Edit: 'Sick Codes confirmed that he believes John Deere failed to comply with its GPL obligations. "I'd love for them to come forward and explain how they are in compliance," he said.'
I wouldn’t really call that a “complete crack” (although it IS cool). There’s an _awful_ lot more firmware in a car or tractor than the display unit, and arguably it’s one of the less important modules in most architectures. Cracked versions of Deere Service Advisor are much more meaningful to the kinds of repairs farmers perform than firmware exploits are.
I live in a wine region in central Calif where everyone has a tractor. We bought a Kubota, enjoy using it and get a lot of work done with it. We have a neighbor that bought a new John Deere and for about a 3 month period we endured nothing but abuse from him because we didn't buy "American". Then his problems started...
If you make a very rough estimate of the emotional maturity of a person that abuses a neighbor for not “buying American”, I think the answer become reasonably clear
This is woefully inadequate as a remedy. The dollar amount is minuscule and the remedy time limited. Seems like they just got a license to continue business as usual.
10 years is just about when things start needing a whole lot of attention. Frankly no one should buy something like this unless a whole shelf of repair manuals is available, along with spare parts.
It surprised me that farmers aren't just ditching John Deere for alternatives that respect them.
Visiting family on their farm in the early 2000's, they had been selling off their John Deere tractors and replacing them with Massey Ferguson, because they were annoyed with the poor servicing and parts delivery they had with their local shop/dealership. Way before this right to repair stuff happened.
I don't think other modern tractors behave differently to be honest. Deere probably cost a premium in comparison, but I think many farmers lease their work devices today anyway.
But yes, if they would own it, a right to repair would be very welcomed...
If you see a modern tractor on the streets next to a Ferrari, the tractor is probably the more luxurious and expensive vehicle.
I think a lot of people get the impression of DIY repair - but most tractors can be serviced entirely or if not most repairs via a third party mechanic / appropriate workshop.
I have surfed (I used to research stuff for various people) many tractor forums over the years but don't really recall too many details, but ever after a number of years, one of the things that stuck in my mind was one USoA farmer's account of the over the top gouging practices that JD was running with. Basically the newish JD was serviced by a third party mechanic, new parts installed correctly and verified ... but it would not run until they paid $$$$ for a JD tech to drive out to their location, plug in their simple special tool to unlock the system so the tractor could start and get to work.
One of the most user-hostile companies on earth. My John Deere lawnmower came with a fuel gauge that runs off a CR2032 that's embedded in epoxy. The battery runs out of charge in about six months and the gauge stops working. If you saw the gauge open and replace the battery it doesn't start working again. If you disconnect the gauge the lawnmower won't start. Replacement gauges are $60.
Oh the argument would never be phrased that way. Rather, you start from the completely uncontroversial point that a CR2032 battery is a consumable, come up with some reason why you can't use a bare cell like that and need some sort of assembly around it, and incrementally justify adding more functionality into that assembly.
Also, remember that you don't need to prove that the design is sensible, only that it isn't deliberately malicious.
Again, it's a misconception(and I'm from the EU). EU law guarantees that for 2 years from purchase(it's actually 6 on most items) the seller has to fix any issues that arise from manufacturing faults. In the first 6 months of ownership, any fault is automatically presumed to be a manufacturing fault, after 6 months the buyer has to prove that it is. That is not the same as a warranty, if your laptop randomly stops working 2 years in you don't automatically get a right to have it repaired unless you can prove it failed because of a manufacturing defect(which as you can imagine, is actually quite hard to prove).
A lot of manufacturers have alligned their warranties to be 2 years long in the EU because they don't want to deal with the above, but it's completely 100% legal to offer a 1 year or 6 months warranty in the EU on any item. Your rights with regards to seller's responsibility are not affected by it.
The example of a lawnmower fuel gauge only lasting for 6 months due to a non-replaceable battery would definitely fall under the durability/repairability clause. It would count as a defect that existed at the point of manufacturing, not that it sounds like that even matters.
> In order for goods to be in conformity, they should possess the durability which is normal for goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect given the nature of the specific goods, including the possible need for reasonable maintenance of the goods, such as the regular inspection or changing of filters in a car
> Given that when implementing Directive 1999/44/EC, a large majority of Member States have provided for a period of two years, and in practice that period is considered reasonable by market participants, that period should be maintained.
