effectively independent of the price assigned.

    It's a matter of degree. A $600 sensor repair can turn into a $1000
    sensor repair. You're "whole" after each repair. But, considerably
    poorer in the second case. "We no longer sell the bare sensor as
    an FRU..."

    Then the authorized technician, the 3rd party technician, and the DIYer
    are all subject to the same change.

    [We have a *small* convection/toaster oven that will be needing new
    heating elements, soon. Replacement parts are nowhere to be found.
    So, buy a new oven (the small size being the tough criteria to meet)
    or hope to find an identical one "in decent shape" at a thrift store.
    In either case, the "cost" to me (time + money) is considerably
    higher.]

    I fail to see any difference between you (the DIYer), a 3rd party
    technician, or a 1st party authorized technician. Part unavailability
    is equal.

    If so, never materialized. The purpose of the ASIC was to discourage counterfeiters (while adding functionality). As you can't stop a counterfeiter from buying whole *games*, you can offer to sell him
    just the chip -- for the price of a game!

    Of course, if it is a genuine *repair*, you'll have returned the
    *defective* ASIC and we can credit you $1980 on the replacement part's
    price (because we WANT to be friendly to our legitimate customers --
    and, because the ASICs won't fail! Encounter many "bad CPUs" over
    the years?)

    That sounds like a huge core charge to me. But I understand the
    motivation behind it.

    Yes, I've encountered a handful of bad CPUs.

    So, a $5K license ends up costing us hundreds of kilobucks to redesign
    the product to use their *new* offering.

    Probably.

    Wanna bet that will similarly be obsolescent?

    That's a chance you take any time you depend on an external supplier.

    (What reason to refuse to offer something that only *costs* you a
    sheet of paper -- license -- to sell?)

    It cost them more than the sheet of paper. it cost them closer to
    $4,999 to refuse to sell it. As in lost profit.

    Apple clearly has decided that "repairs" aren't worth the trouble to
    defend that practice. They're sitting pretty with retail sales. And,
    can charge outrageous amounts for repair parts (iPhone 12 screen is
    $250!) because they are the sole source -- and folks would obviously
    WANT "genuine Apple"!

    I don't know the MSRP of an iPhone 12 as a unit. But I'm guessing
    around $1k. (I've seen higher and lower over the years. It's
    convenient.) So a large, exposed part of the overall unit costing
    (roughly) a quarter of the price doesn't seem that bad. Despite
    personally disliking it.

    Nothing to say that they can't have an alternative in store *if*
    that plan fails. It's *their* product. Maybe they churn their
    offerings so, after a few years, there are no common parts currently in production for ~10 year old tractors. Or, those that are available
    are stocked in a warehouse with a staff of 5 that takes weeks to
    locate and deliver items from "old stock".

    Shady business practices.

    Agreed, but life is too short for me to fret over the realities.
    Instead, I figure out how to get what *I* want at a cost that I'm
    willing to pay. If the cost is too high, then I resign myself to
    living without!

    That's your choice.

    Not everyone makes the same choice.

    I like a certain type of "biscuit" that I know to be sold in
    northern massachusetts. It is impractical for me to import them
    in sufficient quantity -- 20 pounds cost $20 and $29 for shipping.
    That's probably two weeks worth. (purchasing in larger quantities --
    to lower effective shipping costs) would pose a problem with freshness
    and, likely, damage in transit.

    So, my options are: - buy as above - find a closer/cheaper source -
    make my own

    I've decided that make my own is the only long term solution that
    makes sense.

    That's probably where I'd end up too.

    Of course, the bakery isn't going to tell me how to make their product!

    Sounds like a learning opportunity via trial and error.

    A local source makes a similar product with an entirely "wrong" (for
    my palate) taste/texture. And, similarly refuses to share their Rx.
    Given that I'm NOT going to purchase their product (because the
    taste/texture is "wrong"), wouldn't you think they would be willing
    to share their secret?

    It sounds like the only value in the wrong product's IP is what to not do.

    OTOH, I *never* give out my Rxs. I give out *approximations* that
    will allow folks who are interested in the item to INVEST THEIR TIME to
    come up with a good version. But, you can *watch* me make an item and
    still never be able to reproduce it. (that's intentional, on my part!)

    I am willing to experiment with developing my own Rx (I've a great
    track record, in taht respect), but the minimum batch size is
    ~5 pounds. That's a lot of "mistakes" to consume -- or foodstuffs
    to discard!

    I question the veracity of that statement.

    Though perhaps it's related to sub-units. You can use 1/3 of an egg,
    but storing the other 2/3 is problematic and only lasts for a short
    while. Thus the entire egg is effectively consumed.

    But these aren't monopolistic products. Other folks manufacture
    tractors. Other folks manufacture cell phones. etc. The manufacturers aren't doing anything to prevent competition; rather they are just
    offering a product that exceeds the value of other products.

    That's one opinion.

    You've never bought something from a vendor in china?

    Purchased, yes. Had something serviced by a company out of China that
    doesn't have a point of presence in the U.S.A., no.

    The things that I'm buying aren't subject to needing service.

    I'm looking to buy some pillows from a Japanese firm. *No one*
    sells them in the US. Does that mean I can't acquire more of them?

    Not at all.

    That's naive to the point of laughter.

    So laugh away.

    *My* opinion is that things shouldn't break so "repair" isn't an issue!
    (you are free to start laughing, now)

    There's things genuinely breaking and then there's planned obsolescence.
    The latter is a bad thing in my opinion.

    So, chinese manufacturer who just tends to hire chinese-americans
    to work in *their* repair centers can legally leave all of their documentation in chinese? And, provide exactly this documentation
    to their DIYer customers?

    I'm okay with that.

    How long before folks start whining that the documentation isn't
    in English?

    About 10 seconds after they see the documentation.

    Do we need further legislation to address THAT issue (because it
    is a practical impediment to their repair activities)?

    No.

    Ditto any software tools that are used -- must the software developer
    arrange all of the strings and other "resources" in some easily
    locatable manner so they can *all* be found and translated by some
    third party (hired by the DIYer group)?

    No.

    "Gee, I've never seen THIS screen, before! Anyone know what it says?"
    (days later) "Yes, it says your catalytic converter is overheating
    and must be shut down immediately to avoid damage to the vehicle!"

