> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc

                              Mikek

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 11:30:53 AM UTC-8, amdx wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc

It's only for remotely starting the engine. Well, we have no engine to start with an EV.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:30:53 PM UTC-6, amdx wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
>
> Mikek
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

It's easy to see the narrator's point.
I wonder if the potential customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see ya later, bye".

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-5, dean...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:30:53 PM UTC-6, amdx wrote:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
> >
> > Mikek
> >
> >
> > --
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> It's easy to see the narrator's point.
> I wonder if the potential customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see ya later, bye".

I think the answer is no because the issue is with Toyota and the dealer has no option to override them.

This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service center. Seems they were refusing to allow users to repair a board because of a copyright issue with ROMed software on the board. I don't recall the details, but I'm sure a web search will find it. They also went after Apple and their onerous repair requirements and have achieved some success.

I tossed them a few bucks a while back. I thought it was good to help them get started. We'll see if they continue to gain momentum.

I'd like to see something similar about this sort of issue. The fact that Toyota has announced their policy should rile up people enough to make a real issue for them. It is a bit like unions. Take on one manufacturer and win to get the rest to fall in line.

It's a bit funny to think that this is similar to military radios in that the security is handled in a part of the radio that is very, very hard to bypass or trick. I'm sure they have considered all the same issues when designing their authorization service for your key fob. Military grade key fobs!

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Ed Lee wrote:

> amdx wrote:

>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
>
> It's only for remotely starting the engine. Well, we have no engine to
> start with an EV.

Does an electric CAR engine need warming up?

Ricksy wrote:

> dean...@gmail.com wrote:
>> amdx wrote:

>> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc

>> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
>> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see ya
>> later, bye".

> This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
> mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
> Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
> the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
> center.

That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a third-party.
Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of a warrantee.

Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
longer responsible for how it works.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:18:55 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:
> Ed Lee wrote:
>
> > amdx wrote:
>
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
> >
> > It's only for remotely starting the engine. Well, we have no engine to
> > start with an EV.
> Does an electric CAR engine need warming up?

In extreme cold weather, it might help with warming up the battery. But i have no idea how solid state (frozen) battery would work, or not work.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 4:27:29 PM UTC-5, John Doe wrote:
> Ricksy wrote:
> > dean...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> amdx wrote:
>
> >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
> >> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
> >> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see ya
> >> later, bye".
> > This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
> > mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
> > Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
> > the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
> > center.
> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a third-party.
> Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of a warrantee.
>
> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
> longer responsible for how it works.

No misrepresentation. You just can't read. Who said anything about a warranty?

I know better than to try to discuss this with you, so I'll leave it up to you to research the issue or you can continue shooting off your mouth without any understanding of the real issues.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

lørdag den 11. december 2021 kl. 22.27.29 UTC+1 skrev John Doe:
> Ricksy wrote:
> > dean...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> amdx wrote:
>
> >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
> >> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
> >> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see ya
> >> later, bye".
> > This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
> > mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
> > Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
> > the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
> > center.
> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a third-party..
> Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of a warrantee.
>
> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
> longer responsible for how it works.

for decades that not been the case in the EU, car manufacturers cannot
deny responsibility just because simple service wasn't done by a dealer

Ricksy wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Ricksy wrote:
>>> dean...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> amdx wrote:

>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc

>>>> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
>>>> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see
>>>> ya later, bye".

>>> This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This
>>> is mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes,
>>> John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment
>>> owned by the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized
>>> service center.

>> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
>> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a
>> third-party. Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of
>> a warrantee.
>>
>> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
>> longer responsible for how it works.
>
> No misrepresentation. You just can't read. Who said anything about a
> warranty?

Then what is Ricksy referring to? John Deere won't sell anymore equipment
to the farmer?

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

> lørdag den 11. december 2021 kl. 22.27.29 UTC+1 skrev John Doe:
>> Ricksy wrote:
>> > dean...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> amdx wrote:
>>
>> >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
>> >> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
>> >> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see y
> a
>> >> later, bye".
>> > This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
>
>> > mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
>
>> > Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned b
> y
>> > the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
>> > center.
>> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
>> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a third-party
> .
>> Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of a warrantee.
>>
>> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
>> longer responsible for how it works.
>
> for decades that not been the case in the EU, car manufacturers cannot
> deny responsibility just because simple service wasn't done by a dealer

What's the "EU"?

Got any citations to "EU" law for that claim?

