Beyond the Lipstick: Apple's Tech Illusion and the Right to Repair

Apple is trying yet again to put "lipstick on a pig" of their own making. They announced earlier today that starting with new phones coming out sometime this fall, they will allow their customers to activate authentic Apple used parts for repair.  Sounds great !!  We Won !! 

Not so fast -- this announcement is purely political (aka marketing fluff) and not practical. 

Political - because there is legislation underway in Colorado that is written to match the statute in Oregon limiting how "parts pairing" can be used to block otherwise legal repairs.  Other states are moving forward with similar intent. Apple is now scrambling to avoid more laws limiting its monopoly control over parts.  This announcement is perfectly timed to take away incentive on the part of legislators to block parts pairing.   

We didn't win anything in this announcement.  Apple has framed its policy as an "innovation"  that is rich in irony. Apple created pairing software and has patented its actual innovation with a process patent.  We might need to create a new word  - "un-innovate" -  to describe not using their patent.  

It is absurdly impractical for Apple to announce they will allow consumers to activate authentical used parts on phones that are not even available, such as glass and batteries -- when these specific parts are replaced because they cannot be repaired.   The real value to consumers in legislation is to enable the use of third-party glass and batteries as the legal choice of the owner, and not to allow Apple to prevent that choice. 

Harvesting of used parts is to be applauded -- but the scope of that concession is not clear in the announcement.  Will a used camera work with a used phone? What about the dozens of other parts that can be used as spares? 

It is ridiculous that Apple proclaims they "innovated" in order to not pair parts -- when it is they that "innovated" to patent the process for confirming serial numbers in the first place.  Since the pairing process works on phones already in use -- the obvious practical "innovation" would be to update the IOS to undo its own damage.  

Also absurd is that authenticating broken glass and dead batteries is of any value to consumers -- since these parts aren't a major source of service parts as they are already useless.  

The announcement is far from comprehensive even if genuine.  The wording says "some" parts for "some" phones that do not yet exist in the market.  The only parts that are referenced are the most "consumable" parts - glass and batteries -- which are rarely used as sources of spare parts as broken glass and dead batteries are replaced. 

The real value to Apple is having enough of an appearance of doing good things while doing nothing in exchange for having legislatures roll over and play dead. 

Apple and a Federal Right to Repair

I've spent an inordinate amount of time recently, fielding calls from media outlets curious about my thoughts on Apple’s latest announcement regarding a federal Right to Repair.  To put it succinctly, it’s a masterstroke in public relations, but fundamentally, it’s smoke and mirrors. Here's why. 

What's in it for Apple? 

Apple has leveraged its considerable influence, particularly in California, to circumvent even stricter limitations being proposed in other states—limitations aimed at challenging Apple’s controversial “parts pairing” practices.  This strategy has been a death knell for independent repair businesses and consumer DIY efforts. 

Under Apple’s current terms, you must provide your device’s IMEI (serial number) directly to Apple to even purchase a part. This makes it impossible for independent repair shops to stock parts for future repairs, negating any convenience of same-day, local repairs. To put it in perspective, getting one’s rosary beads blessed by the Pope is simpler than this. 

The new California law conveniently sidesteps the issue of parts pairing and does not mandate Apple to facilitate the use of genuine, used parts as replacements. It leaves the third-party parts market in a perpetual state of limbo, thereby empowering Apple to dictate pricing. 

A Saga of Control

Once you get the part, your ordeal isn’t over. The part will not function without another interaction with Apple to “activate” it. For rural residents like myself, often without high-speed internet, this is a glaring oversight. Are we saying low-income or rural individuals don’t deserve the right to repair? 

Why Not Federal Law?

Since 2010, we've been rigorously investigating the most effective avenues for enacting repair-friendly laws. Through direct consultations with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), it's become clear that states hold the constitutional reins over General Business Law. These are the same statutes that protect consumers from fraud, like lemon laws, and they can be leveraged to guard against Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP).

Our research into End User License Agreements (EULAs) led us to present our findings to the FTC. The takeaway? Any product sold with a mandatory EULA is, by definition, engaging in deceptive trade practices. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) do not require EULAs to safeguard their intellectual property; instead, these agreements strip consumers of their well-established federal rights to repair. Since EULAs are often non-negotiable and sometimes even inaccessible for review, the consumer deception is blatant.

However, the limitations of federal agencies go beyond Apple. Both the DOJ and the FTC are structured to enforce violations against one OEM at a time. To grasp the enormity of this enforcement challenge, consider that the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) has 1,700 members. Using a fishing analogy: even if federal agencies were to snag a whale (like Apple), 1,699 other fish would elude capture. Given the time-consuming legal processes, we're looking at a Sisyphean task that would take 1,700 years to complete. Clearly, broader statutes and quicker enforcement mechanisms are essential.

Apple is fully aware of the forthcoming state laws that will close loopholes like "parts pairing." They argue against a patchwork of state laws, claiming it would be unmanageable. However, our template legislation, which has been introduced in 45 states, aims to be as non-intrusive as possible on manufacturers—so much so that we've been criticized for being "too light."

Lastly, Congress has a critical role that only it can fulfill: addressing outdated Copyright Law limitations originally designed to combat illegal VCR tape copying in the mid-'90s. The U.S. Copyright Office itself is seeking relief from the monotonous triennial hearings on the legality of breaking digital locks for repair purposes. Except for specific cases like computer gaming stations, all repairs are legal, but current laws inhibit the provision of necessary tools.

The Ongoing Battle

As we soldier on in our state-level advocacy, it's worth noting that the landscape is shifting strongly in our direction. While the exact number of additional laws required to tip the scale remains uncertain—be it 5 or 15—what is clear is that the opposition from most Consumer Electronic OEMs is waning. Several major brands have already taken proactive steps to improve parts distribution and customer support, changes that are likely to have a national ripple effect, irrespective of federal law.

But it's crucial to understand that the arena of this struggle is expanding. The Right to Repair movement is no longer confined to just smartphones or laptops; it's encompassing a broader array of products. Whether it's machinery used in agriculture, industrial equipment, marine engines, or even as specific as medical equipment and petite wristwatches, the fight remains the same. What changes are the dimensions and complexity of the products involved.

So, what does this mean for our ongoing efforts? It signifies that our advocacy must adapt to meet these evolving challenges. We must diversify our strategies to tackle the different facets of digital monopolization affecting not just consumer electronics, but our daily lives at large.

Our template legislation, introduced in more than 40 states, serves as a foundational step. But we must push for more comprehensive laws that take into account this expanding battleground. We'll need to engage with experts across these various sectors, build coalitions, and most importantly, continue to raise public awareness about why the Right to Repair is everyone's right, regardless of what you're looking to fix.

The Tide is Turning: Apple’s Right to Repair Concession is a Big Win, But Don't Unpack Your Toolkits Just Yet

The Apple of Our Eye: A Step Forward or Just Window Dressing?

In a stunning turn of events, Apple, the tech juggernaut that once fiercely guarded its walled garden, announced support for a U.S. Right to Repair bill at the federal level. "It's about damn time!"—that's the collective sentiment resonating from repair shops to legislative floors (and in my head).