> For a period of one year, or for a period of two years if Member States choose to apply a two-year period, the consumer should only need to prove that the good is not in conformity, without also needing to prove that the lack of conformity actually existed at the relevant time for establishing conformity
> EU law also stipulates that you must give the consumer a minimum 2-year guarantee (legal guarantee) as a protection against faulty goods, or goods that don't look or work as advertised. In some countries national law may require you to provide longer guarantees.
Unless there is something I'm missing on consumer protection legislation. I've seen in the past regional sellers that claimed that their provide a shorter guarantee. They sold their products on a marketplace platform, and once I reported them they changed their claims.
You're not missing anything. The key is this sentence "If the product you sold turns out to be faulty — or doesn't look or work as advertised — within the timeframe of the legal guarantee" - it's only when the product "turns out to be faulty" meaning - it has a manufacturing defect. It's defined exactly in the text of the legislation, would need to dig it out. If the product doesn't have a manufacturing defect, it "just" stops working at 23 months mark, the seller isn't legally required to fix it, unless you can prove that it's due to a manufacturing defect.
>> I've seen in the past regional sellers that claimed that their provide a shorter guarantee.
The sellers have to provide that guarantee against manufacturing defects for a minimum of 2 years, correct. Manufacturers can provide any length they like as they aren't the seller(in some cases and with some products they are legally bound as well, but it's not for everything - cars for instance have their own set of rules which bind the manufacturer not just the seller).
This is where small claims court can have a HUGE impact.
Where I live, in small claims:
* Lawyers are not allowed
* There is no forced discovery. Sue John Deere, and they cannot ask for endless documents
* There is no way to assign costs on loss. If you lose, you never pay costs for the person you sued (which makes sense -- no lawyers)
* If you don't understand something, typically the judge will act as a mediator and explain it to you.
Yet meanwhile, suing in small claims will typically result in a big company using lawyers, who will try to pretend the above is not true. They will also rack up large costs for the company. In the end, sometimes a lawyer will appear in small claims court beside a company employee. However the company employee will do the talking.
My cost to file is $100. My cost to serve (via courier with tracking + sig) was $10. The company I went after, a fortune 500 company, I suspect spent >$50k on lawyers. While small to the company, it is truly a way to level the playing field.
What I find amusing here is, you could sue for a replacement unit. Explain what you found. Where I am, the max resolution is $30k, so you could easily get a refund for the tractor. Citing this issue while describing all of this, could result in two outcomes.
1) Deere employee claims (in their defense) that a batch of units were defective. They then deliver a fixed unit to you. While not perfect, it would be amusing, because they'll have just spent $50k in paying lawyers, along with making a proper unit.
2) You just claim that the tractor is defective, you can't sell it as it is, except maybe for parts. And you're not sure most of them are usable (weird electronics), and even cite that Deere stuff apparently is designed to break without authorized repairs. So how can you in good faith, even try to sell it to anyone??
So you ask for your time, costs, and full replacement costs with another brand.
Adding your wage/hr is somewhat typical here, for calls, research, sawing it open, all of it.
--
Anyhow.
If #1 is chosen and it breaks again, then you can repeat the whole fun process.
And I do mean it is fun.
$100 + I filled out a 2 page form, and then fedexed it to them. Their lawyers kept pestering me, to which I simply said "No" and "I don't need to give you anything, there's no forced discovery". This too was very satisfying, when I kept in mind how each call to me cost the company probably about $1k.
I mean, literally I'm sure each 5 minute call was around that ballpark. It was sheer joy.
(Just don't discuss any aspect of the case in these calls.)
Then there was a pre-trail meeting where I, the company rep, and a retired judge sat. I was told that "nothing said here can ever be used in court", which made it more fun. The system's attempt to resolve before trial. That too was fun, for I got to finally tell the company, over and over, how wrong they were.
>Then there was a pre-trail meeting where I, the company rep, and a retired judge sat.
This is them trying to intimidate you right? Or settle pre-court at least? Not part of the actual process where some retired judge always mediates before trial? It reads as gross.
Many small claims court procedures, at least outside the US, include mandatory mediation that would fit this description, and there is nothing gross about it.
Given that a "retired judge" was present, I assume it was such a mediation meeting (i.e. the retired judge was most likely a neutral, court appointed mediator, whose job is basically to tell both sides to please come to an agreement, and potentially tell one side to pull their head out of their ass and stop being idiots before the court has to tell them that they are being idiots).
Sounds like a fun anecdote and not doubting it at all. So just wondering how that max comes into play
> Explain what you found. Where I am, the max resolution is $30k, so you could easily get a refund for the tractor.