    Usually there are warning lights that behave in a certain way when there
    is imminent danger of damage. And there is usually documentation in the
    native language that says "If you see this, do this, and go to the
    dealership."

    When you do more research, have a friend of a friend translate the documentation /long/ /after/ you have shut the car off.

    Ooops!

    I offer these as examples of how manufacturers can skirt legislation.

    No, they aren't examples of how they can skirt legislation.

    You've not yet said anything that I think runs afoul of what I'm advocating.

    AT&T didn't *make* anything. And, AFAICT, Western Electric's sole
    customer was AT&T. Yet, "your phone" (*owned* by AT&T; they just let
    you *use* it!) came from AT&T and that's who you contact in case of
    a problem.

    I'd have to go back and check things, but I believe that Western
    Electric was the manufacturing division of AT&T. Or that's how they
    started before spinning out on their own and renaming.

    W.E. was always under the AT&T umbrella.

    Why? Do you really think Alexa speakers are "repaired"? Maybe in some third-world country but US labor rates wouldn't make that profitable.
    Discard and write-off.

    The practicality of doing the repair is independent of having the parts
    / documentation / tools to do so.

    If folks notice a high percentage of similar failures, they will likely consult a manufacturing/support engineer to look further into it.
    That person (resource) will have access to design materials that
    aren't available to "technicians" and can decide if a design change
    is warranted.

    That's what I call a "manufacturing defect". Something which I expect
    that even authorized technicians don't have access to data.

    DIYer would have to make that determination on his own -- based on his "capabilitites".

    Yes.

    So, we subject our techs to an 18 month training program. There are
    no "manuals", just "know how" acquired from that course. We'll make
    that course available to you end users. It is held in Podunk, Iowa,
    starting every December. The cost for tuition (which we bear for
    our employees) is $35,000.

    I don't like the price, but that is in the spirit of what I've been
    saying; parts / documentation / tool. Actually, what you're offering is /better/ than what I've been saying.

    "Hey, we're spending a lot on training our employees! Why don't we
    *buy* the company that we've hired to do our training? 'Outsiders'
    can still pay for the course. Employees will just be handled by
    transfering the tuition on a balance sheet between subsidiaries"

    Sure. Why not?

    If the data is being provided to a server that *they* exclusively
    control, then are the privacy concerns any greater than the vehicle
    reporting my usage so they can tell me when service is due?

    Yes, I believe there are larger privacy concerns that you have not
    spoken to. PII and profiling come to mind. Combined with security
    breaches and the likes.

    You didn't tell me I was going to be "working for you" in the purchase agreement. I *may* be willing to work for you -- if properly
    compensated. I want to be able to prevent you from STEALING my
    services in the event that we don't come to an agreement.

    That falls nicely into the privacy concerns.

    What recourse do I have if something goes wrong? How long will I be
    without the use of the vehicle? How much will the "repair" cost?

    I don't know.

    Try it and find out.

    Or continue to wonder.

    [My curiosity doesn't rise to that level of potential consequences]

    That seems like a reasonable choice.

    But it /is/ a choice that you have made.

    Why shouldn't I be allowed to do so? And, provided the
    tools/information to facilitate that?

    As the owner (not leased / rented / etc) I believe you do have the right
    to do so.

    You should also have the parts / documentation / tools that are
    available as a basis for your starting point.

    Imagine I discover making a particular change to the design --
    something I've learned from the documentation that legislation made
    available to me -- will allow me to improve the performance of the
    product.

    I consider that to be a real possibility, if not actually somewhat likely.

    Maybe making it behave exactly as an "upscale" offering from the same manufacturer. I now have the ability to deprive that manufacturer of
    those revenues simply by sharing my knowledge with their customers
    (maybe via one of their forums? Or, a 3rd party forum that caters
    to XYZ customers?)

    Yep.

    Though I'd suggest avoiding their forums.

    Without any form of license or N.D.A. I don't see any grounds they have
    for stopping you.

    [Sure, this happens now -- but, the bar is higher because folks
    "tinkering" have less information to act on]

    Yes.

    What if the product alters its behavior (or even refuses to operate)
    in the presence of that change -- intentionally or otherwise.

    That is a possibility.

    I doubt that you would consider it a success and share it wildly. I
    suspect that even fewer people would make the same change.

    I have several legitimate pieces of software that "stall" on startup... because they want to phone home to check for updates, "news", etc. Eventually, they will offer me the functionality that I purchased.
    But, I have to endure a long (in the PC user sense) delay to do so.
    Others want me to log into my "account".

    Yes.

    [The problem, of course, is that my machines aren't routed so those connections never materialize -- and the software is too stupid to
    demote them to "background" tasks]

    Yep. I've dealt with similar.

    Some "friendly" applications make this clear prior to purchase.
    Or, provide hooks to minimize the impact of these behaviors (e.g.,
    "disable updates"). Others, not so much.

    But, do you *know* the limits of what you can do to the product while retaining its intended functionality? If you unplug the WAN from
    your WiFi router (not even part of your Alexa device), should you
    still expect it to be able to turn your lights on/off? (after all, the lighting controller talks to the router just like the Alexa device!).
    If your Nest thermostat can't talk to the outside world, can it still
    "learn" your HVAC needs/living habits? (a major selling point for
    the product)

    I'm not going to start on another rant.

    TL;DR: I suspect we agree about these things.

    I own the product but, perhaps, not all of the things on which
    it relies.

    How much do you think the US legislature is going to impose itself in
    "how businesses do business"? Businesses are constituents, too!

    Both not enough in some ways, and too much in other ways.

    Sure! We no longer support repairs at that fine-grained level. Now,
    for manufacturing economies (which benefit the customer at time of
    sale), we just offer larger FRUs. These assemblies COST us more
    to produce. Hence the reason the repair (replace) costs so much more!

    That /may/ stand up to some scrutiny. But I suspect it would fall over
    with deep enough scrutiny and discovery.

    Which legislator considers himself a qualified expert in manufacturing technology in THAT particular market to be able to argue that the
    choice of supported FRUs was the "right one"?

    I doubt that any legislator does. That's what professionals and
    industry experts on the payroll are for.

    So, you know your purchase has a limited lifespan -- and you know
    what that limit likely is. How does that help you a day after that
    limit expires?

    It doesn't help me any more than complaining after I run out of gas /
    battery charge.

    Will there be an alternative product that offers you the same
    functionality, possibly from a different vendor?