But before we break out the champagne and dust off your toolkit, let's dissect what this actually means for consumers, legislators, and the repair industry. Because as with any Apple product, the devil is in the details.

Key Takeaways

• Apple's Stance: Apple's support for the Right to Repair bill is a significant change, but it's important to be cautious.

• Consumer Impact: Consumers may benefit from more affordable repairs and greater choices in where to get repairs done.

• Legislative Impact: Apple's support boosts national initiatives but doesn't negate the importance of state-level legislation.

• Federal vs State: A two-pronged legislative approach — federal laws for broad frameworks and state laws for specifics — is ideal.

• Repair Businesses: Opportunities for repair shops could increase, but accountability is key.

• Parts Pairing: Apple's practice of parts pairing is a significant hurdle for both professionals and DIY repairers.

• Data Security: Concerns about data security shouldn't stifle the Right to Repair; both authorized and independent shops have equal stakes in data protection.

• Warranty: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act already offers some level of consumer protection against unfair warranty voiding.

The Rundown: What Apple is Promising

On October 24, Apple made a public commitment to back a U.S. Right to Repair bill at the federal level. This was part of a broader initiative by President Joe Biden to promote competition and consumer-friendly policies. But Apple didn't just stop at legislative support. The company also pledged to make parts, tools, and documentation available to independent repair shops and consumers nationwide.

In the words of Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, restrictive practices in the industry have "stifled innovation, closed off business opportunities for independent repair shops, and created unnecessary electronic waste."

What This Means for Consumers

You've heard it before: Apple products are notoriously expensive to repair. Need to replace an iPhone battery? You're practically forced to go to an Apple Store or an Apple-authorized service provider, costing you an arm and a leg.

Apple's announcement could be a game-changer. Now, theoretically, you'll have access to parts and manuals to fix your own devices or take them to a local repair shop without burning a hole in your wallet.

Increased access to parts and manuals doesn't just empower consumers; it also fosters competition among repair shops. With more players in the field, we can likely expect repair costs to drop.

This is the natural outcome when monopolistic practices are dismantled, leveling the playing field for all.

But let's not jump the gun. Past Apple policies have come with caveats—lots of them. So stay tuned.

What This Means for Legislators

State legislatures have been duking it out over Right to Repair laws for years. California, Colorado, New York, and Minnesota have already passed their own laws, with at least 30 more states in the legislative pipeline.

Apple’s sudden about-face adds significant weight to the national push. But legislators must scrutinize the actual text of any federal bill that emerges. A national law must balance the needs of consumers, businesses, and the environment without giving tech giants loopholes to exploit.

The battle for the right to repair isn't confined to the corridors of Congress; it's a grassroots movement that has been gaining traction at the state level for years. California, Colorado, New York, and Minnesota have been pioneers, passing their own right to repair laws. Yet, this isn't a one-size-fits-all situation. Apple's newfound support is undoubtedly a boost for federal legislation, but let's not underestimate the critical role that states play in this legislative landscape.

Federal Legislation: A Step, Not the Destination

Federal legislation brings a sense of uniformity and can set a baseline for repair rights across the nation. But beware of the loopholes. At the federal level, the risk of lobbying power diluting the law is ever-present. Congress must craft a bill that stands up to scrutiny and doesn't provide tech giants with backdoor avenues to continue restrictive practices.

State-Level Legislation: The Real Battleground

Now, why is state-level legislation indispensable? The answer lies in the courts. Legal battles have repeatedly shown that most repair restrictions are rooted in contracts, specifically End User License Agreements (EULAs). These agreements often limit how consumers and repair shops can interact with the product, essentially holding the device hostage to the manufacturer’s terms.

Since these contracts fall under General Business Law, they are largely a state matter. Cases like Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. have laid down this precedent. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Lexmark couldn't use its patents to prevent third-party companies from refilling and selling its ink cartridges. This was a big win for the right to repair movement and solidified the fact that state laws can be effective in combating restrictive EULAs.

The Synergy of Dual Legislation

The ideal scenario? Federal laws that set a broad framework, complemented by state laws that tackle the nuances. This two-pronged approach ensures that while federal laws lay down the ground rules, state laws can adapt and evolve to address the specific challenges and loopholes that manufacturers might exploit.

What This Means for Repair Businesses

If you do business as a repair shop, this announcement is as exciting as a kid in a candy store. However, remember that Apple began distributing parts and manuals to some independent shops in 2019. Yet, many have criticized the company for not going far enough.

Now, Apple is pledging to follow the California model nationally, including supplying diagnostic tools. This could open up a slew of opportunities for repair shops, but we need to hold Apple accountable to ensure they follow through.

The Parts Pairing Quandary: A Hurdle for Both Consumers and Professionals

One of the less-discussed but critically important issues surrounding Apple's repair ecosystem is the practice of parts pairing. For the uninitiated, parts pairing means that certain components in Apple devices are cryptographically paired to the device itself. Replace a part without performing this pairing process, and you may find yourself with a non-functional device or one with limited functionality.

Why is this a problem? Parts pairing serves as a major roadblock to both professional and DIY repairs.

The Professional challenge

For repair businesses, parts pairing means you can't simply swap out a component. You need proprietary Apple software to complete the process, something that has historically been limited to Apple and its network of authorized service providers. This restriction not only hampers the speed of repairs but also increases costs—costs that are typically passed on to the consumer.

The DIY Dilemma

For consumers, parts pairing is even more problematic. Imagine buying a genuine Apple part for a DIY repair, only to discover that your device won't function properly because the new part hasn't been 'officially' paired with your device. This severely limits the concept of right to repair for everyday consumers, making it more of a 'right-to-repair-if-Apple-says-you-can.’

The Undermining of Right to Repair

In essence, parts pairing undermines the very idea of right to repair by adding a layer of complexity and dependency on Apple's proprietary systems. It curtails consumer freedom to repair devices as they see fit and places undue burdens on independent repair shops that lack access to Apple's pairing software.

The Fine Print: Why We Should Temper Our Enthusiasm on Apple's Promises

Consumer advocates have already expressed reservations. Nathan Proctor of U.S. PIRG cautions that the "real-world experience" will be the true litmus test. While the announcement is promising, it’s not a blanket guarantee that things will change overnight.

When it comes to Apple, it's always wise to read the fine print. Apple's announcements often come wrapped in sleek packaging, just like their products. But peel back the layers, and you'll frequently find a series of caveats that can make the initially exciting news seem a bit less revolutionary.

Case in Point: The Independent Repair Provider Program

Back in 2019, Apple launched its Independent Repair Provider Program, offering third-party repair shops access to the same parts, tools, and training as Apple Authorized Service Providers. Sounds good, right? Not so fast. Many independent repair shops found the terms of the program too restrictive. For instance, businesses were required to have an Apple-certified technician perform the repairs, a certification that is neither easy nor cheap to get.