While I haven't bought a tractor before from some searching and impression they seem much higher. If fair market value is that low, I can see how 1) works but if for 2 it caps out at $30K, it doesn't seem like it would get you a full replacement with another brand.
The loss to John Deere is funny but isn't it also a loss to the customer, who would hurt more from the lost tractor?
I personally like to call it "forced obsolescence."
Forced obsolescence is when the consumer always buys the cheapest product that checks their boxes, regardless of build quality. This forces you to either use cheap parts that you know will break, or leave the market entirely. The consumer may bitch at "planned obsolescence", but when push comes to shove and they're looking for what their next <thing> is going to be, they only look at the price and features, not quality and longevity.
We should be re-framing this in consumer's minds, and list "price divided by warranty" as an important dimension to evaluate a product on.
In Europe everything has a warranty of 2 years for private individuals and 1 year for businesses: it doesn't work as a useful metric: there's no device that I rely on that I expect to run for less than ~5 years, except maybe toothbrushes. That's great as a "it's illegal to make something attrociously low-quality", but I expect at least 5 years out of every electronic appliance I have, and there's no way to assure that, except private insurance, which is more expensive than rebuying the devices that end up being defected.
So, I buy the cheapest thing that ticks the other boxes. Not because I'm inherently cheap, but because I have no trust in the market. There's no way for me to know if I'd be paying extra for luxury features, brand premium, or reliability. Yes, I try to research things I buy, and avoid red-flags, but there's only so much you can learn that way, and most people don't have neither the experience, nor the know-how, nor the time to research everything properly to high exhaustion.
Depends how its planned. If its planned to fail but designed in a way thats cheap and easy to replace its ok. Because sometimes it can be the case that to much is spent over engineering a high use part when would be more practical to let it break and replace it every 2 years or so.
Sure, if it's truly planned. I think the tricky part tends to be that it's hard to distinguish between "planned obsolescence" and "incidental obsolescence".
I think there is: It is the line between "not spending extra money to make sure it works" and "spending extra money to make sure it won't work".
There is a related problem with warranty: an inferior third-party replacement part may cause damage to higher-quality original parts. There is a line here between "making sure you don't have to deal with follow-up damage caused by inferior parts" and "preventing the use of inferior parts". This is a bit more blurry because most cases won't be clear-cut, and dealing with them will be a burden on the original manufacturer.
I think it is important that we reward the nice players as much as we punish the bad ones. A blanket "all companies bad" just means that no company has an incentive to be anything less than bad.
I had an interesting situation where we had failure of a Thule bike trailer wheel and could see where the connection-to-the-trailer design had changed from an earlier version (from the company that Thule bought). The wheel functioned the same, but you could see a clear difference which fully explained the failure. I expect it was a cost optimisation, and we only encountered the failure because we used it very heavily.
Edit: they also failed to honour their warranty commitments, but that was secondary.
I wonder if the gauge is just a horrible design that uses the battery to keep some memory alive.
Microcontrollers with persistent memory are not expensive, so something like that would just be horrible design, not something you could even try to justify as a cost reduction.
Products like this simply shouldn't be allowed on the market. As if we need to destroy the planet so my Mother can enjoy looking at her 401k balance in the morning.
Seems like a small price for a big company. Shouldn’t there be some higher punitive fine for even trying this tactic? It’s basically zero cost for companies to be abusive.
Yes there should be. But there won’t be until US stops lobbying and American public elects lawmakers that work for people instead of their own pockets.
And people that are likely to not be bought wouldn't enter politics in most cases. To enter and succeed in politics needs ambition and skillset that is diametrically opposite to a honest person.
They settled, and paid pennies for being able to continue the status quo. Given that the headline is journalistic malpractice at best; and you asking this question kinda proves that.
> While the agricultural manufacturing giant pointed out in a statement that this is no admission of wrongdoing
Welp, gotta sue again in the future, hopefully lobbied laws in place to prevent whatever forced them to settle by then!
The whole point of settling is to end legal action. Admitting wrongdoing will be used as evidence against them by others who weren't party to the original suit. Any future suits will have far higher settlement costs, if plaintiffs are even willing to settle, since there's an admission of guilt right there.
You can thank the plaintiffs and their lawyers for accepting the settlement instead of pursuing a judicial remedy such as an injunction or finding of illegal behavior.
It is going to be tough to get me to think the plaintiff is responsible for John Deere the company continuing to be dickheads.
When I hear these kinds of "blame the consumer" apologetics it never resonates with me - I'm just not going to get on board with some hypothetical natural state where corporations are inherently bad like some sort of sick animal and it's on consumers to sacrifice and plan with care in order to help the rest of society deal with them.