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 5:57:25 PM UTC-6, John Doe wrote:
> Ricksy wrote:
>
> > John Doe wrote:
> >> Ricksy wrote:
> >>> dean...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> amdx wrote:
>
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
>
> >>>> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
> >>>> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see
> >>>> ya later, bye".
>
> >>> This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This
> >>> is mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes,
> >>> John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment
> >>> owned by the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized
> >>> service center.
>
> >> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
> >> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a
> >> third-party. Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of
> >> a warrantee.
> >>
> >> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
> >> longer responsible for how it works.
> >
> > No misrepresentation. You just can't read. Who said anything about a
> > warranty?
> Then what is Ricksy referring to? John Deere won't sell anymore equipment
> to the farmer?

Go back to August 9. "Right to Repair".

søndag den 12. december 2021 kl. 01.00.01 UTC+1 skrev John Doe:
> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> > lørdag den 11. december 2021 kl. 22.27.29 UTC+1 skrev John Doe:
> >> Ricksy wrote:
> >> > dean...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> amdx wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
> >> >> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
> >> >> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see y
> > a
> >> >> later, bye".
> >> > This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
> >
> >> > mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
> >
> >> > Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned b
> > y
> >> > the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
> >> > center.
> >> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
> >> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a third-party
> > .
> >> Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of a warrantee.
> >>
> >> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
> >> longer responsible for how it works.
> >
> > for decades that not been the case in the EU, car manufacturers cannot
> > deny responsibility just because simple service wasn't done by a dealer
> What's the "EU"?
>
> Got any citations to "EU" law for that claim?
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/motor_vehicles/legislation/mv_faq_en.pdf

Dean Hoffman <deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Ricksy wrote:
>> > John Doe wrote:
>> >> Ricksy wrote:
>> >>> dean...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> amdx wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
>>
>> >>>> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
>> >>>> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see
>> >>>> ya later, bye".
>>
>> >>> This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This
>> >>> is mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes,
>> >>> John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment
>> >>> owned by the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized
>> >>> service center.
>>
>> >> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
>> >> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a
>> >> third-party. Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of
>> >> a warrantee.
>> >>
>> >> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
>> >> longer responsible for how it works.
>> >
>> > No misrepresentation. You just can't read. Who said anything about a
>> > warranty?

>> Then what is Ricksy referring to? John Deere won't sell anymore equipment
>> to the farmer?
>
> Go back to August 9. "Right to Repair".

What???

Massachusetts law? Providing information about a car's system?

My contention is with "John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be
made".

I guess the manufacturer could hide technical information. But usually the
mechanic knows that stuff. One would certainly hope the mechanic knows what
it's doing.

That document is dated "27 August 2012".

That's not "decades".

No keywords were provided, so I didn't bother searching it.

--
Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2996:: with SMTP id r22mr26007726qkp.485.1639267754437; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 16:09:14 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:ccc7:: with SMTP id l190mr24394622ybf.466.1639267754317; Sat, 11 Dec 2021 16:09:14 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 16:09:14 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <sp3e1r$dhh$2@dont-email.me>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=94.145.237.91; posting-account=mW5JKwkAAAAMyuWOVeLp8yffyAkVx0g7
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 94.145.237.91
> References: <sp2u97$4ll$1@dont-email.me> <c7ad7c7e-39ca-4a9d-85f2-f43a5ea23eean@googlegroups.com> <c1bbd503-5286-478e-b12c-9087586f8ccan@googlegroups.com> <sp353r$p3o$16@dont-email.me> <fec0dec6-5581-4b4d-bfda-c582de2f469dn@googlegroups.com> <sp3e1r$dhh$2@dont-email.me>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <70ead2e1-caab-42ed-ab33-e0b19025ad5fn@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Toyota Plans to Charge You to Use Your Key Fob (subscription)
> From: Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk>
> Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 00:09:14 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Lines: 45
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654707
>
> s�ndag den 12. december 2021 kl. 01.00.01 UTC+1 skrev John Doe:
>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>
>> > l�rdag den 11. december 2021 kl. 22.27.29 UTC+1 skrev John Doe:
>> >> Ricksy wrote:
>> >> > dean...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> amdx wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
>> >> >> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
>> >> >> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or se
> e y
>> > a
>> >> >> later, bye".
>> >> > This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This
> is
>> >
>> >> > mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, J
> ohn
>> >
>> >> > Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owne
> d b
>> > y
>> >> > the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
>
>> >> > center.
>> >> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
>
>> >> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a third-pa
> rty
>> > .
>> >> Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of a warrantee.
>
>> >>
>> >> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
>
>> >> longer responsible for how it works.
>> >
>> > for decades that not been the case in the EU, car manufacturers cannot
>
>> > deny responsibility just because simple service wasn't done by a dealer
>> What's the "EU"?
>>
>> Got any citations to "EU" law for that claim?
> https://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/motor_vehicles/legislation/mv_faq_en.pdf
>
>