The Devil is in the Diagnostic Tools

Apple's recent pledge includes providing diagnostic tools to independent repair shops. That's a win, but it’s essential to clarify what these tools can and can’t do. Apple has been known to lock certain diagnostic features behind proprietary software, accessible only by authorized providers. If this practice continues, it would severely limit the scope and effectiveness of repairs that an independent shop could offer.

The Parts Predicament

Apple's announcement also promises to make parts available at "fair and reasonable" prices. But who defines what's fair and reasonable? The company has been criticized in the past for charging exorbitant prices for spare parts, making it financially unfeasible for independent repair shops to offer competitive rates. This could be a wolf in sheep's clothing situation, where the promise to provide parts actually creates a new monopoly for Apple on the back-end of the repair process.

Data Privacy and Security

Let's address the elephant in the room: data privacy and security. Apple has long wielded this as a shield against right to repair legislation, implying that opening up repairs would be akin to opening up Pandora's box of data breaches and privacy violations. But let's be clear—this argument doesn't hold water.

Apple's Own Slip-ups

Contrary to its assertions, Apple and its authorized providers like Best Buy have had their own share of data privacy controversies. There have been instances where repair technicians at these places were caught snooping on customer data. So, the notion that only Apple and its authorized partners can guarantee data protection is demonstrably false.

What the FTC Found

The Federal Trade Commission's "Nixing the Fix" report is particularly illuminating on this front. The report found no evidence to suggest that independent repair shops are any more likely to compromise or misuse customer data compared to authorized repair centers.

The record contains no empirical evidence to suggest that independent repair shops are more or less likely than authorized repair shops to compromise or misuse customer data. Furthermore, although access to certain embedded software could introduce new security risks, repair advocates note that they only seek diagnostics and firmware patches.

In other words, the data privacy argument is less about protecting the consumer and more about protecting Apple's monopoly on repairs.

Independent Shops: Equally Committed to Data Privacy

It’s crucial to note that independent repair shops take data privacy seriously. Many follow best practices for data protection and are committed to maintaining customer trust. After all, their business relies heavily on reputation. So, the argument that independent shops are less capable of handling data securely is not only unfounded but also unfairly stigmatizes an entire industry.

While data privacy is an important issue that deserves attention, it shouldn't be weaponized to stifle competition and choice in the repair industry. The argument is not only disingenuous but also ignores the fact that data privacy concerns exist across the board, regardless of who performs the repair.

Warranty Worries

Warranties are often a sticking point when it comes to repairs, and Apple is no exception. Consumers frequently worry that having their devices repaired independently will void their warranties. But what many don't realize is that protections against such practices already exist, thanks to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act: A Consumer Shield

Enacted in 1975, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits manufacturers from voiding warranties simply because a consumer chose to use an independent repair service or aftermarket parts. In other words, you have the right to repair your device wherever you please without worrying about voiding your warranty, so long as the repair doesn't damage the product.

Apple's Policy vs. Federal Law

Apple's warranty language has often been critiqued for its restrictiveness, but it's essential to understand that federal law supersedes any such company policies. Consumers should be aware that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act can serve as a protective layer against any efforts to void warranties unfairly.

A Step Toward Greater Transparency?

With Apple's new right to repair stance, it will be interesting to see if the company modifies its warranty policies to be more transparent about consumers' rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. While the act offers protections, many consumers are unaware of their rights, often erring on the side of caution by sticking to authorized repair centers.

If warranty concerns are holding you back from exploring independent repair options, it's time to familiarize yourself with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. It’s a crucial piece of legislation that already provides a safety net for consumers opting for independent repairs.

Final Thoughts: A Step in the Right Direction, But the Journey is Far from Over

Apple's announcement is a win, no doubt. However, it’s just the starting line in a marathon, not a sprint. We must keep an eye out for the actual legislation, the availability of repair parts, and the experiences of both consumers and repair shops. It's time for us to keep Apple—and the entire industry—on their toes.

Take Action Now

The fight for Right to Repair is far from over. It's crucial that we continue to push for transparency, fairness, and consumer choice. Here are ways you can make a difference:

• Stay informed by following updates on Right to Repair legislation in your state.

• Advocate for Right to Repair by contacting your local representatives

• Become a paying member and help fund our advocacy efforts to pass legislation and hold manufacturers like Apple accountable.

• Support your local independent repair shops; they're the backbone of the Right to Repair movement.

Unpacking California

SB 244 – the “Right to Repair Act” is now law. Time to unpack the law and its implications:

The Right to Repair Act is grounded in the principle that when you buy something – its yours to use, fix, or resell as you like. Owning things is fundamentally different from rental. If we don’t have the option to choose whom we trust for hiring the service of repair, we aren’t truly owners.

California is a very big state, and by itself this law would have outside influence. But they are one of several laws already on the books with more to follow. Manufacturers will see more laws passed covering more equipment categories and possibly more limitations on details - such as how parts-pairing (aka VIN burning) can be accomplished or banned. States are the “innovators” of our system, and legislative innovation has just begun.

The California legislature made political choices along the way about which kinds of equipment should be covered by this law – so it's no surprise that the business interests of Silicon Valley were considered. As a result, some of the requirements are less comprehensive than in Minnesota, which clearly includes business-scale computing. Some requirements are far more comprehensive than New York with their very tight focus on consumer electronics.

Whole categories of digitally driven equipment were exempted in order to make it possible for unambiguous support for repair of largely consumer and household products. It is not an accident that California, which has previously considered legislation for both medical and agricultural equipment, didn’t include these categories in SB #244.

More states are going to make sure their constituents have similar and broader protections. Repairs need to be local to be practical – so while it's possible to buy parts in a repair friendly state and ship them anywhere – states will enact their own laws so that repair business activity remains in-state. A total of 45 states plus Puerto Rico have already introduced bills. We expect each state will make their own political choices for scope, enforcement, and effective dates. There will be small variations by state – just as there are variations in tax laws, liquor laws, criminal laws, teacher credentials and just about everything else.

Manufacturers seeking advice on compliance can look first at removing their artificial policy limitations on repair. Changing restrictive policies on selling parts and tools can be done easily, even if adapting an existing distribution system lags behind. Those that hide documentation and repair firmware behind a paywall can just remove the paywall. OEMs that make great products and make sure they can be repaired will delight their customers.

Apple's War on Right to Repair Through Serial Numbers

Apple's latest maneuver in the battle against the Right to Repair movement is nothing short of a declaration of war on consumers and small businesses alike.

Both Cory Doctorow and iFixit have shed light on an increasingly common and unsettling practice—Parts Pairing. This tactic is not exclusive to Apple; it finds its roots in the auto industry, known there as VIN Burning. The endgame? To ensure that replacement parts, whether new or used, are rendered useless without the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) "blessing."

What is Parts Pairing?

The Mechanics

In layman's terms, Parts Pairing is the technological "handshake" that occurs between a device and its replacement part. This "handshake" requires an authentication or "pairing" process conducted by the OEM. Imagine you've got a puzzle piece that only fits when the puzzle maker says it fits. Annoying, right?

The Motive

Now, you might ask, "Why would any company do this?" The answer is simple—control. OEMs have already cashed in on their innovations, intellectual property, and brand image. Yet, they still want to keep you on a short leash, ensuring you remain dependent on them for even the most basic repairs.