Corporations are just big groups of people. If their victims can choose self sacrifice in order to help the group then the corporation people could just as easily do the same and that feels far more just to me.
IANAL but my understanding with settlements is that It removes the possibility of the defendant risking a judgement of wrongdoing and causing more problems down the road, like having to fix their mistakes.
The market doesn't care. It is a big deal to some people here, but to the vast majority it doesn't change a thing (or doesn't seem to) and so the markets don't care.
There is a premium on risk reduction. I believe this is one of the reasons why companies like to incorporate in Delaware as the courts there are notoriously fast (I'm going off my memory of a Planet Money episode so could be wrong here).
Anticipating 10.01 years from now, when John Deere sends a new over the air update and the situation goes right back to where it was, with no one having access to their equipment.
There was a MoU between the American Farm Bureau and John Deere signed in 2023 that outlined right to repair. This consequently already altered Deere's business model with respect to IP and right to repair, and gave signals that a settlement was coming. In other words, the stock price already accounted for the change. Very few things catches stock prices by surprise in the long term.
I considered one for my last tractor purchase. The depreciation on them is hard to square. Units are selling or 1/3 of the original price with only a few hundred hours on them.
That is what brought some interest, but at the same time there are no steals in farming. Although in the end it was largely technical. The M7 wasn't enough frame for my needs, but I didn't really need the HP of the M8 (which is actually a Versatile anyway). Other manufacturers offer models that more closely align with my requirements.
The second paragraph likely answers some of your immediate questions
> The settlement also includes an agreement by Deere to provide “the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis, and repair” of tractors, combines, and other machinery for 10 years. That part is crucial, as farmers previously resorted to hacking their own equipment’s software just to get it up and running again. John Deere signed a memorandum of understanding in 2023 that partially addressed those concerns, providing third parties with the technology to diagnose and repair, as long as its intellectual property was safeguarded. Monday’s settlement seems to represent a much stronger (and legally binding) step forward.
The second to last sentence I copied over talks about after 10yrs, basically saying they have to provide the knowhow to 3rd party tool makers and repair technicians, and that this settlement makes that more certain. (as I read it)
I bought a ~completely mechanical tractor without ECU right under the 25hp cutoff that requires computer and emissions controls to get around this bullshit. The adding of DPF and/or SCR to agricultural diesels gave vendors cover to fuck the customer using the excuse of preventing emissions tampering.
Up to one third of that $99m goes to attorneys. Named plaintiffs get $25k each and class members get what's left over, which could be anything from $50 to $5k according to ChatGPT.
I wonder if they'll throw in free credit monitoring with that?
The complete crack of Deere's firmware in 2022 must have had some impact on this.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/16/john_deere_doom/
Edit: 'Sick Codes confirmed that he believes John Deere failed to comply with its GPL obligations. "I'd love for them to come forward and explain how they are in compliance," he said.'
I wouldn’t really call that a “complete crack” (although it IS cool). There’s an _awful_ lot more firmware in a car or tractor than the display unit, and arguably it’s one of the less important modules in most architectures. Cracked versions of Deere Service Advisor are much more meaningful to the kinds of repairs farmers perform than firmware exploits are.
I live in a wine region in central Calif where everyone has a tractor. We bought a Kubota, enjoy using it and get a lot of work done with it. We have a neighbor that bought a new John Deere and for about a 3 month period we endured nothing but abuse from him because we didn't buy "American". Then his problems started...
Did he empathize with you after or he remained bitter?
If you make a very rough estimate of the emotional maturity of a person that abuses a neighbor for not “buying American”, I think the answer become reasonably clear
I'm guessing once he understood his tractor is a lemon he asked his neighbor for a taste of his sweet orange one.
Depends on which specific model as about half of them are made in the USA: https://www.kubota-kma.com/about/
This is woefully inadequate as a remedy. The dollar amount is minuscule and the remedy time limited. Seems like they just got a license to continue business as usual.
10 years is just about when things start needing a whole lot of attention. Frankly no one should buy something like this unless a whole shelf of repair manuals is available, along with spare parts.
Isn't there some kind of three-strikes approach which judges can use against repeat offenders?
They reserve that approach for drug laws that fill prisons.
Woah, childs play money for the amount of pain, lock in, and money they’ve cost farmers.
Literally. It’s less than a week of profit for JD. Not income, _profit_.
Fines like these are simply considered Cost of Doing Business. Part of the reason why I love the GDPR fine structure so much (percentage base).
