Ummm ... the "Victoria University of Wellington in Australia"? Please. Victoria University is located in Wellington, New Zealand [1]. Nothing to do with Australia. Dr. Morgan Cable is a Senior Lecturer in Space Science at Te Herenga Waka, Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand [2]. Can't believe that phys.org would publish such an error.
Isn't open source the legitimate compromise solution to right-to-repair? If you're unhappy with buying a closed proprietary product, why not support an open source alternative? Granted current open source farm tractors pale in comparison to a John Deere Model X9 1100, often priced at over $1 million.
I agree. I’m a gadget lover too. But we still have a real problem: for major household products like air conditioners and dishwashers, there usually isn’t a practical open-source hardware alternative yet. Iowa farmers are probably in a similar situation.
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.
It's America. You should want that. What you don't want is a mecca for criminals and pirates. I'm not sure how fixing my own tractor leads to criminal acts and there are already robust trade rights protections in the US.
> The problem is that both sides are correct.
Isn't the whole problem here the collateral damage caused by the DMCAs provision against circumvention? Then it seems one side is completely wrong and the other side is completely correct. If you own the device then "circumvention" is meaningless. If the device can't operate without firmware then it's inside the envelope and can be circumvented fairly.
> one can imagine unintended consequences and liability cascades from imperfect repair.
Yea we'd have to develop a robust legal system for managing this; however, we could also just use the one that already exists.
"unintended consequences and liability cascades from imperfect repair" - I would say this is not the greatest argument. If someone messes with the equipment outside official channel, loses equipment guarantee, so there is no liability on the producer side.
If some firmware is buggy and pose cybersecurity issues, hiding that will not help, as sooner or later someone will discover those bugs anyway (and will turn good old John Deere into B-class horror movie serial killer machine).
So I am not buying manufacturers arguments. If they were honest, they would said openly they want to earn money on overpriced service because CEO wants to earn more and stakeholders are after him.
Not everything is both sides. In fact, both sides is usually wrong and in this case too.
> 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.
No they dont. This is not even honest argument. There is no liability cascade from bad repair, in normal setup you loose liability when doing own repair. That is it. There is nothing new or obscure about it.
> The authorized dealer model isn't just about a monopoly - it’s about a guaranteed standard of care.
As long as it is not mandatory. The moment you make it mandatory, it is about monopoly.
I don't think anybody here is losing their sleep because JD or some other corporation cannot capture more market and regulators.
Heck, if they put in losing of warranty after tinkering BUT made their devices tinkerable farmers would still go for them.
Another point to all those apple apologists claiming how its more moral company than literally any other mega corporation. I take those posts in good faith as simple paid PR (and not utterly clueless folks who need some dumbed down black&white version of reality to survive in it), which should be forbidden here but we all know how upholdable such rule could be.
> 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.
Why was that never a problem in 100 years of existence of vehicles before? Why are we suddently worrying about these "liability cascades" at the expense of market competition?
It is a fair question. The short answer is that the nature of the machine has fundamentally changed from mechanical machines (where parts break) to cyber-physical systems (where code controls physics):
1) Safety. In the 20th century, safety was mostly passive. Today safety is active. For example, vehicles now use ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems). If an independent shop replaces a windshield but doesn't have the proprietary software to recalibrate the cameras behind the glass, the car's Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) might see a phantom obstacle at 70 mph and slam on the brakes. Manufacturers argue (correctly in my view) that they cannot be held liable for a car that decides to crash because a third party misaligned its digital vision.
2) Cybersecurity. There was no backdoor to a 1950s tractor because it wasn't connected to anything. Most modern vehicles are telemetric, where they are connected to the internet via cellular 5G. Manufacturers argue that if they provide open diagnostic ports to everyone, they are effectively creating a standardized digital doorway that a bad actor could use to remotely disable a fleet of tractors across the entire farming sector. In their view, right to repair creates a national security vulnerability that didn't exist when machines were dumb.
3) Environmental. If John Deere is forced to provide software tools to access the engine, a farmer might buy a "delete kit" online that uses software to bypass the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF). This allows the tractor to run more powerfully and skip expensive emissions fluid (DEF). Deere is understandably legally terrified that the EPA will fine them as the manufacturer for facilitating emissions tampering. They are using this regulatory shield to argue that the only way to save the planet is to keep the software under lock and key.