The Real-World Consequences

Killing the Repair Business

Parts Pairing is not just a mere inconvenience; it's an existential threat to repair shops. These businesses rely on the ability to use parts from one machine in another. With Parts Pairing, that's no longer an option.

The Circular Economy at Risk

Even more alarmingly, Parts Pairing undermines the very concept of a circular economy. Without the ability to reuse parts, the market for used components dries up. In turn, recyclers lose the financial incentive to harvest parts, leading them further down the road to obsolescence.

Industry Reactions

Cory Doctorow's Verdict

Cory Doctorow doesn't mince words; he calls Apple's practice what it is—scum. Read more.

iFixit's Analysis

iFixit's teardown of the iPhone 15 reveals the usual challenges in repairing Apple products, along with some glaring design and execution flaws. Read the full story.

What Next? Legislation and Activism

This insidious trend underscores the need for stronger Right to Repair laws at both the state and federal levels. We can't afford to let OEMs dictate the terms of our ownership.

Join the Fight

If you care about your right to repair, now is the time to get involved. This is not just about Apple or tech companies; it's a fight for consumer freedom and environmental responsibility.

Unpacking California's SB 244

SB 244 – the “Right to Repair Act” is a Done Deal. Its only a day away from being sent to the Governor for his signature.

Time to unpack the law and its implications:

This law is mostly grounded in the principle that when you buy something – its yours to use, fix, or resell as you like. The legislature made political choices along the way about which kinds of equipment should be covered by this law – and its no surprise that the business interests of Silicon Valley were considered. Some of the details are less robust than in Minnesota, other details are more comprehensive than New York. Whole categories of equipment were exempted in order to fight only a few 800-lb gorillas at a time.

Similar choices were made in Colorado, New York, and Minnesota. California is a very big state and has outsize influence in policy, but is still only one of many. More states are going to make their own political choices. There will be variations – just as there are variations in tax laws, liquor laws, criminal laws, teacher credentials and just about everything else.

Manufacturers seeking consistency on what to do for compliance can do so today. Follow the centuries old principle of ownership – and restore policies that recognize the buyer – your customer – is in charge of making choices of whom they trust for buying the service of repair.

Simple.

Groups Leading “Right to Repair” Movement Urge Biden Administration to Reject Any Attempts to Derail their Gains Via “Trade” Agreement as Latest Round of Indo-Pacific Trade Negotiations Start

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 12, 2023
CONTACT: 518-251-2837

NEWS RELEASE

Consumer, Business, Farm, Digital Groups Leading “Right to Repair” Movement Urge Biden Administration to Reject Any Attempts to Derail their Gains Via “Trade” Agreement as Latest Round of Indo-Pacific Trade Negotiations Start

Washington, D.C. – In a letter sent today, a broad coalition urged the Biden administration to safeguard progress being made in states and nationally to give consumers and businesses a “right to repair” their electronics-enabled equipment and devices, by ensuring that a digital trade agreement being negotiated as part of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) does not include a special corporate secrecy shield that could block the right to repair. Signatories include American Economic Liberties Project, Center for Democracy & Technology, Consumer Reports, Farm Action, iFixit, National Farmers Union, The Repair Association, Public Knowledge, and U.S. PIRG.

The Biden administration’s battle against monopolies has spotlighted how consumers, farmers, and small businesses get abused by large manufacturers that unduly restrict access to necessary tools, parts, and information to repair their electronics-enabled equipment and devices. A burgeoning “Right to Repair” movement is making real progress at the state and federal level with five states passing legislation, and the Federal Trade Commission active in enforcing protections for users’ repair choice.

The broad coalition of consumer, business, farm, and digital groups united to raise the alarms about a rule that some in the tech industry are pushing for in the context of a major Biden trade agreement, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. The little-known provision, officially called “source code,” was slipped into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2019 and could thwart the efforts of governments to require that manufacturers share essential information about their software, or even descriptions of algorithms. The way in which the term “algorithm” is defined in that provision could potentially be taken to mean any repair software, manual or other firmware update. The broad coalition of groups has sent a letter to President Biden urging the administration to exclude the damaging USMCA provision from the IPEF.

“People should be able to fix their stuff, and if a trade deal undercuts that, we should fix the trade deal,” said Nathan Proctor, U.S. PIRG’s Right to Repair Campaign Director. “The proposed language creates a massive loophole, undermining legislation cracking down manufacturers who refuse to provide what people need to fix their tablets, toasters and even tractors.”

“Repair.org is very concerned that including this trade language could destroy the rights of owners to control their property, remove constitutional powers granted to states, and replace it with control by dominant multinational companies, regardless of statute,” said Gay Gordon-Byrne, Executive Director of the Repair Association.

The administration has proposed a tight timeline for the IPEF, hoping to reach a final agreement by mid-November when the heads of state of the countries involved meet at a previously-scheduled Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco. The latest round of IPEF negotiations started this Sunday, September 10, in Thailand. The IPEF will set binding rules on countries representing 40% of the world economy.

“The right of consumers and businesses to choose where to get their digital devices repaired is a fundamental right of ownership. The authority of governments around the world to protect this right for their citizens should not be overridden by fine print in trade agreements negotiated in secret,” said George Slover, Senior Counsel for Competition Policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology.

“Big Tech’s so-called “digital trade” agenda has been exposed time and again as a threat to the democratic policymaking and the policies required to ensure that the digital economy works for everyone,” said Nidhi Hegde, Managing Director at the American Economic Liberties Project. “Our future cannot be determined in close-door trade negotiations, where members of Congress, civil society, and the general public have no voice. The Biden administration must immediately open up the negotiation process to public oversight and exclude any provisions that could preempt direly-needed right-to-repair reforms.”

"Most consumers who buy a smartphone or a scanner-printer would be surprised to learn that even if they wanted to, they are restricted in how and where they can get these devices repaired and save money and the environment. The right to repair something you own is a fundamental consumer right that we need to protect," said Sumit Sharma, Senior Researcher at Consumer Reports. 

“To keep their operations thriving, American farmers and ranchers must be able to repair their farm equipment as they see fit,” said Joe Maxwell, president of Farm Action Fund. “From Colorado to West Virginia to Washington, D.C., we have made strides in securing right to repair for agriculture. Yet, any language in future trade agreements that could limit policies requiring original equipment manufacturers to provide fair access to digital repair tools would cost America’s farmers and independent repair shops millions of dollars and further increase monopolization throughout the repair market.”

Read the full letter here. 

###

Trust and Accountability in the Tech World

Yesterday, a disheartened Redditor shared their unfortunate experience with Apple's repair services. Despite having AppleCare+ coverage on their iPhone 12, Apple denied their repair claim, accusing the user of “unauthorized modifications” to their device. 

This decision left the Redditor confused, frustrated, and stuck with a malfunctioning phone. As they explained, the issues - wifi connectivity problems, Bluetooth glitches, cellular data disruption, spontaneous reboots - seemed to come out of nowhere. The user insists they did not tamper with or intentionally damage their iPhone in any way. 

