Deere in the Headlights

The worst part? He thinks he could have fixed the valve himself if he had access to the parts and diagnostic tools needed to repair his equipment and put it back into use.

“My margins looked negative to start the year,” Wilson told us. “People bend down to pick up pennies where I’m from… I just don’t understand why I can’t have access to the same [repair tools] the field technicians have.”

Right to Repair legislation — which would provide farmers with access to the parts as well as the physical and software tools used to diagnose, calibrate and otherwise authorize repair — is gaining popularity amongst farmers. Over 30 states have considered these reforms, the American Farm Bureau Federation adopted a pro-Right to Repair policy in 2020 — and the Montana Farmers Union indicated a 2021 bill in its state is a top priority.

Opponents of Right to Repair reforms, such as the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and the Equipment Dealers Association, argue that the policy is an attempt to force manufacturers to turn over intellectual property in the form of source code. They also worry that Right to Repair would allow farmers to circumvent safety and environmental controls. Our analysis shows neither is the case.

Right to Repair calls for the software tools that farmers need, and those tools consist of embedded code. Embedded code is not source code. While the two are related, there are significant differences between them.

Source code is instructions written in a human-legible programming language that tell a machine what to do. Anyone who can read the source code could modify it and use it in a competing form, justifying concern from manufacturers.

But before source code is turned into the software tools that dealers use to fix farm equipment, it is compiled into a series of computer-legible 1’s and 0’s known as embedded code. In a combine, a farmer interacts with this embedded code through the controls in the cabin, which execute the embedded code to display a selectable button or list of settings on their screen.

Because Right to Repair legislation only mandates access to the embedded code required for diagnosis, maintenance or repair, and not the uncompiled source code behind it, there is no additional risk of source code leaking.

When a sensor in a tractor control system fails and is in need of repair, an error message is delivered to the equipment operator and the immobilizer is activated. A software key is needed to diagnose the issue and then indicate that the repair has been completed. This deactivates the immobilizer and allows the farmer to go back to their business.

This is not true. There is a clear difference between resetting an error code and ignoring or overriding safety codes. According to agricultural repair experts, overriding emissions or safety controls requires modification tools, not the tools used for diagnosis and repair that Right to Repair legislation provides.

To override these controls, a farmer would have to first erase the operating system present on the machine and then upload new, modified software that either does not have emissions and safety controls or allows a farmer to ignore them. This is an illegal practice separate from the software tools called for by farmers advocating for the Right to Repair.

The increased presence of software in agricultural equipment has allowed manufacturers such as John Deere to take control of the repair process at the expense of the equipment owner. The creation of software locks and keys required to authorize repair severely limits farmers and independent repair shops’ ability to fix broken farm equipment themselves.

A true solution would give farmers unrestricted access to the same tools that the dealers have. These are not tools that will allow farmers to override safety or emissions controls, nor will the tools lead to encroachments on intellectual property. They will, however, provide farmers with what they need to diagnose, calibrate, authorize and perform repairs. All of this should be provided at a fair and reasonable price.

Manufacturers should make these tools available to farmers. If they fail to do so, legislators should enact policies such as Right to Repair reforms to make sure that farmers can fix their own equipment.