Welcome to the Deep Dive, where we take a complex
stack of sources, the history, the economics,
the legal battles, and distill the absolute most
critical insights just for you. Today, we are
strapping ourselves into one of the most iconic
and now one of the most controversial machines
in global industry, the John Deere tractor. When
you think John Deere, you instantly picture it,
right? That distinctive green and yellow, the
leaping deer logo, a brand identity that's been
around for over 155 years. And maybe you even
hear that classic slogan, nothing runs like a
deer. Oh, but this deep dive is far more than
just farm nostalgia. Our mission today is to
trace the 188 year history of Deere and Company.
We're going to start with a small 19th century
blacksmith shop that solved this very specific
crippling Midwestern soil problem. Then we'll
trace its explosion onto the global stage. review
its massive corporate footprint, and land squarely
on this cutting -edge legal and ethical fight
over who truly controls the software inside a
modern $800 ,000 smart machine. It's a journey
from polished steel to proprietary silicon. And
the transformation is, well, it's staggering.
We're analyzing sources that detail the company's
pioneering roots right up through its current
legal battles with the Federal Trade Commission,
the Department of Justice, and organized farmer
groups. And to grasp the scale, you have to start
with a snapshot. Founded in 1837, headquartered
in Moline, Illinois. Today, the corporation is
an industrial giant. We're talking U .S. $51
.72 billion in revenue in 2024, with 75 ,800
people worldwide, and trading on the NYSE as
a component of the S &P 100 and 500. It's an
American institution that is fundamentally changing
what it means to own heavy equipment. That is
a massive economic footprint. But before it was
a corporation, it was just one man trying to
keep his family afloat. And he did it by solving
a problem everyone else had just accepted. let's
rewind nearly two centuries to where it all began
a simple piece of steel solving a very complicated
problem so john deere the man he starts his american
story in 1836 by basically fleeing failure he
was an established blacksmith in rutland vermont
but a series of financial setbacks related to
the panic of 1837 led him to move west to grand
detour illinois he was trying to escape bankruptcy
and just start fresh he gets there opens his
shop a modest 1 378 square feet in 1837 and he
was just a general repairman, you know, fixing
tools, building pitchforks and shovels. Right.
But the key here, though, is recognizing the
timing of all this. The early 19th century saw
this massive migration into the American Great
Plains, including what they called the Prairie
State of Illinois. This land was incredibly rich,
fertile. It was beckoning settlers. But as soon
as they put their plows into the ground, they
hit this crippling technical bottleneck, a bottleneck
that threatened to stop the entire westward agricultural
movement in its tracks. OK, let's unpack this
bottleneck because this is the really interesting
part. The engineering dilemma they faced in the
Great Plains was that the soil was too good.
Exactly. The soil was thick, wet and incredibly
sticky. It was a combination of decaying plant
matter and fine earth. And the traditional plows,
whether they were cast iron or wood reinforced
with iron, they just they couldn't handle it.
As the farmer dragged the plow, the soil would
immediately just stick to the moldboard. So they
have to stop constantly. Constantly. Stopping
to clean the plow, which was just backbreaking
labor. It dramatically reduced efficiency and
severely limited how much land a farmer could
realistically work in a season. So John Deere,
the local blacksmith, sees this issue firsthand.
He realizes the core problem isn't the farmer's
strength or the horsepower. It's a material science
problem. What was his specific innovation and
why did it work where others had failed? It wasn't
just about building a stronger plow. It was about
understanding friction. In 1837, Deere pioneered
a solution by taking a highly polished piece
of steel. The sources suggest he initially used
a discarded, finely tempered Scottish steel saw
blade, and he fashioned it into the plowshare
and moldboard. The critical insight was the polish
and the composition of the steel itself. The
polished surface, that was the trick. That was
the breakthrough. That smooth, polished surface
combined with the shape of the moldboard, it
just generated less friction. As that rich, sticky
soil hit the polished steel, it couldn't stick.
It just slid right off, keeping the implement
clean. They called it self -scouring. And this
simple design addressed a fundamental agricultural
problem. It was a truly application -driven aha
moment that solved a critical bottleneck for
agriculture and made tilling the prairie state's
soil efficient for the very first time. You really
can't overstate the impact of this. This single
innovation didn't just sell plows. It fundamentally
enabled the development of the American Great
Plains. It allowed new farmers to rabidly till
enormous tracts of land. It solved the one thing
that had been hindering settlement. It's why
the Smithsonian Museum, years later, named Deere's
original plow design as one of the objects that
changed American history. It completely transformed
the farming landscape. And from a business perspective,
the demand was... instantaneous. It forced Deere
to fundamentally rethink his entire operation.