    Unknown.

    Think: breast implants.

    And you KNOW that the manufacturer will reflect those additional
    requirements in his updated pricing.

    I would expect nothing less.

    When I take on a contract, I agree to fix "bugs" (deviations from
    *specified* behavior) for free, forever. I factor this into my
    initial price (fixed cost) and schedule (I want to be sure the
    finished product is REALLY "finished" and not going to distract me
    from my next undertaking, complicating that delivery).

    As well you should.

    Manufacturers that don't update their pricing risk closing their doors.

    Yes.

    But how many John Does do you know that are actually arguing for it?
    (not people you've read about but your friends, family, neighbors,
    etc.) By and large, they just "click to accept" and move on with
    their life.

    My circle of friends has a disproportionate number of people that are
    aware of this issue.

    I know what you mean.

    And you can, currently! You can hit it with a sledge hammer, burn
    it in a fire, systematically tear it down into smaller and smaller
    pieces, etc. You might not be able to "reverse engineer" it (whatever
    that means for THAT item) -- but, you KNEW THAT when you purchased
    the item. Arguing that you should be able to change the terms of
    the sale afterwards is disingenuous.

    I'm not sure where changing the terms of the sale came into play.

    "Oh, we've decided that the price of the item that you've already
    bought and paid for is now five times higher. Will you be paying
    with cash or check?"

    The price of any /new/ or /additional/ items may be higher. But I've
    already paid for the item outright and will continue using it as is per
    the previously agreed contract.

    Ah, but there is obviously some desire to own *that* product -- despite
    all of these misgivings. Else farmers would be driving Kubotas!

    I'd do well to differentiate the different makes myself. But from what
    friends in the business tell me, there are distinct advantages of some
    brands over other brands. Many of which are related to capabilities
    related to automation and / or integration / product line compatibility.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to CUNTHEAD on Thu Feb 10 15:14:54 2022
    Grant Taylor = Prize CUNTHEAD wrote:
    =============================

    ** One is a business, the other not.
    The former know how to do repairs correctly and safely - often better than fake " authorized" people.
    DIY types are often a menace.

    That does not describe how the business or the DIYers benefit any
    differently from the availability of parts / documentation / tools.


    ** You are dumb as dog shit !!!

    Get off the NG and STAY OFF !!!

    Bullshitting RETARDS not welcome.
    =============================



    ..... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Grant Taylor on Sat Feb 12 00:07:06 2022
    [Most elided as we're just repeating the same arguments. As
    *consumers* we'd love to see EVERYTHING "repairable" -- and inexpensively/easily so! As designers/manufacturers, I (for
    one) am not really sure I'd favor that level of support as
    it would complicate my design/manufacturing process in ways
    that I'd like NOT to have to think about. You seem to think
    legislation will "fix" this problem; I'm far more cynical...
    I suspect it will just cause vendors to make subtle changes
    to their existing practices to "come into compliance" and
    STILL leave the customer shafted]

    On 2/10/2022 4:01 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
    On 2/10/22 1:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
    Yeah, that's an admirable goal. But, I don't think it's gonna happen in a >> *real* way!

    What is stopping it?

    Monied interests on the other side of the issue.

    [I had to replace the power inlet on a friend's laptop. The manufacturer had
    made a change to the (aluminum) case casting in the time since his purchase. >> So, the new inlet wouldn't mechanically fit. I was forced to grind away the >> excess aluminum to make accommodations for the inlet. A better strategy may >> have been to just leave a wire dangling out the ass end of the laptop!]

    I believe you used the wrong part (new design) for your friend's old laptop.

    The part -- the only one available from the manufacturer -- isn't a COTS connector. Rather, it has a bracket built-into its design so it can be fastened to a boss in the case with a regular *screw*.
    So, he has to partition his organization (physically and virtually) so there >> are distinct cost centers and documentable information flows to which
    legislation could be applied.

    I trust that we both know that most organizations that fall into the scope of this discussion already have the partitioning that you're talking about.

    Possibly *larger* organizations. But, I've seen many smaller ones (< $100M) that don't have established "service personnel". Often, a technician who
    is responsible for *building* a device will end up being sent off to
    *service* a device. The bean counters may treat his wages/expenses
    differently but his role in the organization isn't one of "service".

    Have a look at most "user manuals" under "troubleshooting". Notice how often
    they refer to "factory" as remedy for certain problems.

    I trust that we both know that "user manuals" are a crock when it comes to repairing things. There are almost always other manuals / documents that that
    are far better for repairs.

    Please locate a service manual for my permobil color joystick module ($1200). Or, Nest thermostat/camera (~$250). Or, any of my TVs.

    Do we exempt products that cost less than ~$2000 from any such legislation?

    Do you think they mean "Call us up and we'll put an engineer on the phone to >> troubleshoot your problem"?

    I'm well aware that it's a ploy for the company to not write better documentation and / or gimmick to drive service to the manufacturer.

    Now *you* are being too cynical! Documentation is expensive. People
    don't produce it unless they *have* to. That's at all levels of
    the organization, not just "service".

    So, a $5K license ends up costing us hundreds of kilobucks to redesign the >> product to use their *new* offering.

    Probably.

    Wanna bet that will similarly be obsolescent?

    That's a chance you take any time you depend on an external supplier.

    How is that any different from buying from a vendor? How often is the firmware in your TV updated?

    Apple clearly has decided that "repairs" aren't worth the trouble to defend >> that practice. They're sitting pretty with retail sales. And, can charge >> outrageous amounts for repair parts (iPhone 12 screen is $250!) because they >> are the sole source -- and folks would obviously WANT "genuine Apple"!

    I don't know the MSRP of an iPhone 12 as a unit. But I'm guessing around $1k.
    (I've seen higher and lower over the years. It's convenient.) So a large, exposed part of the overall unit costing (roughly) a quarter of the price doesn't seem that bad. Despite personally disliking it.

    So, for a $100K tractor, $25K would be a "reasonable" repair cost?
    Why fret over a $600 sensor? Surely the loss of a day's *use* of
    a tractor would be more than that!

    Nothing to say that they can't have an alternative in store *if* that plan >> fails. It's *their* product. Maybe they churn their offerings so, after a >> few years, there are no common parts currently in production for ~10 year old
    tractors. Or, those that are available are stocked in a warehouse with a
    staff of 5 that takes weeks to locate and deliver items from "old stock".