So why did Apple refuse to honor their extended warranty and repair the device?

Situations like this highlight the need for Right to Repair legislation. Right to Repair aims to give consumers and independent repair shops access to the parts, tools, and information needed to fix devices. Without these resources, we are at the mercy of manufacturers like Apple to handle repairs.

And as this Redditor learned, the manufacturer may not have the consumer’s best interests in mind. By claiming “unauthorized modifications,” Apple was able to deny repair under warranty and avoid taking responsibility for issues with the iPhone 12. 

Of course, we only heard one side of the story. But Apple’s blanket denial, without sufficient explanation or compromise, left the Redditor justifiably upset. They had paid for AppleCare+ coverage in case something like this happened. They sent the device to an authorized Apple repair center, only to have their claim rejected.

When the Redditor contacted Apple support, they received equally unhelpful responses. The customer service representatives simply reiterated the repair center’s vague claim of “internal damage” and offered no additional solutions. After hours on hold and multiple transfers between representatives, the Redditor was essentially told they were out of luck. 

This disregard for a paying customer, both from the repair center and customer service, may feel unacceptable. But without Right to Repair, consumers have little power or recourse.

The Redditor sums it up best themselves: 

“My only crime? Trusting Apple to stand by its products and services. My faith in Apple's customer care is shattered. If their services can dismiss a problem instead of solving it, then what are they there for?”

Apple may argue that restricting repairs protects user safety and guards against tampering. But there should be consumer protections in place for situations like this, where a seemingly faulty device is denied service with little to no accountability. 

As this case shows, we cannot always trust manufacturers to make the most ethical decisions. If we want fair repair policies that respect consumer rights, Right to Repair is essential.

Right to Repair legislation would require companies like Apple to provide repair manuals, parts, and tools to device owners and independent shops. It would give consumers more choice in how their devices get fixed. Inherently as a result of this information, it would create accountability for manufacturers, forcing them to compete with other repair options. 

Trust and Accountability in the Tech World

At the heart of every transaction, be it monetary or service-based, lies trust. Consumers trust that when they purchase a product or service, the company will uphold its end of the bargain. This trust is especially crucial in the tech industry, where devices are not just tools but integral parts of our daily lives. When we buy a smartphone, laptop, or any other gadget, we're not just investing in the device itself but also in the promise of support, updates, and repairs.

However, incidents like the one highlighted in the Reddit post erode this trust. When a consumer is denied a service they've paid for based on ambiguous terms like "unauthorized modifications," it raises red flags. The lack of clarity and transparency in such decisions can make consumers feel cheated, leading them to question the integrity of the company they once trusted.

Accountability is the other side of the trust coin. Companies must be held accountable for their actions, especially when they have a significant impact on consumers. In the case of tech giants, their decisions can affect millions of users worldwide. When a service claim is denied without a clear explanation or an opportunity for the consumer to challenge the decision, it creates a power imbalance.

Moreover, the monopolistic nature of some tech companies means consumers often have limited alternatives. This lack of competition can lead to complacency, with companies feeling they can act without consequence. However, true accountability means that companies should not only be answerable to their shareholders but also to their consumers.

Transparency is the bridge between trust and accountability. For consumers to trust a company, they need to understand the company's processes and decisions. This is especially true in situations where a service claim is denied or a warranty is voided. Companies should provide clear, understandable reasons for their decisions and offer avenues for consumers to seek further clarification or challenge these decisions.

To rebuild trust, companies must prioritize open communication, transparency, and genuine accountability. This includes:

1. Clear Communication: Companies should clearly outline their warranty and service terms, ensuring consumers know what to expect.

2. Feedback Mechanisms: Establishing channels for consumers to provide feedback, raise concerns, and seek redress can go a long way in building trust. 

3. Third-Party Oversight: Independent bodies can audit and oversee company decisions, ensuring they are made fairly and transparently.

4. Empowering Consumers: Companies should provide consumers with the tools and knowledge to understand their devices better, including potential issues and solutions.
   

Trust and accountability are not just buzzwords; they are the pillars of a healthy consumer-company relationship. As the tech world continues to evolve, companies must recognize the importance of maintaining trust and being truly accountable to their consumers. 

The Redditor’s iPhone 12 may be beyond saving. But their troubling experience highlights the need for increased transparency and consumer protections around device repairs. Supporting Right to Repair bills helps prevent situations like this. Consumers deserve accessible and ethical repair options for the products they own. More importantly, they deserve companies that will be open, honest, and accountable at every step of the way.

Right to Repair for Agriculture in Colorado Moves Ahead

Last night (Thursday March 9) The Colorado Senate voted 4-3 to move Agricultural Right to Repair HB23-1011 ahead to the Senate Floor.  The House has already moved the bill by a vote of 44-17. Participants in Thursday's hearing in the Colorado Senate AG and Natural Resources Committee heard a rare, lengthy (7 hours !! ) and wide ranging discussion about the merits and pitfalls of HB12-1011. It was by far the most diligent and useful of hearings in our 10 years of experience. The Senate Chair himself explained that he went back and forth at least ten times between Yea and Nea before deciding to cast the deciding Yea vote. 

One of the key issues was the recent announcement of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) between the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and John Deere, and Case-IH.  Advocates noted that the timing of the MOU was clearly intended to forestall this legislation from moving.  Opponents argued that the MOUs would provide farmers with all the information and parts necessary for consumer-directed repair so legislation was unnecessary.   A couple of Senators advanced the argument that government shouldn’t be involved in these private matters.  All these positions were discussed at length. 

During the hearing questions were raised about if the MOUs are actually comprehensive and if the MOU format is a viable alternative to legislation.  AFBF (American Farm Bureau Federation – a signatory to the MOU) revealed that John Deere does not sell 100% of the materials necessary for complete repair, and the Customer Service Advisor tool only covers 97% of repairs that a farmer might need to make.  This matters enormously as Deere had stated in testimony in Montana in 2021 that the 2% (or 3%) are the high tech stuff dealers claimed as “off limits” for owner repair.  In the world of increasingly high-tech problems such repairs are the problems that vex farmers the most.  

The argument was ultimately made that since equipment manufacturers had agreed to provide "everything" needed for consumer-directed repair they would not be harmed by being subject to a statute. The hearing effectively called John Deere's bluff and demonstrated that MOUs were not enough to address the issue of Right to Repair. It was a very big step forward for all of us. 

Digital Right to Repair Coalition Letter of Support - ITC Samsung Display Technology

January 12, 2023

Re: CERTAIN ACTIVE MATRIX ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE DISPLAY PANELS AND MODULES FOR MOBILE DEVICES, AND COMPONENTS THEREOF

Docket number: 3661 

To Whom it May Concern,

The Repair Association, formally known as the Digital Right to Repair Coalition, is a

501(c)6 trade association founded in July of 2013 to support individuals and businesses engaged in repair, reuse, and recycling of digital electronic parts and products. 