4) The 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. This gets interesting. Back in the day manufacturers tried to say, "If you don't use our oil/parts, your warranty is void." The Act legally protected the owner's right to use aftermarket parts. That law was written for physical parts. It doesn't say anything about digital handshakes. Today, a manufacturer can't void your warranty for using a 3rd party air filter, but they can make the engine refuse to start unless a certified digital code is entered by a dealer-authorized laptop.
Can you prove in any way what you say actually materially changes the road safety, incurs any practical liability (proven in court, not conveniently theorycrafted by manufacturers lawyers) and isn't just a convenient excuse for more monopolization and money extraction from clients?
Because it's heck of a lot of convenience that this newfound safety issues result in destruction of market competiton of spare parts manufacturers and repair houses while ensuring practically unlimited margins and payments from the site of customers.
I wouldn't be opposed to there always being a "dumb" car tier where we don't get screens instead of buttons. Can you imagine getting privacy back in the car you bought? No more data-thirsty "assistants"!
You still need a chip to calibrate mechanical part thresholds, and if certain parts are manual geared but autohandled, the chip needs to calibrate and memorise clutch positions.
A few years ago, Massachusetts strengthened (via a referendum question) its automobile right-to-repair law, mandating access to telematics and diagnostic data. Honestly, I'd prefer _none_ of this data was internet accessible - and that I could wipe historical records on change of ownership.
"Commencing in model year 2022 and thereafter a manufacturer of motor vehicles sold in the Commonwealth, including heavy duty vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 14,000 pounds, that utilizes a telematics system shall be required to equip such vehicles with an inter-operable, standardized and open access platform across all of the manufacturer's makes and models. Such platform shall be capable of securely communicating all mechanical data emanating directly from the motor vehicle via direct data connection to the platform. Such platform shall be directly accessible by the owner of the vehicle through a mobile-based application and, upon the authorization of the vehicle owner, all mechanical data shall be directly accessible by an independent repair facility"
If the age verification is going to mandate government issued ID, the government issuer can be the Trust Anchor issuing a Digitally Signed Credential for the zero knowledge proof - using any available open source zero-knowledge process:
Apologies that I'm latching onto your post for visibility, but for the sake of discussion - the European Identity Digital Wallet project specification and standardisation process is in the open and lives on github (yeah, the irony isn't lost on me :) ):
Everything's very much WIP, but it aims to provide a detailed Archictecture and Reference Framework/Technical Specifications and a reference implementation as a guideline for national implementations:
Looking at actual data regarding Australia's landmark legislation setting a minimum age of 16 for social media access with enforcement starting on December 10, 2025 indicates weakened data protection. The Australian data suggests that while the legislation has successfully cleared the decks of millions of underage accounts (4.7 million account deactivations together with increased VPN usage and "ghost" accounts to bypass restrictions), it has simultaneously forced platforms to rely on third-party identity vendors, with the following failures so far:
1) Persona (Identity Vendor) Exposure (Feb 20, 2026): researchers discovered an exposed frontend belonging to Persona, an identity verification vendor used by platforms like Discord. This system was performing over 260 distinct checks, including facial recognition and "adverse media" screening, raising massive concerns about the scope creep of age verification.
2) Victorian Department of Education (Jan 2026): a breach impacting all 1,700 government schools exposed student names and encrypted passwords. This is a primary example of how child-related data remains a high-value target.
3) Prosura Data Breach (Jan 4, 2026): this financial services firm suffered a breach of 300,000 customer records.
4) University of Sydney (Dec 2025): a code library breach affected 27,000 people right as the new legislation was rolling out.
It is quite interesting that, according to a generally reliable YouTuber, Australian age verification was pushed by an ad agency whose major clients were upset about upcoming legislation regulating online gambling. It was a very successful distraction.
> Australia's Social Media Ban is a Win for Gambling Companies
> But that progress belongs almost entirely to people 50 and over. For people under 50, both incidence and mortality have been climbing. CRC is now the #1 cancer killer in men under 50.
You need to go to the 2nd screen "Split by age group"
Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) [1], a technique that involves combining many images taken with different light sources, researchers have deciphered 79 additional inscriptions. “This project highlights urban communication, especially from sections of the population that do not usually appear in literature or official inscriptions,”
The researchers identified the DMTF1 protein as a key regulator that declines with age, and they successfully restored neural stem cell renewal by reactivating its specific genetic pathways in both human-derived cells and mouse models. However, it remains unclear if this approach is safe from cancer risks or if it can be effectively delivered as a drug to improve memory in living human brains.
[1] https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/
[2] https://www.psi.edu/staff/profile/morgan-cable/
reply