A very-recent Supreme Court decision seems to forbid patent-holders from exercising control over their products once the product has been sold to a consumer. In this case, it was about reusing a printer toner-cartridge. "To help make its case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. used an analogy: Take a shop that restores and sells used cars. The business works because the shop can rest assured that, so long as those bringing in the cars own them, the shop is free to repair and resell those vehicles. That smooth flow of commerce would sputter if companies that make the thousands of parts that go into a vehicle could keep their patent rights after the first sale." I wonder if this will be extended to prohibit restrictions on owners' changing proprietary software that is utilized in the operation of their heavy and agricultural equipment. Here's a link to the Washington Post article, that includes the Justice Roberts quote. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ost-anything/?utm_term=.002424e0c8cd#comments Neill
I believe you are talking apples and oranges...reusing a toner cartridge is different than if you copied the design and went to market it...the case of john deere and its software is yet another issue, but I dont think it falls under that scotus decision..
John Deere tried to establish that copyright law prevented anyone from repairing their own machine. The case being spoken of here was trying to establish patent law over a consumable item. Scotus just reaffirmed the status quo.
no it wasnt against repairing john deere equipment, it was over the software in the computer, that since john deere developed the software and it has so called trade secrets in the software, that others that were not licensed by john deere to access the software ..but if you wanted to repair anything that you didnt need to access the software you were fine todo..ill try and find the article on it..
heres the link..happy reading.. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/07/0...r-modifications-of-vehicle-software/id=59014/
i've read them before. My contacts in farm states have told me that John Deere will not in anyway provide access to diagnostic systems to even troubleshoot a down combine or tractor. The telematics alert the dealer who, if they have a service person available, will dispatch them to the scene to troubleshoot and maybe provide a repair. Likely as not they will not bring a part required to repair the issue and have to make another trip to obtain the right part. Many of these farmers are hundreds of mile from the nearest dealer. The initial comment by the registrar of copyrights stated that subverting safety systems and emissions controls is already illegal and carries very stiff penalties. It is up to the proponents of the law to show cause why they should prevail and not the end users. I don't think anyone is misunderstanding the intentions of the parties in the articles written on the subject. The government wants control and the manufacturers want revenue.
your last sentence is the absolute truth, and this will not stop at just farm equipment, it will continue to all equipment....anything with computers and software will be effected..
If a farmer is trying to harvest a crop before bad weather comes or an earthmoving contractor is trying to finish a job before the same weather system arrives and their machines stop because of a computer problem which they don't seem to own, should the owner of the technology be liable for the losses incured by it's failure???????
as much as that sounds far fetched, Im sure in the fine print when you buy it , you sign away your rights to that claim..