The Repair Association represents the combined interests of repair professionals in the technology aftermarket. Its members span the interests of individuals, non-profits, and for-profits engaged in the repair, resale, recycling, and re-commerce of technology. Its mission is to advocate for repair-friendly policies, regulations, statues and standards. Our members range in size from individual hobbyists to multinational repair and services providers, and include consumer rights organizations, sustainability advocates, agricultural organizations, flexible labor networks, equipment trading networks, and parts distributors.

PIRG, the Public Interest Research Group is an advocate for the public interest. We speak out for the public and stand up to special interests on problems that affect the public's health, safety and wellbeing. By giving every consumer and small business access to the parts, tools and service information they need to repair products from cell phones to tractors, we can keep products in use longer and reduce unnecessary waste.

The environmental impact of product manufacturing is significant. E-waste is the fastest growing waste stream, a problem that Nature describes as a “crisis.” The United Nation’s Global E-waste Monitor found that people disposed of 53.6 million metric tonnes of e-waste in 2019, and expects this to increase by nearly 40% by 2030. PIRG’s research finds that if Americans held onto their our phones for one more year on average, the emissions reductions would be equivalent to taking 636,000 cars off the road for a year. For products like smartphones that break frequently, repair is the best strategy to increase product lifetimes.

Consumers should be free both to repair products themselves and to contract with a third-party service technician of their choice. Consumers who want to fix their products simply want to return their smartphones back to working order. Often, they require the help from repair professionals to do that. And those repair professionals require access to a marketplace of repair parts that frequently does not include an ‘authorized’ Original Equipment Manufacturer part. The increasing complexity of modern displays means that any rule that bars imports of service parts in effect bars Americans from fixing their devices at all.

The challenges that consumers and independent repair shops are having accessing parts for smartphones is well documented in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and hundreds of other publications. In his July, 2021 Executive Order Promoting Competition in the American Economy, President Biden asked federal agencies to seek ways to “Make it easier and cheaper to repair items you own by limiting manufacturers from barring self-repairs or third-party repairs of their products.”

The smartphone repair industry in the United States is fragmented, with thousands of unaffiliated repair shops. This distributed network is robust, but importation and distribution of service parts is handled by a small number of companies, many of whom are cited in this complaint. Smartphone displays provide an outsized share of revenue for the industry, and severing this supply chain will have a significant impact on the repair industry and consumer ability to access repair services in the United States.

One of the most prominent voices in the repair industry is Youtuber Louis Rossmann, whose 1.75 million subscriber channel frequently raises the inability to purchase parts due to exclusionary contracts and non licensable patents. Rossmann described this ITC complaint as a “killshot on [the] entire repair industry.”

Exclusionary contracts are frequently used to prevent the sale of original parts, forcing the repair market to seek alternatives. Rossmann describes this in an interview with National Review. “So with the newest MacBook, there’s one particular charging chip that I cannot get anywhere. I used to be able to purchase this from other vendors. I used to, a long time ago, be able to go to Mouser, Digi-Key, Newark, and buy them. Now what I need to do, because [Apple] told Intersil, “Don’t sell to anybody but us,” is I have to buy a $120 wireless-charging, extended-battery case thing for the iPhone XR, rip that chip off of it, and then put it into the Macbook.”

Exclusionary contracts frequently prevent repair providers from purchasing parts or licensing patents required to manufacture competing service parts. In their “Nixing the Fix” investigation, the Federal Trade Commission describes anti-competitive practices around limiting access to service parts. “Other tactics described by commenters involve allegations of potentially exclusionary conduct, such as making products difficult or impossible to disassemble, in order to maintain market position and exclude aftermarket competitors, or the anti-competitive assertion of patent rights and enforcement of trademarks by manufacturers to restrict repairs not authorized by OEMs.”

A June 2022 survey of 253 repair shops conducted by PIRG demonstrated the threat that repair restrictions represent for independent repair businesses. Of the shops surveyed, 42% stated that they frequently have to “turn away potential customers because of restricted access to repair parts materials, software or information.” When asked, “if Right to Repair does not become law and manufacturers could continue to restrict access to repair materials, how might it affect your business?” 84% responded that it would reduce the number of customers they could serve, and 45% responded that they might have to close their doors. Only 4% said that it would not affect their business. 

In response, the Repair Association has advised state governments on new right to repair laws that would provide access to service parts not currently available for sale. New York’s new “Digital Fair Repair Act”  will cover products manufactured starting Jul 1, 2023 will go into effect on Dec 28, 2023. This law will require manufacturers such as Apple to sell the service parts described in this complaint.

The success of this approach strongly suggests that societal interests and broad consumer access to repair are aligned, that improving access to repair can both be served by well-considered policy.

Exclusionary contracts have caused a host of unintended consequences to otherwise lawful activities, including repair. We are not an OLED patent experts, but if Samsung’s patents are implicated, a solution that would provide the most clarity for consumers, repair professionals, and parts distributors, would be fair and reasonable licensing of the patents under dispute. To the best of my knowledge, Samsung did not propose any licensing terms or attempt to negotiate with the industry prior to filing this complaint.

Repair technicians are the lifeblood of so many communities across this country. Please do your best to avoid the significant disruptions to the economy that would result from barring aftermarket displays from the market.

Gay Gordon-Byrne

Executive Director, Repair.org

Nathan Proctor

Right to Repair Campaign Director, US Public Interest Research Group

Narrowed Right to Repair gets signed, marking “the end of the beginning”

People ought to be able to fix their stuff. That’s why we’ve been planning and building for the passage of Digital Right to Repair laws, regulations, rules, and standards for the past ten years.  It’s been a long game – longer than we ever expected.  Every small victory, such as the work done for the Nixing the Fix FTC study, has been preparing for the big fight. 

The real fight was always getting real protections in the force of law, and much like we saw last night, not everything went perfectly.  We got a bill passed in New York State but took some lumps getting over the finish line. 

As a history major, I love reading about World War II, especially Winston Churchill’s books. One of my favorite quotes from Churchill is from D-Day:  

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

The law signed last night is the event marking the success of establishing a beachhead on Omaha Beach.  Now that we have boots on the ground – we can start advancing against the Axis of OEMs.  

Repair supporters are justifiably upset that the law signed bears little resemblance to our original. The governor never made a statement of her intent, but it's clear now that she never wanted the bill to include more than cell phones and laptops purchased at big box stores.  At the same time, we know that lobbyists had her ear – and TechNet in particular has clearly had the most influence.  But it still moves the ball forward so we’ll take our fight to the next level elsewhere. 

Apple's Big Fat Nothing Burger

Apple has finally announced the details of their customer repair program, and predictably does so without doing much of anything other than renting repair jigs (useful) and distributing manuals (which look to be similar to those already built by iFixit.com) I’ll give their marketing team an A+ for retaining their repair monopoly while offering the pretense of cooperation without actually delivering on right to repair.  

These feeble actions are not going to forestall legislation and will probably add incentive to pass statutes requiring full access to repair parts, service documentation, tools, diagnostics and settings controls on fair and reasonable terms. 

Apple has already been blocking the option of self-repair or independent repair using parts pairing (activation) technology.  This step already frustrates the use of used Apple parts as well as third party parts. Buyers of used products are already being pushed out of the market as parts from broken devices cannot be harvested and used for donor parts.  