It has to hurt.
It surprised me that farmers aren't just ditching John Deere for alternatives that respect them. Visiting family on their farm in the early 2000's, they had been selling off their John Deere tractors and replacing them with Massey Ferguson, because they were annoyed with the poor servicing and parts delivery they had with their local shop/dealership. Way before this right to repair stuff happened.
I don't think other modern tractors behave differently to be honest. Deere probably cost a premium in comparison, but I think many farmers lease their work devices today anyway.
But yes, if they would own it, a right to repair would be very welcomed...
If you see a modern tractor on the streets next to a Ferrari, the tractor is probably the more luxurious and expensive vehicle.
I think a lot of people get the impression of DIY repair - but most tractors can be serviced entirely or if not most repairs via a third party mechanic / appropriate workshop.
I have surfed (I used to research stuff for various people) many tractor forums over the years but don't really recall too many details, but ever after a number of years, one of the things that stuck in my mind was one USoA farmer's account of the over the top gouging practices that JD was running with. Basically the newish JD was serviced by a third party mechanic, new parts installed correctly and verified ... but it would not run until they paid $$$$ for a JD tech to drive out to their location, plug in their simple special tool to unlock the system so the tractor could start and get to work.
yea, the tractor is a lambo
https://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/en-eu/
I think a lot of them just are not aware of the issues until they dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars and used the tractors for years
Could that be true over the past decade that we've seen this in the headlines? Wouldn't there be plenty of bellyaching at the feed store?
Maybe they're really reliable and people are just finding out now...
Any tariffs on imported tractors? My gut says yes
One of the most user-hostile companies on earth. My John Deere lawnmower came with a fuel gauge that runs off a CR2032 that's embedded in epoxy. The battery runs out of charge in about six months and the gauge stops working. If you saw the gauge open and replace the battery it doesn't start working again. If you disconnect the gauge the lawnmower won't start. Replacement gauges are $60.
Chances are you might find a compatible replacement from China on Ali and the other usual sites for a fraction of the price.
In EU, a product such as this would have a 2 year minimum warranty. How long was yours?
They might be able to work around that by arguing it’s a consumable, so not a warranty issue.
Fuel is a consumable, and fuel gauge is also a consumable? You have lots of terrible judges if anyone could seriously consider that argument.
Oh the argument would never be phrased that way. Rather, you start from the completely uncontroversial point that a CR2032 battery is a consumable, come up with some reason why you can't use a bare cell like that and need some sort of assembly around it, and incrementally justify adding more functionality into that assembly.
Also, remember that you don't need to prove that the design is sensible, only that it isn't deliberately malicious.
Again, it's a misconception(and I'm from the EU). EU law guarantees that for 2 years from purchase(it's actually 6 on most items) the seller has to fix any issues that arise from manufacturing faults. In the first 6 months of ownership, any fault is automatically presumed to be a manufacturing fault, after 6 months the buyer has to prove that it is. That is not the same as a warranty, if your laptop randomly stops working 2 years in you don't automatically get a right to have it repaired unless you can prove it failed because of a manufacturing defect(which as you can imagine, is actually quite hard to prove).
A lot of manufacturers have alligned their warranties to be 2 years long in the EU because they don't want to deal with the above, but it's completely 100% legal to offer a 1 year or 6 months warranty in the EU on any item. Your rights with regards to seller's responsibility are not affected by it.
The example of a lawnmower fuel gauge only lasting for 6 months due to a non-replaceable battery would definitely fall under the durability/repairability clause. It would count as a defect that existed at the point of manufacturing, not that it sounds like that even matters.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...
> In order for goods to be in conformity, they should possess the durability which is normal for goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect given the nature of the specific goods, including the possible need for reasonable maintenance of the goods, such as the regular inspection or changing of filters in a car
> Given that when implementing Directive 1999/44/EC, a large majority of Member States have provided for a period of two years, and in practice that period is considered reasonable by market participants, that period should be maintained.
> For a period of one year, or for a period of two years if Member States choose to apply a two-year period, the consumer should only need to prove that the good is not in conformity, without also needing to prove that the lack of conformity actually existed at the relevant time for establishing conformity
> EU law also stipulates that you must give the consumer a minimum 2-year guarantee (legal guarantee) as a protection against faulty goods, or goods that don't look or work as advertised. In some countries national law may require you to provide longer guarantees.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...
Unless there is something I'm missing on consumer protection legislation. I've seen in the past regional sellers that claimed that their provide a shorter guarantee. They sold their products on a marketplace platform, and once I reported them they changed their claims.
