In 2017, Apple and John Deere famously joined forces in Nebraska to fight an early R2R bill. An Apple lobbyist told Nebraska legislators that passing the bill would make the state a "Mecca for hackers," a talking point that has since been used by various industries to argue that opening up hardware leads to security risks. [1] There is a very real need for manufacturers to lobby through shared organizations because they recognize that a Right to Repair victory for one product is legally and logically a victory for all products.

The problem is that both sides are correct. The core of the R2R argument is about ownership instead of merely "licensing" from the manufacturer. Repair monopolies create an artificial scarcity, destroying economic efficiency, market competition and planned obsolescence (defeating environmental stewardship). A centralized repair model is a single point of failure, weakening resilience and national security.

Manufacturers have a strong argument against right-to-repair from the perspective of system integrity and safety - one can imagine unintended consequences and liability cascades from imperfect repair. Protection of intellectual property isn't just about software piracy and trade secrets, as opening up firmware access creates a cybersecurity nightmare of backdoors, raising environmental and regulatory compliance issues. The authorized dealer model isn't just about a monopoly - it’s about a guaranteed standard of care.

The current compromise is a subscription-based access model Memorandum of Understanding, where for a tiered subscription the John Deere customer gets a restricted version of the dealer's software [2]. The "Gotcha" in the MOU is that many farmers feel this was a bad trade because the manufacturer can change the price or the terms of the website at any time — whereas a law would be permanent.

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2018/02/01/apple-verizon-continue-t...

[2] https://www.deere.com/en/our-company/repair/customer-service...

I live in Japan, and our repair framework feels weak.

  A lot of it is based on industry association rules (業界団体ルール), not enforceable regulation. For example, major electronics companies sometimes disclose a parts retention period (部品保有期限), like keeping parts for X years, but that is mostly traditional large companies.

On repair policy/enforcement, the EU and US seem more advanced than Japan. That is why stories like this (farmers pushing back on dealer lock-in and repair access) are interesting to me.

What has been the result since the complete 2022 jailbreak of all Deere tractor embedded computer controls?

I live near Deere corporate headquarters, and saw their employment advertisements for low-level firmware security experts.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/16/john_deere_doom/

I never liked apple,that they openly deamonize farmers is absolute proof of there evil intent.Truely one of the most surreal things I have ever seen or heard of. The ONLY possible end game is enslavement, technical and legalistic mumbo jumbo not withstanding, with the onlyquestions bieng, who are these people, and how on earth did it come to pass that they can take a stab at something as diabolicle as this?

2017, Apple and John Deere famously joined forces in Nebraska to fight an early R2R bill. An Apple lobbyist told Nebraska legislators that passing the bill would make the state a "Mecca for hackers," a talking point that has

We badly need both a right to repair AND to abolish patents. Both would greatly increase competition and reduce prices.

Obligatory mention of the excellent Cory Doctorow's talk on this matter (the title might be confusing):

https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-a-post-american-enshittification...

Do we need right to repair anymore with AI? Could you get Claude to code an entire tractor software and flash it onto your own hardware and put it in the tractor? In other words just use the tractor for it's hardware?