The success is ruled, first and foremost, by the weather. Second, and as a result of the first, is economic fortitude... a farmer that cannot stay ahead of the weather, will have no economic strength to continue.
Failing agriculture means people starve.
All these things in mind, it is in the best interest to protect farmers from ANY circumstance which impedes their ability to respond rapidly to the seasons they must act within, and it is in the best interest of society to remove all burdons that strain the economics of agriculture.
I'll not only stand in defense of the 'right to repair' for agriculture, but for ALL industry, because the inability of an individual 'to repair', means the only other alternative (aside from reliance upon the manufacturer-in-control) is the landfill...
Which is clearly contrary to wisdom of resource waste and environmental damage.
And I'll take it one step further:
When a machine is mandated to be fitted with emmission control features that reduce certain outputs, that the effectiveness of the mandated devices should be examined in a real-world-scope of energy input vs. performance output vs. emmissions, and if the result yields anything less than at least a 25% IMPROVEMENT in performance output efficiency, that it shall invalidate the mandate altogether.
For a real-world example:
One machine, under some 'tier' emmission standard, requires 30% more fuel per a given unit of performance output, to meet the particulate emmission-per-fuel-unit-burned standard requirement.
Another machine, under a previous NO 'tier', requires 30% LESS fuel per given unit of performance output, with a slightly higher particulate-emmission-per-fuel-unit-burned.
In this case, the particulate emmission allowance based on 'fuel units burned' is a false economy, because a particulate emmission output of 10% less, while burning a fuel output of 80% MORE fuel, for the SAME work output, is a significant net loss, not an equivalent, much less a net gain.
IMO the 'right to repair' should bind manufacturers to a 'no forced update' circumstance. If your planter's system worked fine running Version 2.2, and you didn't want to update it, there should be NOTHING that forces you to, and if you choose to repair it, they should not be able to require you to 'update' to any other version.
It should also go without saying that software that has an internally-set 'end of life' routine... should be considered a class-action violation worthy of a full loss judgement against the manufacturer, plus a punitive of the same value.
EOL routines are added to many devices' firmware now, such that if you try to operate the device past that time without an update, it will simply stop functioning.
The fortunate thing about Right to Repair, is that there are plenty of people willing to become aftermarket retrofitters. Right to repair wouldn't grant them blanket license to violate patents, but it would be very difficult for a patent-holding manufacturer to stomp an aftermarketer out of existance.
Just remember- all the whizbang technology that goes into that 'stuff', is nothing more than an amalgation of simple systems, that have been brought together into one 'system'. Once we know what they do, we examine them to see HOW they do it, and then, it's just as simple as making a new main control unit, that runs NOT THEIR SOFTWARE.
Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)