You're not missing anything. The key is this sentence "If the product you sold turns out to be faulty — or doesn't look or work as advertised — within the timeframe of the legal guarantee" - it's only when the product "turns out to be faulty" meaning - it has a manufacturing defect. It's defined exactly in the text of the legislation, would need to dig it out. If the product doesn't have a manufacturing defect, it "just" stops working at 23 months mark, the seller isn't legally required to fix it, unless you can prove that it's due to a manufacturing defect.
>> I've seen in the past regional sellers that claimed that their provide a shorter guarantee.
The sellers have to provide that guarantee against manufacturing defects for a minimum of 2 years, correct. Manufacturers can provide any length they like as they aren't the seller(in some cases and with some products they are legally bound as well, but it's not for everything - cars for instance have their own set of rules which bind the manufacturer not just the seller).
That’s wild.They had to go out of their way to not wire it to the 12V.
They had to go out of their way to make it not work after you replace the battery with a good one.
This is where small claims court can have a HUGE impact.
Where I live, in small claims:
* Lawyers are not allowed
* There is no forced discovery. Sue John Deere, and they cannot ask for endless documents
* There is no way to assign costs on loss. If you lose, you never pay costs for the person you sued (which makes sense -- no lawyers)
* If you don't understand something, typically the judge will act as a mediator and explain it to you.
Yet meanwhile, suing in small claims will typically result in a big company using lawyers, who will try to pretend the above is not true. They will also rack up large costs for the company. In the end, sometimes a lawyer will appear in small claims court beside a company employee. However the company employee will do the talking.
My cost to file is $100. My cost to serve (via courier with tracking + sig) was $10. The company I went after, a fortune 500 company, I suspect spent >$50k on lawyers. While small to the company, it is truly a way to level the playing field.
What I find amusing here is, you could sue for a replacement unit. Explain what you found. Where I am, the max resolution is $30k, so you could easily get a refund for the tractor. Citing this issue while describing all of this, could result in two outcomes.
1) Deere employee claims (in their defense) that a batch of units were defective. They then deliver a fixed unit to you. While not perfect, it would be amusing, because they'll have just spent $50k in paying lawyers, along with making a proper unit.
2) You just claim that the tractor is defective, you can't sell it as it is, except maybe for parts. And you're not sure most of them are usable (weird electronics), and even cite that Deere stuff apparently is designed to break without authorized repairs. So how can you in good faith, even try to sell it to anyone??
So you ask for your time, costs, and full replacement costs with another brand.
Adding your wage/hr is somewhat typical here, for calls, research, sawing it open, all of it.
--
Anyhow.
If #1 is chosen and it breaks again, then you can repeat the whole fun process.
And I do mean it is fun.
$100 + I filled out a 2 page form, and then fedexed it to them. Their lawyers kept pestering me, to which I simply said "No" and "I don't need to give you anything, there's no forced discovery". This too was very satisfying, when I kept in mind how each call to me cost the company probably about $1k.
I mean, literally I'm sure each 5 minute call was around that ballpark. It was sheer joy. (Just don't discuss any aspect of the case in these calls.)
Then there was a pre-trail meeting where I, the company rep, and a retired judge sat. I was told that "nothing said here can ever be used in court", which made it more fun. The system's attempt to resolve before trial. That too was fun, for I got to finally tell the company, over and over, how wrong they were.
Anyhow.
It's a fun process.
>Then there was a pre-trail meeting where I, the company rep, and a retired judge sat.
This is them trying to intimidate you right? Or settle pre-court at least? Not part of the actual process where some retired judge always mediates before trial? It reads as gross.
Many small claims court procedures, at least outside the US, include mandatory mediation that would fit this description, and there is nothing gross about it.
Given that a "retired judge" was present, I assume it was such a mediation meeting (i.e. the retired judge was most likely a neutral, court appointed mediator, whose job is basically to tell both sides to please come to an agreement, and potentially tell one side to pull their head out of their ass and stop being idiots before the court has to tell them that they are being idiots).
Yes, exactly.
Sounds like a fun anecdote and not doubting it at all. So just wondering how that max comes into play
> Explain what you found. Where I am, the max resolution is $30k, so you could easily get a refund for the tractor.
While I haven't bought a tractor before from some searching and impression they seem much higher. If fair market value is that low, I can see how 1) works but if for 2 it caps out at $30K, it doesn't seem like it would get you a full replacement with another brand.
The loss to John Deere is funny but isn't it also a loss to the customer, who would hurt more from the lost tractor?