Today’s announcement doubles down on the pairing absurdity by requiring the consumer to order parts by Serial Number (IMEI) and not model number – adding a needless validation step for buyers. If Apple can limit purchases by serial number, they will know which specific consumers are requesting repairs, and use that information to their advantage.  There is much potential for mischief and retaliation - perhaps slow walking shipments to buyers they do not like. 

We are also concerned that independent repair shops and/or wholesale refurbishers will be unable to order a supply of repair parts directly in bulk.  In our experience less than 10% of all tech buyers want to fix their own equipment and are expecting Right to Repair legislation to re-invigorate local repair options. Unless independent repair providers can order parts without serialization, the program itself will not do much good for consumers. 

Apple does not get any additional protection of their IP using the pairing process – the parts were already delivered with all IP in the first sale and a replacement is only that. A paired part made by Apple is the same as an unpaired part made by Apple.  The step exists only to protect the repair monopoly created by Apple where a request for a repair is turned into a replacement sale. 

Competitors such as Samsung, Motorola and now Google are providing more practical options without making customers reliant upon them for all repairs.  If others feel as I do – my next phone will emphatically not be an Apple product. 

RELEASE: Survey shows vast majority of Minnesotans support Right to Repair as floor vote nears

Right to Repair enjoys 79% total support, with large majorities across party lines and from Greater Minnesota 

A new survey of Minnesotans conducted by Repair.org, a coalition of groups supporting Right to Repair in Minnesota and across the country, shows how popular the policy is as legislators get ready to vote on these reforms as part of a larger bill package. Today, lawmakers voted to include a pending Right to Repair bill -- HF 1156 (Rep. Peter Fischer) -- in a larger judiciary omnibus package, HF 4608, which should see consideration on the floor later this week. 

Asked if they support Right to Repair, 79.6% of respondents indicated that they support, with 44.3% indicating they “strongly support” such reforms, while only 4% opposed. 

The survey targeted 200 registered voters of which 40.3% were independents, 34.3% democrats and 25.4% Republicans. 

“Right to Repair is a common-sense idea -- it’s no wonder there are 20 times the number of supporters as those in opposition. People just want to fix their stuff, and they are tired of manufacturers getting in their way,” said Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of Repair.org. “Lawmakers should keep that in mind when they get ready to vote.” 

The survey focused on Greater Minnesota. In total, 79% of respondents were from Rural or Suburban Minnesota. Support from these sectors was nearly identical to the support from urban Minnesotans -- with 77.2% in support, and 3.2% opposing. 

One of the reasons why Right to Repair enjoys such support is that many people have had the experience of being pushed into expensive upgrades by the original manufacturer’s “authorized” repairers. As family budgets tighten with rising consumer costs, people can’t afford to replace devices whenever they break. Ninety-three percent of surveyed respondents said they agree that manufacturers push upgrades over repair.

“Repair saves consumers money, cuts electronic waste and empowers local repair businesses,” said Nathan Proctor, senior Right to Repair campaign director for U.S. PIRG, which is also backing reforms in Minnesota. “I calculated that if people repaired instead of replacing their products to extend the lifespan by 50%, it would save the average household $330 per year. That’s $734 million in savings across the more than 2 million households in Minnesota -- every year. It’s time for lawmakers to stand up to the big manufacturers and deliver for their constituents.”

Apple Hardware Rentals

What happens if Apple no longer sells cell phones and rents them instead?  Not much.  For years the cell carriers rented hardware by the month on a multi-year contract, and consumers weren’t horribly upset.   So long as Apple continues to force customers into regular replacements – the rental concept is more honest than the pretense of a sale without having the advantages of ownership. 

We’ve argued for years that a company that demands total control over their assets should not sell those assets in the first place.  Retaining ownership is essential to having full control.  But retaining ownership has accounting implications for Apple, that might not be so advantageous. 

Apple sells equipment and then reports their revenue based on the full sales value minus an accrual for their anticipated costs of fulfilling their warranty obligations.   Wall Street is devoted to seeing top-line revenue growth, and a rental or lease plan different from an account perspective.  This might not be helpful to stock pricing even if it is preferable over the long term. (“Long-term” meaning more than one quarter of a year. :) 

Rentals and not sales also keep Apple on the hook for more than revenue recognition.  Apple as the equipment owner retains responsibility for how equipment is used, or abused, or neglected or even used in crimes.  These are the dark side of ownership.  Apple has avoided the unhappy side of being the owner while commanding ownership control through unfair and deceptive contracts -  which is clearly a topic of discussion among lawmakers.  Apple has been having their cake and eating it too – which appears to be coming to an end through Right to Repair legislation. 

Personally, I think Apple will do very well to rent and not sell their phones.  Consumers may feel differently – but they should have the option to either own and control their purchases, or to rent them and not control them. 

It’s time for Congress to hold a Right to Repair hearing

If it has a microchip in it, chances are, there are issues fixing it. Our members -- from repair, refurbishing and recycling businesses across every industry -- have been raising the alarm about how manufacturers are pushing to monopolize repair of everything from appliances, to farm equipment, to servers and routers and even hearing aids. 

As we’ve built momentum for the Right to Repair across the country, supporting bills in 40 states, we believe it’s time for Congress to get off the sidelines. 

Yesterday, March 16, the Repair Association, along with more than 50 different organizations, sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, Ranking Member Jim Jordan; Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Chairman David Cicilline, Ranking Member Ken Buck; and Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Chairman Hank Johnson, and Ranking Member Darrell Issa calling for the full House Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on the Right to Repair. The letter includes signatures from trade associations, small businesses, public interest groups, environmental advocacy organizations, and agriculture groups. 

Congress is weighing a number of bills on the subject, including Senator Ben Ray Lujan’s bill introduced earlier this week (S 3830). The Repair Association needs the Judiciary Committee to weigh in, especially on Representatives Mondaire Jones and Victoria Spartz’s Freedom to Repair Act (HR 6566). This bipartisan bill is currently referred to the House Judiciary Committee because it seeks to amend Section 1201 of the Copyright Act to allow for repair, diagnosis, and maintenance.

In our letter, we explain to Congress that:

“Companies that make products from tablets to tractors are using an oversight in copyright law to deny us the right to repair our own devices or take them to local small businesses. 17 U.S.C. § 1201 (known as “Section 1201”) is designed to protect copyrighted works from piracy and makes it a crime to bypass a digital lock set up to protect copyrighted content like music, video games, or movies. But some manufacturers have exploited that provision to lock consumers into their own expensive, inaccessible repair services by locking repair functions, too.”

Hopefully, the groundswell of support on the Right to Repair motivates these Members of Congress to schedule this hearing and ultimately pass the Freedom to Repair Act. 

You can read the full text of the letter here.

High Availability Farming

Deere & Company is stating that tractors are like aircraft in their complexity. I laughed at the thought of a flying tractor. But apart from the visual joke, the analogy makes Deere’s repair restrictions seem even more absurd.