    Shady business practices.

    Shady is not illegal. Amazon tries to get me to pay for shipping on
    each purchase (not a prime member) -- despite qualifying for free
    shipping based on dollar amount.

    And, lays out their pages so an unwary consumer will adopt the
    "Prime Trial" without realizing it.

    Nothing illegal about any of this.

    Agreed, but life is too short for me to fret over the realities. Instead, I >> figure out how to get what *I* want at a cost that I'm willing to pay. If >> the cost is too high, then I resign myself to living without!

    That's your choice.

    Not everyone makes the same choice.

    Of course they do! It's just the dollar amounts that vary.

    I'm sure many folks would love to drive Lamborghinis. But, have resigned themselves to "living without". OTOH, have no problem forking out for
    a Mercedes when a Lexus is probably of comparable quality/prestige.
    They're willing to pay the premium in that case, instead of "living without".

    A local source makes a similar product with an entirely "wrong" (for my
    palate) taste/texture. And, similarly refuses to share their Rx. Given that >> I'm NOT going to purchase their product (because the taste/texture is
    "wrong"), wouldn't you think they would be willing to share their secret?

    It sounds like the only value in the wrong product's IP is what to not do.

    But I don't know what those mistakes are (other than size of portion)
    without access to their Rx.

    OTOH, I *never* give out my Rxs. I give out *approximations* that will allow
    folks who are interested in the item to INVEST THEIR TIME to come up with a >> good version. But, you can *watch* me make an item and still never be able >> to reproduce it. (that's intentional, on my part!)

    I am willing to experiment with developing my own Rx (I've a great track
    record, in taht respect), but the minimum batch size is ~5 pounds. That's a >> lot of "mistakes" to consume -- or foodstuffs to discard!

    I question the veracity of that statement.

    Though perhaps it's related to sub-units. You can use 1/3 of an egg, but storing the other 2/3 is problematic and only lasts for a short while. Thus the entire egg is effectively consumed.

    Rxs are typically far more "sensitive" to scaling than just that.

    Try making *one* brownie. Even if you can scale down the ingredients, you're still stuck with actually *baking* it! Perhaps in a muffin pan? Ah, but then the sides are sloped, the brownie is round and there is too great a proportion of (hard/crunchy) "edges" to (soft/gooey) "center".

    I could scale down the Rx for the biscotti that I make for SWMBO every week
    or two. So, instead of a "dash and a pinch" of salt, I should use a
    "pinch and a smidgen"?

    If I resort to a single egg in a (scaled) Rx, then the ACTUAL size (volume)
    of that egg becomes a source of variability in the resulting product.
    (As Spehro would say, "There's no such thing as a 'Large Egg'")

    The "local vendor" makes biscuits that are roughly the same volume as
    my index finger. In addition to being "single mouthfuls", they are
    also very hard/crunchy. The version I eat is considerably larger:
    3 inches wide, 2 inches thick and ~7 inches long. As a result, the
    texture is completely different. It holds a lot more liquid when
    dunked in a glass of milk (I don't drink coffee). And, is much softer
    (melt in your mouth).

    [Imagine if Oreo cookies were the size of M&M's... how would that
    experience change?]

    A 10 pound "box" (you know the sort of yellow/orange boxes that bakeries typically use) might hold 15 biscuits. So, 5 pounds would give me ~7.
    Maybe three breakfasts to make up my mind as to how I need to tweek
    the Rx for the next iteration.

    *My* opinion is that things shouldn't break so "repair" isn't an issue! (you >> are free to start laughing, now)

    There's things genuinely breaking and then there's planned obsolescence. The latter is a bad thing in my opinion.

    I don't think there is an active *planning* of obsolescence in most products. In fact, I think many product lines have gone to great lengths to "protect
    the customer's investment".

    VCRs evolved from Stereo to HiFi to SVHS -- over the course of ~20 years!
    Your "early model" could still play tapes produced 10 or more years later, albeit without the features that were targeted to newer models.

    Laser video discs -- and then DVDs -- replaced VCRs when it became apparent that PLAYING was more important to most users than RECORDING. And, the
    change in format came with improvements in video quality (beyond SVHS).

    The same sort of evolution has occurred with audio. Each new technology
    offers advantages over the predecessors (I'd really hate trying to
    spin vinyl in an automobile! And, it's so much more convenient to
    have my music catalog available on a variety of "players" that are
    appropriate for different usage requirements.

    [The fact that sheeple are willing to RENT music is a problem in the
    consumer's head, not the vendor's!]

    I offer these as examples of how manufacturers can skirt legislation.

    No, they aren't examples of how they can skirt legislation.

    You've not yet said anything that I think runs afoul of what I'm advocating.

    You haven't put into legal terms what the requirements to be imposed on
    vendors will be. If you claim, "Anything that a tech has access to should
    be accessible to EVERYONE", then I've outlined ways that I can still screw
    you without running afoul of that language: "We treat FRUs as disposable.
    When they are returned to the factory, we sell them to a recycler for
    SCRAP VALUE -- and gladly sell you a brand new unit at (inflated) price!"

    Now, do you want legislation to set price controls on vendors? Do I get
    to lobby for price controls on what (subsidized!) farmers can charge for
    food? Maybe appoint a commission to review pricing every 6 months and
    tell the farmers what they'll be able to charge in the upcoming 6 month
    period?

    Yay! Hooray for the consumer! We'll get a "planned economy" after all!
    (we've seen how well THOSE work)

    Maybe making it behave exactly as an "upscale" offering from the same
    manufacturer. I now have the ability to deprive that manufacturer of those >> revenues simply by sharing my knowledge with their customers (maybe via one >> of their forums? Or, a 3rd party forum that caters to XYZ customers?)

    Yep.

    Though I'd suggest avoiding their forums.

    Without any form of license or N.D.A. I don't see any grounds they have for stopping you.

    Increasingly, products carry license clauses. So, violating them (e.g., by reverse engineering) can't put the genie back in the bottle... but, it
    can put the guy who let it out into jail ("We have incurred damages amounting to $X as a result of Defendant's violation of our license agreement -- and
    seek damages equal to that amount from Defendant.")

    What if the product alters its behavior (or even refuses to operate) in the >> presence of that change -- intentionally or otherwise.

    That is a possibility.