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 6:15:45 PM UTC-6, John Doe wrote:
> Dean Hoffman <dean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > John Doe wrote:
> >> Ricksy wrote:
> >> > John Doe wrote:
> >> >> Ricksy wrote:
> >> >>> dean...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>> amdx wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
> >>
> >> >>>> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
> >> >>>> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see
> >> >>>> ya later, bye".
> >>
> >> >>> This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This
> >> >>> is mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes,
> >> >>> John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment
> >> >>> owned by the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized
> >> >>> service center.
> >>
> >> >> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
> >> >> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a
> >> >> third-party. Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of
> >> >> a warrantee.
> >> >>
> >> >> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
> >> >> longer responsible for how it works.
> >> >
> >> > No misrepresentation. You just can't read. Who said anything about a
> >> > warranty?
>
> >> Then what is Ricksy referring to? John Deere won't sell anymore equipment
> >> to the farmer?
> >
> > Go back to August 9. "Right to Repair".
> What???
>
> Massachusetts law? Providing information about a car's system?
>
> My contention is with "John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be
> made".
>
> I guess the manufacturer could hide technical information. But usually the
> mechanic knows that stuff. One would certainly hope the mechanic knows what
> it's doing.

The days of guys just spinning wrenches are gone. Tractors steer using gps. Sensors monitor the
planters to make sure there aren't skips .Combine sensors monitor all sort of things for harvest.
Here's a sample.
<https://www.deere.com/en/technology-products/precision-ag-technology/#do-more>

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 16:25:14 -0800 (PST), Dean Hoffman
<deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 6:15:45 PM UTC-6, John Doe wrote:
>> Dean Hoffman <dean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > John Doe wrote:
>> >> Ricksy wrote:
>> >> > John Doe wrote:
>> >> >> Ricksy wrote:
>> >> >>> dean...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>>> amdx wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
>> >>
>> >> >>>> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
>> >> >>>> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see
>> >> >>>> ya later, bye".
>> >>
>> >> >>> This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This
>> >> >>> is mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes,
>> >> >>> John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment
>> >> >>> owned by the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized
>> >> >>> service center.
>> >>
>> >> >> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
>> >> >> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a
>> >> >> third-party. Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of
>> >> >> a warrantee.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
>> >> >> longer responsible for how it works.
>> >> >
>> >> > No misrepresentation. You just can't read. Who said anything about a
>> >> > warranty?
>>
>> >> Then what is Ricksy referring to? John Deere won't sell anymore equipment
>> >> to the farmer?
>> >
>> > Go back to August 9. "Right to Repair".
>> What???
>>
>> Massachusetts law? Providing information about a car's system?
>>
>> My contention is with "John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be
>> made".
>>
>> I guess the manufacturer could hide technical information. But usually the
>> mechanic knows that stuff. One would certainly hope the mechanic knows what
>> it's doing.
>
> The days of guys just spinning wrenches are gone. Tractors steer using gps. Sensors monitor the
>planters to make sure there aren't skips .Combine sensors monitor all sort of things for harvest.
>Here's a sample.
><https://www.deere.com/en/technology-products/precision-ag-technology/#do-more>
>

Yeah. See:

..<https://www.repair.org/>

Joe Gwinn

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 7:58:54 PM UTC-5, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 16:25:14 -0800 (PST), Dean Hoffman
> <dean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 6:15:45 PM UTC-6, John Doe wrote:
> >> Dean Hoffman <dean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > John Doe wrote:
> >> >> Ricksy wrote:
> >> >> > John Doe wrote:
> >> >> >> Ricksy wrote:
> >> >> >>> dean...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>>> amdx wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> It's easy to see the narrator's point. I wonder if the potential
> >> >> >>>> customer could tell the dealer "throw this in for a life time or see
> >> >> >>>> ya later, bye".
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This
> >> >> >>> is mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes,
> >> >> >>> John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment
> >> >> >>> owned by the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized
> >> >> >>> service center.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's a misrepresentation. Customers are not "disallowed". Warranty
> >> >> >> service can be refused if the product has been worked on by a
> >> >> >> third-party. Nothing wrong with that. Taking responsibility is part of
> >> >> >> a warrantee.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
> >> >> >> longer responsible for how it works.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No misrepresentation. You just can't read. Who said anything about a
> >> >> > warranty?
> >>
> >> >> Then what is Ricksy referring to? John Deere won't sell anymore equipment
> >> >> to the farmer?
> >> >
> >> > Go back to August 9. "Right to Repair".
> >> What???
> >>
> >> Massachusetts law? Providing information about a car's system?
> >>
> >> My contention is with "John Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be
> >> made".
> >>
> >> I guess the manufacturer could hide technical information. But usually the
> >> mechanic knows that stuff. One would certainly hope the mechanic knows what
> >> it's doing.
> >
> > The days of guys just spinning wrenches are gone. Tractors steer using gps. Sensors monitor the
> >planters to make sure there aren't skips .Combine sensors monitor all sort of things for harvest.
> >Here's a sample.
> ><https://www.deere.com/en/technology-products/precision-ag-technology/#do-more>
> >
> Yeah. See:
>
> .<https://www.repair.org/>

The issues that repair.org brings up can take you down quite the rabbit hole. It is amazing how widely used the DCMA is for things that have little or nothing to do with copyright. It is a law that is out of control.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Dean Hoffman wrote:

> The days of guys just spinning wrenches are gone. Tractors steer using
> gps. Sensors monitor the planters to make sure there aren't skips.
> Combine sensors monitor all sort of things for harvest. Here's a
> sample.

