TexasCHLforum.com

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

It’s official: John Deere and General Motors want to eviscerate the notion of ownership. Sure, we pay for their vehicles. But we don’t own them. Not according to their corporate lawyers, anyway.

In a particularly spectacular display of corporate delusion, John Deere—the world’s largest agricultural machinery maker —told the Copyright Office that farmers don’t own their tractors. Because computer code snakes through the DNA of modern tractors, farmers receive “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.”

Wow.

First of all. let me say that I think this is is pure bovine excrement. I’d like to think we live in a world where that will come back and bite them in the keister. But sadly, I don’t think it will. IANAL, however, I suspect there is legal precedent on their side.

If I understand correctly they don’t claim licensing of any physical part of the equipment, only the software that comes with it. You have an implied license to use that software (by operating the vehicle) for the life of the equipment. You may not alter, copy or reverse engineer that software. Sound familiar? That’s the way computers have been sold for the last 3 decades.
Now when the Open Source guys start producing GNU versions of the code that runs on the equipment hardware, you will most likely be legally able to remove the current version and install the Open Source version.

In the mean time, as much as I think it sucks and is an inditement of the morals and integrity of the companies pulling this stunt, I think they’ve probably got the legal high ground.

BigGuy wrote:(snip)
In the mean time, as much as I think it sucks and is an inditement of the morals and integrity of the companies pulling this stunt, I think they’ve probably got the legal high ground.

I know nothing of the law, but I have to believe that a good number of lawyers are capable of successfully arguing this junk in court. Given the state of our society and our judicial system, you're likely correct here.

I am not a farmer, nor am I in the position to purchase one of their products. If I were, however, this sort of filth coming from their mouths would make me consider abandoning their products in lieu of a competitor, forever.

Did I sign an IP licence agreement when I signed that SALE agreement?

No? End of discussion.

Vol Texan wrote:

BigGuy wrote:(snip)
In the mean time, as much as I think it sucks and is an inditement of the morals and integrity of the companies pulling this stunt, I think they’ve probably got the legal high ground.

I know nothing of the law, but I have to believe that a good number of lawyers are capable of successfully arguing this junk in court. Given the state of our society and our judicial system, you're likely correct here.

I am not a farmer, nor am I in the position to purchase one of their products. If I were, however, this sort of filth coming from their mouths would make me consider abandoning their products in lieu of a competitor, forever.

Did you miss the part about GM taking the same line?
Farmers are not alone.

Vol Texan wrote:(SNIP)
I am not a farmer, nor am I in the position to purchase one of their products. If I were, however, this sort of filth coming from their mouths would make me consider abandoning their products in lieu of a competitor, forever.

If I'm not mistaken, car manufacturers are also on this band wagon. And this will hurt more that the gear head who wants to wrench his on ride. All mechanics will now be paying licensing fees to each and every manufacturer to do any work on a vehicle that would require plugging into the OBD port. For example, resetting the oil change light. Most likely a lot of small operators will simply go out of business. The other will pass that expense on down. And it could wide up where the only place left to get work done is at the stealership.

BigGuy wrote:First of all. let me say that I think this is is pure bovine excrement. I’d like to think we live in a world where that will come back and bite them in the keister. But sadly, I don’t think it will. IANAL, however, I suspect there is legal precedent on their side.

If I understand correctly they don’t claim licensing of any physical part of the equipment, only the software that comes with it. You have an implied license to use that software (by operating the vehicle) for the life of the equipment. You may not alter, copy or reverse engineer that software. Sound familiar? That’s the way computers have been sold for the last 3 decades.
Now when the Open Source guys start producing GNU versions of the code that runs on the equipment hardware, you will most likely be legally able to remove the current version and install the Open Source version.

In the mean time, as much as I think it sucks and is an inditement of the morals and integrity of the companies pulling this stunt, I think they’ve probably got the legal high ground.

I think you're right. GNU is going to ultimately become a viable replacement for any software suite which tries to hijack someone's capital investment. It's already happening with increasing frequency in the personal computer world.

Corporate lawyers? They fall one rung under the politician lawyers on the bull ladder.

RoyGBiv wrote:Did I sign an IP licence agreement when I signed that SALE agreement?

No? End of discussion.

That's a very good point. But you can bet you will on your next purchase if this passes. And if you don't think they can make it retroactive and apply to second purchasers, then you've never dealt with Adobe licensing department. My company was extorted to "true up" on photoshop versions that came OEM with scanners and ran on Mac system 9. These machines had been upgraded to OS X, but a system 9 folder was left for legacy software. We never thought about removing an OEM version of photoshop light on a decommissioned OS. Nobody in their right mind believed that software had been fired up in decades. But Adobe thought that we should buy a new ($699) copy to validate the license.

I begged the company to fight it. But in the end, the bean counters calculated the extortion to be less expensive than the fight.

Isn't this the same with software on our computers? We own the computer and a license to use the operating system and software.

Bringing this back to a firearms topic:

If SigSauer ever tells me that I have “an implied license for the life of the gun to operate the trigger,” then this might get ugly.

Is this one of those fake news sites that pretend to be publishing real news?

I say bunk on the notion that when we buy an auto, or a tractor for that matter, that we don't own it outright.

There is something called title to a vehicle. Ownership title. Similar to a title real estate. Title passes, with full ownership rights transferred. That's been in effect since, what, the Magna Carta?

To equate what those attorneys are saying, is akin to buying a computer or a tablet. But NOT when a title is involved.

Vol Texan wrote:Bringing this back to a firearms topic:

If SigSauer ever tells me that I have “an implied license for the life of the gun to operate the trigger,” then this might get ugly.

It might head in that direction if they get an headway with those smart guns if there is any software installed.