Right. That immediately changes the business
model. You go from a local blacksmith taking
one off orders to someone solving a statewide,
then a national agricultural crisis. And the
old way of doing business manufacturing only
as ordered was just way too slow. He realized
that wasn't sustainable for scaling at all. So
he initiated this strategic shift to pre -manufacturing.
He started building plows before they were sold,
stacking up inventory. This allowed customers
not only to see the finished product, but to
buy it and take it home right away. Word spread
so quickly, he had to scale up production dramatically.
And that initial scaling starts with infrastructure.
In 1843, he partners with Leonard Andrus, and
they build a two -story factory on the Rock River.
They use water power to run the machinery, and
production jumped from maybe 100 plows a year
to around 400 plows a year almost immediately.
That's a huge leap. But even 400 a year wasn't
enough, and the location was limiting. The partnership
with Andrus ended in 1848, and Deere made this
incredibly decisive strategic move to relocate.
He chose Moline, Illinois. And this decision
was based purely on logistical superiority. Better
infrastructure. Way better. Moline offered immediate
access to the growing railroad network and, crucially,
the Mississippi River. That river access was
essential for bringing in raw steel from Pittsburgh
and shipping the finished plows out to expanding
markets. This move really marks the transition
from craftsmanship to true industrial production.
Absolutely. He formed a new partnership with
Robert Tate and John Gold and Moline. And with
that new infrastructure, production just exploded.
It rose to over 200 plows a month by 1849. A
month. So what's that? 2 ,400 a year. Exactly.
From 400 a year to 2 ,400 a year in just a short
span. This is where modern mass manufacturing
really begins for the company. By 1853, John
Deere buys out his Moline partners, gets full
control, and the family legacy starts to solidify
when his son, Charles Deere, joins business.
And they smartly diversified beyond just plows,
adding things like wagons, corn planters, and
cultivators. That diversification was crucial
for weathering economic cycles. By 1857, they
were making almost 1 ,120 implements per month.
And even though the panic of 1857 caused a national
recession that hit them hard in 58, the business
survived largely because of that diverse product
line. John Deere served as president until 1886,
but it seems like it was Charles Deere who really
took the managerial reins early on. He was the
visionary when it came to distribution, which
is just as important as the product. The product
was great, but Charles recognized that access
and trust were the ultimate competitive advantages.
In 1868, the company formally reorganized and
incorporated as Deere & Company. Then, starting
in 1869, Charles spearheaded the introduction
of marketing centers, branch offices, and he
began setting up this network of independent
retail dealers nationwide. Why was that independent
dealer model so successful? It's still around
today. Well, it achieved two things at once.
It centralized distribution and inventory, but
it maintained a local, trusted face for sales
and service. Farmers didn't just buy a plow.
They bought an entire ecosystem of support. This
network gave the company incredible reach and
staying power. And as we'll see later, this model
selling and servicing only through authorized
dealers is the quux of their current legal conflicts.
It's a strategy that worked for a century, but
now presents a major vulnerability. That's a
great narrative link. Before we jump into the
20th century, I have to mention this fantastic
nugget of trivia from the sources. The company
was trying everything back then. In the 1890s,
when bicycling was a national craze, John Deere
actually manufactured and sold a few bicycles.
A brief foray into personal transportation before
they realized that horsepower, not pedal power,
was their tree calling. The 20th century brought
on massive pressure, particularly with the formation
of the International Harvester Company. That
merger combined McCormick, Deering, and others.
And this new competition forced Deer to evolve
beyond just implements and wagons. They had to
get into the power business. gasoline tractors.
Right. Deere understood that the implements were
secondary to the power source that pulled them.
They experimented internally, developing their
own designs like the Dane all -wheel drive tractor.
But their strategic analysis showed that building
a brand new competitive tractor from scratch
would just take too long. So they chose the path
of strategic acquisition instead. Exactly. In
1918, they purchased the Waterloo Gasoline Engine
Company in Waterloo, Iowa. This was a hugely
important move because Waterloo already made
the very popular and proven Waterloo Boy tractor.