    I doubt that you would consider it a success and share it wildly. I suspect that even fewer people would make the same change.

    I rely on these sorts of things to safeguard my designs from illegal copying.
    A user bitten by this practice can choose to keep silent about it. But, that just means other users will eventually be bitten by it, as well.

    OTOH, if he shares his experience, it keeps those users from wasting their efforts "bricking" their devices (or, purchasing counterfeits).

    I own the product but, perhaps, not all of the things on which it relies.

    How much do you think the US legislature is going to impose itself in "how >> businesses do business"? Businesses are constituents, too!

    Both not enough in some ways, and too much in other ways.

    If pushed, they will "tinker" with the law. Vendors will respond with
    changes in their policies -- which may be in favor of customers or against. And, having acted, the pols will consider the matter "addressed". I.e.,
    if you don't like the solution, tough.

    Sure! We no longer support repairs at that fine-grained level. Now, for
    manufacturing economies (which benefit the customer at time of sale), we just
    offer larger FRUs. These assemblies COST us more to produce. Hence the
    reason the repair (replace) costs so much more!

    That /may/ stand up to some scrutiny. But I suspect it would fall over with deep enough scrutiny and discovery.

    Again, are you going to legislate what FRUs a vendor must make available?

    "Gee, I wasn't planning on having to separate X from Y. If I *must* be
    able to do so -- to lower the repair cost to JUST that of X *or* Y -- then
    I'll have to add some sort of connector/linkage to the fabrication.
    So, X' + Y' now costs more than (X + Y) used to. Sorry, but the law REQUIRED me to make those assemblies less expensive..."

    Which legislator considers himself a qualified expert in manufacturing
    technology in THAT particular market to be able to argue that the choice of >> supported FRUs was the "right one"?

    I doubt that any legislator does. That's what professionals and industry experts on the payroll are for.

    They are called lobbyists. They are not unbiased.

    But how many John Does do you know that are actually arguing for it? (not
    people you've read about but your friends, family, neighbors, etc.) By and >> large, they just "click to accept" and move on with their life.

    My circle of friends has a disproportionate number of people that are aware of
    this issue.

    I know what you mean.

    There are simply too many sheeple in the mix. I vigorously preach to my friends and neighbors about recycling, repair, reuse, (repurpose), etc.
    But, it's far easier for them to simply "discard and repurchase".

    I've tried appealing to them on the impact to their offspring/grandkids... <shrug> People are lazy and look for expedients.

    In the past, I would personally try to take up some of this slack -- diverting their discards, repairing and then redistributing to someone else in need.
    But, this is like mowing the lawn -- when there's a guy two steps in front of you laying down fertilizer! I.e., not something I'd want to make a career
    of doing (f*ck 'em... let their grandkids gripe about the excesses of their grandparents!)

    And you can, currently! You can hit it with a sledge hammer, burn it in a >> fire, systematically tear it down into smaller and smaller pieces, etc. You >> might not be able to "reverse engineer" it (whatever that means for THAT
    item) -- but, you KNEW THAT when you purchased the item. Arguing that you >> should be able to change the terms of the sale afterwards is disingenuous.

    I'm not sure where changing the terms of the sale came into play.

    "Oh, we've decided that the price of the item that you've already bought and >> paid for is now five times higher. Will you be paying with cash or check?"

    The price of any /new/ or /additional/ items may be higher. But I've already paid for the item outright and will continue using it as is per the previously
    agreed contract.

    But, you want to be able to change the terms of access to repair materials AFTER you made the purchase! How about you can get those materials for your NEXT purchase, but not for the purchase you already made? Oh, and, by the way, we're changing the design of the product so anything you learn from those
    new materials won't be applicable to your old product (which we sold to you
    on the assumption that we had an established repair policy in place).


    Ah, but there is obviously some desire to own *that* product -- despite all >> of these misgivings. Else farmers would be driving Kubotas!

    I'd do well to differentiate the different makes myself. But from what friends
    in the business tell me, there are distinct advantages of some brands over other brands. Many of which are related to capabilities related to automation
    and / or integration / product line compatibility.

    A vendor offering a superior product sets his terms in his favor -- to the extent that the market will bear. Folks offering inferior products have
    to sweeten the pie to entice customers to accept their "lesser" product.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dean Hoffman@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 10 15:03:07 2022
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair. <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>
    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would've had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to dean...@gmail.com on Tue May 10 17:29:24 2022
    On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-4, dean...@gmail.com wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair. <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>
    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would've had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>

    The photo is just a photo. Like when articles would run about the, then new, model 3, it would often be accompanied by a model S photo.

    I read most of the article and can verify it is accurate. The power of corporations is clear in this matter. While some traction has been gained by the Right to Repair movement, companies like Apple find ways to make life difficult for third party
    repair in spite of following the new rules. John Deere is well known for their actions to force every farmer to pay them for every repair, even when they can't send anyone because it's planting season and there are lots of broken tractors, a time when
    it is most important to get the machine running again.

    I was not aware they have such power because they have become effectively a monopoly. There used to be any number of manufacturers. But I guess it's like the auto industry, you have to be pretty big to remain in business. I'm expecting the conversion
    to BEVs to be the death of a number of auto makers, such as whatever the Chrysler/Fiat company is called now. The head of the US arm has essentially said this effort, done rapidly, will put them in the ground. But the US will still have three
    automakers. Lose Chrysler, add Tesla.

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Dean Hoffman on Wed May 11 11:26:22 2022
    On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair. <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>
    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would've had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>

    Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you
    need to agree to the terms and conditions.

    Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
    software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

    The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
    copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence
    required.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Tue May 10 19:37:04 2022
    On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:26:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair.

    Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you
    need to agree to the terms and conditions.

    Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
    software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

    Yeah, but if the software is only ever worked by the manufacturer's employees...

    <https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/robot-garage-hijacks-cars.html>

    the court battle can last a while...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Tue May 10 20:40:30 2022
    On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from
    Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair.
    <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>

    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the
    picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would've had points and >> a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.

    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>


    Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you need to agree to the terms and conditions.

    Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs software in
    your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

    It's an authorized *license*. It doesn't give you any more rights
    than a "separately purchased" license would afford. You don't
    for example, "own" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
    exists in your gear.

    You don't, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it,
    modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

    Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
    (the software) if you think "it's yours".

    The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further copies as
    are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence required.

    Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

    Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don't agree
    with the terms of the (implied) license. Or, if the license terms
    were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

    I.e., you can't claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms
    without your consent.

    If you don't like John Deere's terms, buy a Kubota tractor! (if it isn't
    as *good*, <shrug>, that's not John Deere's fault!)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed May 11 14:34:58 2022
    On 11-May-22 1:40 pm, Don Y wrote:
    On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from
    Ukraine.  John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors
    remotely.
        It also has some stuff about right to repair.
    <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>

        I don't have any idea if much of this is true.  The tractor in
    the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960.  That thing would've had
    points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used
    magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>


    Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use
    the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that
    you need to agree to the terms and conditions.

    Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
    software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence
    required.

    It's an authorized *license*.  It doesn't give you any more rights
    than a "separately purchased" license would afford.  You don't
    for example, "own" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
    exists in your gear.

    You don't, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it,
    modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

    Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
    (the software) if you think "it's yours".

    The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
    copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence
    required.

    Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

    Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don't agree
    with the terms of the (implied) license.  Or, if the license terms
    were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

    I.e., you can't claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms without your consent.

    If you don't like John Deere's terms, buy a Kubota tractor!  (if it isn't
    as *good*, <shrug>, that's not John Deere's fault!)


    The starting point for a discussion about licences for computer programs
    is not what the terms of the licence are, but whether a licence is
    required at all.

    It seems a pervasive notion that use of a computer program requires a
    licence. But a licence is only required if the use of the program would otherwise be a breach of copyright.

    Usually, the way a computer program ends up in a computer is by the
    owner of the computer copying it from a distribution medium or by
    downloading (involves copying) over the Internet. Absent a licence, that copying will be a breach of copyright.

    But if the computer program is an integral part of the machine on which
    it is installed, and the installation was done by, or with the authority
    of, the owner of the copyright, then the purchaser of the machine has
    not done any copying, and consequently did not need a licence.

    They do not need a licence to use the software, because of (a)(1) in

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Tue May 10 22:36:25 2022
    On 5/10/2022 9:34 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 1:40 pm, Don Y wrote:
    On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from
    Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely. >>>> It also has some stuff about right to repair.
    <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>

    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the >>>> picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would've had points >>>> and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>


    Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the
    software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you need to
    agree to the terms and conditions.

    Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs software
    in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

    It's an authorized *license*. It doesn't give you any more rights
    than a "separately purchased" license would afford. You don't
    for example, "own" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
    exists in your gear.

    You don't, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it,
    modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

    Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
    (the software) if you think "it's yours".

    The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further copies >>> as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence required.

    Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

    Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don't agree
    with the terms of the (implied) license. Or, if the license terms
    were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

    I.e., you can't claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms
    without your consent.

    If you don't like John Deere's terms, buy a Kubota tractor! (if it isn't
    as *good*, <shrug>, that's not John Deere's fault!)

    The starting point for a discussion about licences for computer programs is not
    what the terms of the licence are, but whether a licence is required at all.

    You can't acquire software without (some) accompanying license. The license imposes constraints on how the licensor is willing to let you use *his* software (and it will forever be "his" until he transfers ownership to
    another party).

    It seems a pervasive notion that use of a computer program requires a licence.
    But a licence is only required if the use of the program would otherwise be a breach of copyright.

    No. A license determines how you can use the IP.

    "By using your iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch ("iOS Device") you are agreeing to be bound by the following terms: ... (license agreement)"

    "Please read this software license agreement ("License") carefully before using your iOS device or downloading the software update accompanying this license. By using your iOS device or downloading a software update, as applicable, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE (emphasis mine). IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE iOS DEVICE OR DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE UPDATE"

    "If you have recently purchased an iOS device and you do not agree to the terms of the license, YOU MAY RETURN THE iOS DEVICE ..."

    This is a concensual agreement that you are willingly entering into.
    If you don't like it, you can STOP USING THE DEVICE (i.e., return it)
    and bear no cost for doing so. Find an alternative device (two tin cans conjoined with string) that has license terms more to your liking.

    Usually, the way a computer program ends up in a computer is by the owner of the computer copying it from a distribution medium or by downloading (involves
    copying) over the Internet. Absent a licence, that copying will be a breach of
    copyright.

    Or, by the software coming preinstalled -- OR AN INTEGRAL PART OF -- the computer at acquisition (think BIOS, OS, etc.) So? A license still applies
    to that IP.

    A licensor can choose how liberally he wants to allow the software to be used/applied (my current licenses essentially just assert that I retain the right to use the software as I please -- even if I've granted you the right
    to go crazy with modifications!). Or, restrict it to very specific purposes (e.g., you can't extract the software and put it in a similar device to endow that device with the benefits of THIS software as that could be a potential asset that I might want to exploit)

    But if the computer program is an integral part of the machine on which it is installed, and the installation was done by, or with the authority of, the owner of the copyright, then the purchaser of the machine has not done any copying, and consequently did not need a licence.

    No. The license governs how you can use the software (or other IP),
    not how/if you can copy it.

    They do not need a licence to use the software, because of (a)(1) in

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

    It doesn't matter how you got the license or the "copy" of the software.

    I've rescued several devices that contain software. I am still bound by
    the license terms of those despite the fact that I never PAID to
    purchase any of those items. My *use* of the item signifies my consent
    to those terms. I can't weasel out of the terms by claiming "I never
    agreed to them by exchanging monies for the item so I should be free
    to do <whatever>"

    You don't really think big corporations hire lawyers to write all this
    jargon if it doesn't have some legal TEETH?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed May 11 15:54:44 2022
    On 11-May-22 3:36 pm, Don Y wrote:
    On 5/10/2022 9:34 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 1:40 pm, Don Y wrote:
    On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors
    from Ukraine.  John Deere used kill switches to disable the
    tractors remotely.
        It also has some stuff about right to repair.
    <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>

        I don't have any idea if much of this is true.  The tractor in >>>>> the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960.  That thing would've
    had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used
    magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>


    Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use
    the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that
    you need to agree to the terms and conditions.

    Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
    software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence
    required.

    It's an authorized *license*.  It doesn't give you any more rights
    than a "separately purchased" license would afford.  You don't
    for example, "own" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
    exists in your gear.

    You don't, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it,
    modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

    Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
    (the software) if you think "it's yours".

    The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
    copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no
    licence required.

    Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

    Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don't agree
    with the terms of the (implied) license.  Or, if the license terms
    were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

    I.e., you can't claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms
    without your consent.

    If you don't like John Deere's terms, buy a Kubota tractor!  (if it
    isn't
    as *good*, <shrug>, that's not John Deere's fault!)

    The starting point for a discussion about licences for computer
    programs is not what the terms of the licence are, but whether a
    licence is required at all.

    You can't acquire software without (some) accompanying license.  The
    license
    imposes constraints on how the licensor is willing to let you use *his* software (and it will forever be "his" until he transfers ownership to another party).

    It seems a pervasive notion that use of a computer program requires a
    licence. But a licence is only required if the use of the program
    would otherwise be a breach of copyright.

    No.  A license determines how you can use the IP.

    The is no such legal concept as "using IP". This is copyright law, pure
    and simple.


    "By using your iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch ("iOS Device") you are
    agreeing to be bound by the following terms: ... (license agreement)"

    "Please read this software license agreement ("License") carefully
    before using your iOS device or downloading the software update
    accompanying this license. By using your iOS device or downloading a
    software update, as applicable, YOU
    ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE (emphasis mine).
    IF YOU
    DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE iOS DEVICE OR DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE UPDATE"

    "If you have recently purchased an iOS device and you do not agree to
    the terms of the license, YOU MAY RETURN THE iOS DEVICE ..."

    There are usually such statements associated with a device. This does
    not make them true. Even if one has to click "OK" to start using the
    device, that does not mean that one has consented, just that one did
    what one needed to to use the device one has paid for.

    The issue of click-through agreements has been considered in the context
    of shrink wrap software, but that's a rather different situation.

    I'm not aware of the matter ever being tested in court in the context pre-installed software that is an integral part of the device.


    This is a concensual agreement that you are willingly entering into.
    If you don't like it, you can STOP USING THE DEVICE (i.e., return it)
    and bear no cost for doing so.  Find an alternative device (two tin cans conjoined with string) that has license terms more to your liking.

    Usually, the way a computer program ends up in a computer is by the
    owner of the computer copying it from a distribution medium or by
    downloading (involves copying) over the Internet. Absent a licence,
    that copying will be a breach of copyright.

    Or, by the software coming preinstalled -- OR AN INTEGRAL PART OF -- the computer at acquisition (think BIOS, OS, etc.)  So?  A license still applies
    to that IP.

    A licensor can choose how liberally he wants to allow the software to be used/applied (my current licenses essentially just assert that I retain the right to use the software as I please -- even if I've granted you the right to go crazy with modifications!).  Or, restrict it to very specific
    purposes
    (e.g., you can't extract the software and put it in a similar device to
    endow
    that device with the benefits of THIS software as that could be a potential asset that I might want to exploit)

    Regardless of any purported limitations put there by a licence
    agreement, extracting the software would involve copying, so would
    trigger the copyright protections.


    But if the computer program is an integral part of the machine on
    which it is installed, and the installation was done by, or with the
    authority of, the owner of the copyright, then the purchaser of the
    machine has not done any copying, and consequently did not need a
    licence.

    No.  The license governs how you can use the software (or other IP),
    not how/if you can copy it.

    Again, there is no law about using IP. To get to the point where a
    licence agreement has any force, there has to be copying involved.


    They do not need a licence to use the software, because of (a)(1) in

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

    It doesn't matter how you got the license or the "copy" of the software.

    I've rescued several devices that contain software.  I am still bound by
    the license terms of those despite the fact that I never PAID to
    purchase any of those items.  My *use* of the item signifies my consent
    to those terms.  I can't weasel out of the terms by claiming "I never
    agreed to them by exchanging monies for the item so I should be free
    to do <whatever>"

    You don't really think big corporations hire lawyers to write all this
    jargon if it doesn't have some legal TEETH?

    Of course they would. They don't care whether it would ultimately stand
    up in court. The legalese is there to give them leverage, and it rarely
    becomes a live issue.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to Hoffman on Wed May 11 05:57:15 2022
    XPost: us.politics, alt.politics.europe

    On a sunny day (Tue, 10 May 2022 15:03:07 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Dean
    Hoffman <deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote in <40b1632a-c6fd-41e5-ba17-0d50dbc5e5fan@googlegroups.com>:

    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the
    tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair.
    <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>
    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing
    would've had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>

    Oh, 'theft' is normal practice by the US and its NATO slaves:
    https://www.rt.com/russia/555272-lavov-eu-russia-assets-theft/

    as to "right to repair" there is a new law in the US is it not? Even Apple had to provide parts IIRC.
    I had a repair shop, and the right to repair is very real to me. I suggest everybody buys only from sellers that
    have good documentation, service manuals, and spare parts available.

    There is a lot of fake propaganda thrown at people by the US dems slave media. To the point it is obviously ridiculously wrong.

    A good thing: I was just reading Elon Musk will allow Trump back when he has Twitter under his control.

    Those fanatic fascist war mongering morons named Biden and his son will try to block the whole Republican party with his shit media censorship.
    Biden's brain implant chip controlled by the US Milli-tary Industrial Complex makes him do evil things,
    may soon make him fail completely.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 11 16:18:12 2022
    On 11-May-22 12:37 pm, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:26:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair.

    Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the
    software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you
    need to agree to the terms and conditions.

    Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
    software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

    Yeah, but if the software is only ever worked by the manufacturer's employees...

    <https://www.govtech.com/magazines/gt/robot-garage-hijacks-cars.html>

    the court battle can last a while...

    Yes, the issues there are complex, and whether the system was sabotaged
    is unclear.

    Moral of the story - don't agree to a fixed licence term on software
    that is essential to the operation of an asset whose life isn't
    similarly fixed, not least because the scope for subsequent extortionate
    fees is obvious.

    I expect a competent electrical engineer could get the cars out in
    fairly short order.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed May 11 07:03:22 2022
    On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 9:26:32 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair. <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>
    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would've had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>
    Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that you
    need to agree to the terms and conditions.

    Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
    software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence required.

    The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
    copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence required.

    I believe the problem comes when a part is replaced with a non-OEM part that either requires that software to be installed in it, or that needs a serial number in such a way software elsewhere must be modified to work with it. Teslas have such part
    numbering. I don't think they typically object to part replacements that aren't new OEM parts. But certain part replacements result in being disconnected from the charging network.