Tractor? The comment I am replying to was for a lawn mower.
Clarity, I see I wrote tractor above once. Here lawn mowers are often called lawn tractors.
Hot take: it takes mental gymnastics to think that planned obsolescence is not fraud.
I personally like to call it "forced obsolescence."
Forced obsolescence is when the consumer always buys the cheapest product that checks their boxes, regardless of build quality. This forces you to either use cheap parts that you know will break, or leave the market entirely. The consumer may bitch at "planned obsolescence", but when push comes to shove and they're looking for what their next <thing> is going to be, they only look at the price and features, not quality and longevity.
We should be re-framing this in consumer's minds, and list "price divided by warranty" as an important dimension to evaluate a product on.
In Europe everything has a warranty of 2 years for private individuals and 1 year for businesses: it doesn't work as a useful metric: there's no device that I rely on that I expect to run for less than ~5 years, except maybe toothbrushes. That's great as a "it's illegal to make something attrociously low-quality", but I expect at least 5 years out of every electronic appliance I have, and there's no way to assure that, except private insurance, which is more expensive than rebuying the devices that end up being defected.
So, I buy the cheapest thing that ticks the other boxes. Not because I'm inherently cheap, but because I have no trust in the market. There's no way for me to know if I'd be paying extra for luxury features, brand premium, or reliability. Yes, I try to research things I buy, and avoid red-flags, but there's only so much you can learn that way, and most people don't have neither the experience, nor the know-how, nor the time to research everything properly to high exhaustion.
Depends how its planned. If its planned to fail but designed in a way thats cheap and easy to replace its ok. Because sometimes it can be the case that to much is spent over engineering a high use part when would be more practical to let it break and replace it every 2 years or so.
Sure, if it's truly planned. I think the tricky part tends to be that it's hard to distinguish between "planned obsolescence" and "incidental obsolescence".
Is there a bright line between cost reduction and planned obsolescence?
Obviously a small unreplaceable battery is not a good example for that discussion.
I think there is: It is the line between "not spending extra money to make sure it works" and "spending extra money to make sure it won't work".
There is a related problem with warranty: an inferior third-party replacement part may cause damage to higher-quality original parts. There is a line here between "making sure you don't have to deal with follow-up damage caused by inferior parts" and "preventing the use of inferior parts". This is a bit more blurry because most cases won't be clear-cut, and dealing with them will be a burden on the original manufacturer.
I think it is important that we reward the nice players as much as we punish the bad ones. A blanket "all companies bad" just means that no company has an incentive to be anything less than bad.
I had an interesting situation where we had failure of a Thule bike trailer wheel and could see where the connection-to-the-trailer design had changed from an earlier version (from the company that Thule bought). The wheel functioned the same, but you could see a clear difference which fully explained the failure. I expect it was a cost optimisation, and we only encountered the failure because we used it very heavily.
Edit: they also failed to honour their warranty commitments, but that was secondary.
Going out of your way to make sure the gauge doesn't work after the battery is replaced surely is.
I wonder if the gauge is just a horrible design that uses the battery to keep some memory alive.
Microcontrollers with persistent memory are not expensive, so something like that would just be horrible design, not something you could even try to justify as a cost reduction.
Oh, I suppose it is using the battery to write after shutdown. Bleh.
It's consumer fraud. It's shareholder fraud. It's environmental fraud.
Products like this simply shouldn't be allowed on the market. As if we need to destroy the planet so my Mother can enjoy looking at her 401k balance in the morning.
Let me check who the second largest shareholder is - ah its bill gates
Seems like a small price for a big company. Shouldn’t there be some higher punitive fine for even trying this tactic? It’s basically zero cost for companies to be abusive.
Yes there should be. But there won’t be until US stops lobbying and American public elects lawmakers that work for people instead of their own pockets.
Unfortunately most people has a price in this world. Those who can’t be bought are just so rare.
And people that are likely to not be bought wouldn't enter politics in most cases. To enter and succeed in politics needs ambition and skillset that is diametrically opposite to a honest person.
The disgusting part is it’s not even that much money. $20k here, $50k there gets you a lot of political leverage.
no the settlements include many other conditions, but I agree the financial penalties should be larger
The stock is up 5% today. What’s the catch?
They settled, and paid pennies for being able to continue the status quo. Given that the headline is journalistic malpractice at best; and you asking this question kinda proves that.
> While the agricultural manufacturing giant pointed out in a statement that this is no admission of wrongdoing
Welp, gotta sue again in the future, hopefully lobbied laws in place to prevent whatever forced them to settle by then!