It gave Deere an immediate, functional, and well
-regarded tractor line without years of R &D
lag. That acquisition really defined their operations
for the next half century. They kept selling
the Waterloo Boy until 1923, and that's when
they introduced the now iconic John Deere Model
D. And that machine, based on the expertise from
the acquisition, marked their definitive, successful
entry into the modern tractor market under the
Deere name. And that focus quickly expanded beyond
just tractors to harvesting. Efficiency demands
meant combining tasks. So in 1927, they produced
their first combine harvester, the John Deere
No. 2, and then the smaller, more popular No.
1 in 1928. These were pull -type machines, but
they were adapting fast. And we see that innovation
continuing right after World War II, which brought
this incredible economic energy back into American
agriculture. Yes. In 1947, Deere introduced its
first self -propelled combine, the Model 55.
This was a massive leap. You no longer needed
a tractor to pull it. Right, the machine drove
itself. This freed up the tractor for other essential
tasks and allowed for far better maneuverability
in the field. And then in the mid -1950s, another
huge innovation arrives, one specific to American
crop rotation. The attachable corn head. This
innovation allowed corn picking, shelling, and
cleaning all in one continuous, efficient operation.
Before this, these were often separate. really
labor -intensive tasks. The corn head revolutionized
corn harvesting. It turned a multi -stage process
into a single -pass operation. Before we delve
deeper into the mid -century mechanics, we should
touch on the company's behavior during national
crises, because these actions really define their
brand loyalty. The Great Depression stands out.
There's this widely reported story that during
that catastrophic era, the company reportedly
never repossessed any equipment from American
farmers who were struggling to make payments.
That's an astonishing policy for a large corporation
during a depression, really. Whether it was calculated
PR, understanding the cycles of agriculture,
or genuine compassion, the impact was profound.
It cemented a relationship of trust and tremendous
brand loyalty that lasted for decades. It positioned
deer not just as a supplier, but as a partner
to the American farmer. And that partnership
was tested again during World War II. The president
then was Charles Deere Waidman, the great grandson
of the founder, and he immediately commissioned
into the U .S. Army to direct the Farm Machinery
Division of the War Production Board. The company
pivoted entirely to support the war effort. They
shifted their immense manufacturing capacity
almost overnight. They were producing military
tractors, complex M3 tank transmissions, precision
aircraft parts, ammunition, and even specialized
equipment like mobile laundry units for troops
in the field. It showed their industrial agility
and commitment, which further burnished the brand's
reputation as an American stalwart. The post
-war economy then demanded global reach, and
Deere responded aggressively to that. In 1956,
Deere began its major international expansion
by acquiring the German tractor manufacturer
Heinrich Lands AG. Lands gave them immediate
entry into the European market, and this continued
with factories established in places like Argentina,
where they produced several iconic series, demonstrating
their commitment to serving specific international
markets. All of these developments set the stage
for one of the most audacious and transformative
product launches in company history, Deer Day
in Dallas in 1960. This was a defining moment
for the company's identity and its market share.
You just can't overstate the spectacle. Deer
flew 6 ,000 dealers from all over the world to
Dallas. It was dubbed the largest commercial
airlift of its type ever attempted. The multi
-day event was held across various venues, including
the Cotton Bowl parking lot for demonstrations.
I read that they even put a new tractor with
a diamond -covered nameplate inside the Neiman
Marcus department store downtown. That sounds
less like an ag expo and more like a major auto
show. It was meant to be seismic. For decades,
Deere had been defined by its reliable but technologically
aging two -cylinder machines. Deere Day in Dallas
introduced a new generation of power. A complete
shift to modern four - and six -cylinder tractors.
The 1010, 2010, 3010, and most importantly, the
4010. Why was the 4010 so revolutionary at the
time? It was a brute force machine with modern
engineering. The 4010 was rated at 80 horsepower,
but it tested at 84, instantly establishing it
as one of the most powerful two -wheel drive
farm tractors available. Its success was immediate.