Modern tractors are full of computers, just like aircraft, cars, and data centers. Putting a computer chip in a tractor doesn’t make it fly like an aircraft but does make it function just as a mainframe computer with multiple controllers and peripherals in a data center. Keeping that equipment up and running is a critical part of design as every farmer, pilot and computer geek knows.

In the computer industry as with aircraft, uptime—aka “High Availability”—is essential. Yet Deere has been building products using hundreds, if not thousands, of parts, any one of which is a single point of failure, and then tying the replacement of those parts to their exclusive control. Every delay created by this service model becomes a critical issue for farmers.

Aircraft are full of redundant sensors for this very reason. Data center storage is “redundant,” “hot swappable,” and “plug and play”—techniques that have allowed for the exceptional uptime that we have come to expect in the air and online. Despite the opportunity to learn from both the airline industry and data center computing, Deere has designed equipment using hundreds of small sensors without building the redundancy needed for producers to keep rolling in the event of a component failure.

When challenged by proposed legislative requirements, Deere tries to minimize their computer repair problem by stating that farmers can already fix 99% of their stuff—even when a single part can take the machine down by 100%. We know from Deere in legislative hearings that their admitted limitations are only on the “digital stuff,” which means that all of the failure and repair problems of computers (the “digital stuff”) are the big hangup for tractor repair.

Deere then argues that farmers can buy everything they need, but in practice, even if a farmer buys all the diagnostic subscriptions, buys the part, and has the tools to install the part, the final step to activate the part is monopolized by Deere. Deere firmware can only be installed and activated by a Deere Dealership tech, using firmware updates created by Deere specific to each serial number, creating the potential for massive delays and manipulation of service availability to reward larger customers.

Nor does Deere inform their customers that many of their computerized parts don’t work as spare parts without the specific intervention by Deere to activate the part in their system. When it comes to repair of farm equipment, if any step in the process is slow—, including simple supply chain shortages, weather, labor shortages, and so forth— – then farmers cannot farm. Waiting on a Deere tech to activate a part can be “harvest is ruined” slow.

If tractors are like aircraft in their complexity, it’s only because of their embedded computers. But data centers solved the uptime problem a long time ago, and they didn’t need to restrict repair to do it. In the early days of corporate computing in the 1960s, data center managers had repair techs on site 24 x 7 with a full suite of repair manuals, parts and tools. This is akin to a farmer having a barn full of everything needed to repair and a Deere tech living in the barn. The next innovation from the 1960s and 1970s was to buy a second full set of everything, which would be activated in the event of the main system failure. This is the same as buying two tractors, or having a stand-by tractor just in case.

Sound familiar? It should. Deere’s repair restrictions are forcing farmers to rely on backup tractors in exactly this way. But data centers moved beyond this system forty years ago, because it’s expensive and imperfect (what if your backup goes down, too?). Among the many innovations from the 1980s that made for easier and more efficient repair was the addition of call-home functions from the equipment itself. If a sensor detected high heat (a common problem) the machine itself could call the service provider with an alert. The repair tech could then be dispatched already knowing the diagnosis and prepared with the part needed. These functions were telephone based, pre-internet, and worked as reliably as Ma Bell could provide.

This innovation let data center manufacturers begin to offer service agreements that were time-specific and bound the provider to arrive within a short time frame, including penalties for late or incomplete repairs. Surely some dealers might benefit from offering similar programs for those willing to pay. The idea that a Deere dealership can simply show up when it is convenient for them seems horrifyingly archaic from a data center or aircraft perspective.

Even with such a simple model to follow, Deere has decided to use the internet for communications, all while knowing that much of farmland is not covered by reliable broadband and that disruptions of internet service would have profound consequences for repair. I suspect the choice of internet communications is based on Deere harvesting operational data for their own purposes and not for service delivery.

High-availability computing is normal and it has not led to theft of IP, lack of safety for technicians or customers, nor any other of the ridiculous excuses being made by OEMs to deliberately keep high-tech farming from fulfilling its potential.

Deere wants to say tractors are like airplanes? Sure, they’ve got complex computer systems. But that’s no excuse for keeping those tractors from flying the friendly skies.

Why is John Deere so opposed to letting farmers fix their stuff?

John Deere is trying to block the agricultural Right to Repair in Nebraska—which affects all of us, not just farmers. When farm equipment goes down in the middle of the season, it can cost farmers a harvest and the rest of us a meal. Everyone that eats has a horse in this race. 

And Deere is rigging the race. They have filled Nebraska’s unicameral legislature with their proxies attempting to block the passage of LB543, the Right to Repair for Agricultural Equipment. They are telling senators that Deere & Co. supports farmers repairing their equipment, but they don’t support the “right to modify” When pressed, they proclaim that farmers can already fix 98% of their equipment, so there isn’t a problem for legislators to address.  

Hogwash. Within the supposed 2% of repairs that Deere blocks are many problems that can take a machine down 100%. Fixing 98% of something rather than 100% is a farce.  Limp mode can be a death sentence for a crop. when a simple problem during key times takes the machine down 100%, not 98%. 

Plus, repair is not modification. Most farmers have no interest in doing anything with their tractor beyond the job it was designed to do—they just want it to be in good working order. So why is Deere bending the ears of nearly every Nebraskan senator, to keep farmers away from 2% of repairs? Why are they fighting 5 antitrust lawsuits ? What is Deere protecting so fiercely? 

It's likely that the answer is just money—hidden in all sorts of pockets in plain sight.  Repair in many industries is a high margin business, and monopolies on repair feed the margins.  A Virginia dealer told Farm Equipment magazine that service accounts for three times the net profit of equipment sales, even though it makes up just a sixth of equipment sales’ gross profit. 

Subscription revenue for Deere’s proprietary “Service Advisor” diagnostic software is undoubtedly high—one dealer sells the package online for $8500 for the first year (note the emphasis that this subscription provides diagnostic codes but will not authorize farmers to repair their own equipment). Without the ability for a farmer to buy an alternative set of diagnostic tools, it’s also a monopoly.  I suspect, as a former lessor, that Deere influences the used market for trade-ins around the world.

Not to mention that keeping repairs in house gives Deere a lock on data being harvested from every piece of equipment in real time. Many credit Deere’s stock rebound during the pandemic to their investment in “smart farming” equipment, including planters that pick the best spot to stick seeds based on past yields, and sprayers that have weed-destroying algorithms.  Blocking agricultural Right to Repair lets Deere keep a monopoly on the data that their new Chief Technology Officer manages.

Farmers want to use the modern tools that have so much promise to improve yields and reduce labor costs. But while Deere reaps the profits of these tools, farmers are left holding the bag. For the sake of a repair and data monopoly, Deere is happy to pay lobbyists and lawyers. They’re happy to ignore some angry farmers. That anger, though, is justified: When a farm must wait weeks for a Deere repair technician, that can mean a lost harvest—and a lost harvest can mean a lost business. 

It’s up to all of us—the farmers and the eaters—to make sure that farmers are restored true ownership of their equipment so that they can keep their equipment working 100% of the time, not just 98%. They’ve bought their tractors. Why can’t they repair them? Tell your legislators anywhere in the world that you want them to pass Right to Repair legislation now.