    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed May 11 07:14:49 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 12:35:07 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 1:40 pm, Don Y wrote:
    On 5/10/2022 6:26 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 11-May-22 8:03 am, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from >>> Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors
    remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair.
    <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>

    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in
    the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would've had >>> points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used
    magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>


    Manufacturers keep pushing this idea that you need a licence to use
    the software they installed in your equipment, and consequently that
    you need to agree to the terms and conditions.

    Yet the Copyright law is clear on this. If the manufacture installs
    software in your gear, then that is an authorised copy, no licence
    required.

    It's an authorized *license*. It doesn't give you any more rights
    than a "separately purchased" license would afford. You don't
    for example, "own" the software -- even though an embodiment of it
    exists in your gear.

    You don't, also, magically acquire the right to reverse engineer it, modify it, defeat any protections it may put in place, etc.

    Try extracting the software/firmware from your phone and selling it
    (the software) if you think "it's yours".

    The law also makes it clear that the equipment can make such further
    copies as are needed to make use of the software. So still no licence
    required.

    Other than the license that you already have implicitly been granted.

    Most manufacturers allow you to return the item if you don't agree
    with the terms of the (implied) license. Or, if the license terms
    were not disclosed (or accessible) prior to the sale.

    Not true, or at least not remotely universal. If you buy a PC with Windows installed, your choices are to accept the license terms, or not use Windows on the computer. PC makers no longer give you the right to return a machine because of the license,
    at least, none that I know of.


    I.e., you can't claim you have been forced/coerced into accepting terms without your consent.

    If you don't like John Deere's terms, buy a Kubota tractor! (if it isn't as *good*, <shrug>, that's not John Deere's fault!)
    The starting point for a discussion about licences for computer programs
    is not what the terms of the licence are, but whether a licence is
    required at all.

    It seems a pervasive notion that use of a computer program requires a licence. But a licence is only required if the use of the program would otherwise be a breach of copyright.

    Usually, the way a computer program ends up in a computer is by the
    owner of the computer copying it from a distribution medium or by downloading (involves copying) over the Internet. Absent a licence, that copying will be a breach of copyright.

    But if the computer program is an integral part of the machine on which
    it is installed, and the installation was done by, or with the authority
    of, the owner of the copyright, then the purchaser of the machine has
    not done any copying, and consequently did not need a licence.

    They do not need a licence to use the software, because of (a)(1) in

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

    "a machine" is at the heart of that section. The issue with tractor repair is buying non-OEM parts that must have the software copied onto them to work. Does "a machine" include parts that were not made by the OEM? Or in the case of PCs, does it
    include installation on another PC than the machine the software was originally installed on? The second machine could be an entirely different machine, or it could be a replacement machine, or it could be the original machine with enough replacement/
    upgraded parts that it is considered a "new" machine by the software.

    I don't see an obvious way to interpret, "in conjunction with a machine" in these cases, or if this can be modified by language in the license.

    --

    Rick C.

    -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Wed May 11 07:20:14 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 1:57:35 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Tue, 10 May 2022 15:03:07 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Dean Hoffman <dean...@gmail.com> wrote in <40b1632a-c6fd-41e5...@googlegroups.com>:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the
    tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair.
    <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>
    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing
    would've had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>
    Oh, 'theft' is normal practice by the US and its NATO slaves: https://www.rt.com/russia/555272-lavov-eu-russia-assets-theft/

    as to "right to repair" there is a new law in the US is it not? Even Apple had to provide parts IIRC.
    I had a repair shop, and the right to repair is very real to me. I suggest everybody buys only from sellers that
    have good documentation, service manuals, and spare parts available.

    There is a lot of fake propaganda thrown at people by the US dems slave media.
    To the point it is obviously ridiculously wrong.

    A good thing: I was just reading Elon Musk will allow Trump back when he has Twitter under his control.

    Those fanatic fascist war mongering morons named Biden and his son will try to block the whole Republican party with his shit media censorship.
    Biden's brain implant chip controlled by the US Milli-tary Industrial Complex makes him do evil things,
    may soon make him fail completely.

    LOL! If he fails, take him in for repair under the warranty.

    You really are a hoot!

    So who are you, REALLY?

    --

    Rick C.

    -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dean Hoffman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu May 12 14:51:54 2022
    On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 7:29:28 PM UTC-5, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-4, dean...@gmail.com wrote:
    This article starts off talking about Russians stealing tractors from Ukraine. John Deere used kill switches to disable the tractors remotely.
    It also has some stuff about right to repair. <https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8>
    I don't have any idea if much of this is true. The tractor in the picture was manufactured from 1958-1960. That thing would've had points and a condenser type ignition. Some tractor makers used magnetos back then.
    <https://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/johndeere/johndeere-tractors.html>
    The photo is just a photo. Like when articles would run about the, then new, model 3, it would often be accompanied by a model S photo.

    The photo is one of the old Johnny Poppers. The sound of those is as distinctive to old farmers
    as the Harley Davidson motorcycle sound is to bikers.

    I read most of the article and can verify it is accurate. The power of corporations is clear in this matter. While some traction has been gained by the Right to Repair movement, companies like Apple find ways to make life difficult for third party
    repair in spite of following the new rules. John Deere is well known for their actions to force every farmer to pay them for every repair, even when they can't send anyone because it's planting season and there are lots of broken tractors, a time when it
    is most important to get the machine running again.

    I was not aware they have such power because they have become effectively a monopoly. There used to be any number of manufacturers. But I guess it's like the auto industry, you have to be pretty big to remain in business. I'm expecting the conversion
    to BEVs to be the death of a number of auto makers, such as whatever the Chrysler/Fiat company is called now. The head of the US arm has essentially said this effort, done rapidly, will put them in the ground. But the US will still have three automakers.
    Lose Chrysler, add Tesla.

    The AKRS John Deere dealership pretty much rules Nebraska. It has about 25 locations scattered around the state.
    About the only competition Deere has is from CaseIH. There are companies like Hesston
    that specialize in hay equipment. I wanted a small tractor to mow our farmyard and do some
    small chores last year. There were almost none to be found. I ended up with a Massey
    Ferguson 1725 with a mid mount mower and a loader. Massey has a good reputation.
    Even the smaller tractors run on diesel now. Most probably ran on gasoline until the
    early to mid 60s or so.



    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)