> <https://www.deere.com/en/technology-products/precision-ag-technology/#do-more>

That's interesting.

Not providing technical information about products might be illegal if the
company holds monopoly power so buyers have no product choice. If all
companies disallow private maintenance (by somehow disabling the tractors,
failing to provide necessary guidance/steering, or whatever), then the
required service cost is probably just part of doing business.

In a free country, if a company sees benefit to consumers by allowing
third-party maintenance, then that will happen.

Third-party software maintenance? That's called "hacking" isn't it?

GPS control does not require communication with a company website. AFAIK,
no location routine requires anything except GPS and ISP provided
information. Requiring such communication would be my pet peeve. If they
do, they probably gather all sorts of information.

I would be totally annoyed if they required a connection to their company
servers just to run my tractors. But again, illegality probably depends on
whether there is product choice.

A farmer should know that ahead of time. If it were a software thing,
surely it could be hacked.

Ricksy wrote:

> The issues that repair.org brings up can take you down quite the rabbit
> hole. It is amazing how widely used the DCMA is for things that have
> little or nothing to do with copyright. It is a law that is out of
> control.

> John Deere was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned
> by the farmer.

Repairs to what "equipment"? How did they do that?

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sun, 12 Dec 2021 00:22:07 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sp3fbf$dhh$4@dont-email.me>.

TFb7+CKx7Tj+

On 12-Dec-21 6:30 am, amdx wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLlzAv2GTdc
>
>                               Mikek
>
>

They'll have to be very careful in advertising to not so much as suggest
that the feature is part of the car that one is buying.

That said, I think our various consumer protection regulators need to do
something about asterisks and other methods used to link to caveats.
Such things should be required to be part of the main text promoting a
feature.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:27:29 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:
> Ricksy wrote:

> > This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
> > mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
> > Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
> > the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
> > center.

> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
> longer responsible for how it works.

Yep, and in the US that 'pretty simple' tactic was made illegal by the Magnusson-Moss
warranty act about half a century ago.

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 12:49:18 AM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
> Yep, and in the US that 'pretty simple' tactic was made illegal by the Magnusson-Moss
> warranty act about half a century ago.

Magnuson Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act
Title I of this Act authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to develop regulations for written warranties.

That explains why years ago, I tried to get a copy of the warranty from Toyota before I bought a truck. Even with the sale hanging in the balance they refused to provide a copy. Maybe it was because of this act which doesn't cover unwritten warranties?

At least my Tesla has a written warranty although it doesn't mean much. I'd have to take them to court to get them to deal with the issues they don't want to address.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 21:49:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:27:29 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:
>> Ricksy wrote:
>
>> > This reminds me of the organization promoting right to repair. This is
>> > mostly about some egregious manufacturers such as John Deere, yes, John
>> > Deere who was refusing to allow repairs to be made to equipment owned by
>> > the farmer unless those repairs were made by the authorized service
>> > center.
>
>> Seems pretty simple... If a third-party works on it, the company is no
>> longer responsible for how it works.

>Yep, and in the US that 'pretty simple' tactic was made illegal by the Magnusson-Moss
>warranty act about half a century ago.

Maybe.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act#Limitations>
Some quote from the Wikipedia article:

Although the act covers warranties on repair or
replacement parts in consumer products, warranties
on services for repairs are not covered.

The federal minimum standards for full warranties
are waived if the warrantor can show that the
problem associated with a warranted consumer product
was caused by damage while in the possession of the
consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure
to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.

A "service contract" is different from a warranty
because service contracts do not affirm the quality
or workmanship of a consumer product. A service
contract is a written instrument in which a supplier
agrees to perform, over a fixed period or for a
specified duration, services relating to the
maintenance or repair, or both, of a consumer product.
Agreements that meet the statutory definition of
service contracts, but are sold and regulated under
state law as contracts of insurance, do not come
under the Act's provisions.

It might seem that software as a service could be considered a
service. Failure to install an update might be considered failure to
provide reasonable and necessary maintenance. An agreement to license
a software feature could be considered a service contract. Doesn't
seem "pretty simple" to me.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558