The whole point of settling is to end legal action. Admitting wrongdoing will be used as evidence against them by others who weren't party to the original suit. Any future suits will have far higher settlement costs, if plaintiffs are even willing to settle, since there's an admission of guilt right there.
You can thank the plaintiffs and their lawyers for accepting the settlement instead of pursuing a judicial remedy such as an injunction or finding of illegal behavior.
It is going to be tough to get me to think the plaintiff is responsible for John Deere the company continuing to be dickheads.
When I hear these kinds of "blame the consumer" apologetics it never resonates with me - I'm just not going to get on board with some hypothetical natural state where corporations are inherently bad like some sort of sick animal and it's on consumers to sacrifice and plan with care in order to help the rest of society deal with them.
Corporations are just big groups of people. If their victims can choose self sacrifice in order to help the group then the corporation people could just as easily do the same and that feels far more just to me.
> What’s the catch?
99m is a drop in the bucket. They were probably expecting more.
IANAL but my understanding with settlements is that It removes the possibility of the defendant risking a judgement of wrongdoing and causing more problems down the road, like having to fix their mistakes.
The market doesn't care. It is a big deal to some people here, but to the vast majority it doesn't change a thing (or doesn't seem to) and so the markets don't care.
There is a premium on risk reduction. I believe this is one of the reasons why companies like to incorporate in Delaware as the courts there are notoriously fast (I'm going off my memory of a Planet Money episode so could be wrong here).
Anticipating 10.01 years from now, when John Deere sends a new over the air update and the situation goes right back to where it was, with no one having access to their equipment.
The market expected a worst outcome ?
No, all US equities are up after the Iran ceasefire news.
You need to look at Deere stock after taking out the beta to the market.
There was a MoU between the American Farm Bureau and John Deere signed in 2023 that outlined right to repair. This consequently already altered Deere's business model with respect to IP and right to repair, and gave signals that a settlement was coming. In other words, the stock price already accounted for the change. Very few things catches stock prices by surprise in the long term.
Farmer here. We only run equipment made before 2000 and all of our tractors are from the 1980s. We badly need right to repair.
You should check out Kubota stuff.
I considered one for my last tractor purchase. The depreciation on them is hard to square. Units are selling or 1/3 of the original price with only a few hundred hours on them.
Why not purchase used then? 66% discount for a mint condition sounds like a steal.
That is what brought some interest, but at the same time there are no steals in farming. Although in the end it was largely technical. The M7 wasn't enough frame for my needs, but I didn't really need the HP of the M8 (which is actually a Versatile anyway). Other manufacturers offer models that more closely align with my requirements.
Why not pick up one of these barely-used units for cheap then?
Whenever I read John Deere my brain somehow adds Louis Rossman in there too.
> providing third parties with the technology to diagnose and repair
This means only John Deere's authorized contractors, which is going to be pretty costly.
The second paragraph likely answers some of your immediate questions
> The settlement also includes an agreement by Deere to provide “the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis, and repair” of tractors, combines, and other machinery for 10 years. That part is crucial, as farmers previously resorted to hacking their own equipment’s software just to get it up and running again. John Deere signed a memorandum of understanding in 2023 that partially addressed those concerns, providing third parties with the technology to diagnose and repair, as long as its intellectual property was safeguarded. Monday’s settlement seems to represent a much stronger (and legally binding) step forward.
Yeah but it's only for 10 years...
it's not, they have to provide the knowhow to 3rd parties so they can carry on indefinitely
10 years for the buyer or the manufacturer?
So it’s back to as before in 10 years?
The second to last sentence I copied over talks about after 10yrs, basically saying they have to provide the knowhow to 3rd party tool makers and repair technicians, and that this settlement makes that more certain. (as I read it)
Just buy a Mahindra tractor and get done with it! Quality might be iffy but you can repair it to your heart's content
Needs another zero, likely made 9 figures in revenue from this scheme.
Good! Wonder if Louis Rossmann already mentioned that.
this is awesome. beyond happy to see it
I bought a ~completely mechanical tractor without ECU right under the 25hp cutoff that requires computer and emissions controls to get around this bullshit. The adding of DPF and/or SCR to agricultural diesels gave vendors cover to fuck the customer using the excuse of preventing emissions tampering.
Up to one third of that $99m goes to attorneys. Named plaintiffs get $25k each and class members get what's left over, which could be anything from $50 to $5k according to ChatGPT.
I wonder if they'll throw in free credit monitoring with that?