It moved Deere into the modern era, boosting
their market share from 23 % in 1959 to a dominating
34 % by 1964. So they became the top manufacturer
in the U .S. They did, and the successor, the
4020, is often cited as the most popular tractor
John Deere ever made. That single product generation
catapulted them past their competitors. It showed
that farmers were ready for power, speed, and
modern design. And crucially, this new generation
also heralded the pivot beyond just raw power.
to the operator experience. Control and comfort
became the new frontier. Right. Spending 12 hours
a day in an open field, exposed to dust and heat
and engine noise, it was grueling. Exactly. So
in 1972, Deere introduced its Generation 2 Sound
Idea tractors. These feature the optional SoundGuard
body, an insulated, completely integrated operator's
cab with a rollover structure. It came standard
with heat and air conditioning. An air -conditioned
workspace in a field machine in 1972, that's
truly innovative. It changed the quality of life
for farmers overnight. It turned the tractor
into this climate -controlled, comfortable workplace.
And get this, you could even get an 8 -track
tape player as an option. An 8 -track! Can you
imagine? It signals the beginning of integrating
consumer technology into heavy machinery. And
they continued that refinement in 1983 with the
50 Series, adding crucial mechanical sophistication.
Things like a new 15 -speed... power shift transmission
and optional mechanical front wheel drive for
better traction. These were incremental, crucial
steps towards sophisticated, powerful equipment
that was just easier to operate. However, we
need to pause on one area where corporate strategy
arguably failed them for about two decades. The
combine wars. Even as competitors like International
Harvester were pioneering the efficient, high
-capacity rotary combine in the late 70s, Deere
stubbornly stuck to its conventional walker combines
through the 80s and 90s. It's an interesting
case study in corporate inertia and devotion
to a legacy system. Deere's conventional walkers
were excellent machines, and their engineers
were deeply committed to them. They were reliable.
They had strong brand loyalty. So they were prioritizing
reliability and familiarity over maximum efficiency.
Precisely. It was a strategy based on perfecting
the existing mechanical model rather than risking
a total design overhaul. The thinking may have
been that the rotary concept was too risky or
that their market share was too stable to be
threatened. But they paid a price for being slow
to adapt. They did. The market started demanding
the higher throughput and gentler handling of
the rotary systems. It forced them to catch up
rapidly. So in 1999, Deere finally introduced
its own rotary innovation, the single -tine separation,
or STS, system on our Maximizer combines. And
while they were late to the party, the STS was
highly advanced. It demonstrated they could innovate,
but only after years of competitive pressure.
That brings us right up to the modern era. We've
gone from a blacksmith forging a saw blade into
a plow to a massive global corporation manufacturing
sophisticated, climate -controlled, eight -track
equipped machines. That sets us up perfectly
for the 21st century transformation into the
smart corporation. Today, John Deere is the largest
agriculture machinery company in the world. Its
headquarters are still in Moline, Illinois, and
about half of its 75 ,800 employees are in the
U .S. and Canada. But the company's structure
is entirely global. What's fascinating here is
the sheer breadth of their operation and how
diversified the revenue streams are. It's no
longer just about the iconic green tractor. If
you look at the 2023 revenue breakdown, production
and precision agriculture leads at 43 .7%, then
construction and forestry at 24 .2%, and small
agriculture and turf... lawnmowers and stuff,
at 22 .8%. Okay, so that's nearly 90 % of revenue
coming from equipment sales across three huge
sectors. But there's a critical segment that
often gets overlooked, and it's the key to understanding
their financial power and their leverage over
customers. That would be financial services,
which accounted for 7 .7 % of 2023 revenue. And
this is a really essential financial nugget for
understanding the right -to -repair conflict.
John Deere Financial is a massive central part
of the ecosystem. As of 2017, it had a $2 billion
loan portfolio. And crucially, it accounts for
up to a third of the company's total income.
Wait, hang on. A third of their income from financing?
Up to a third. It creates this powerful dependency
loop. Most modern car equipment is incredibly
expensive, up to $800 ,000 for a combine. Few
farmers can afford that without financing. So
John Deere isn't just the manufacturer. They're
the dealer and they're the bank. Exactly. And
that vertical integration creates profound leverage.
They control the sale. They control the parts
supply. And they control the financing. It makes
the threat of restricted repair access even more
potent. It fundamentally changes the relationship
from manufacturer -customer to financier -client.
And their product breadth is just, it's everything
heavy. Looking at the variety, they cover the
whole supply chain. Agricultural equipment includes
tractors, combines, planters, sprayers. Construction
has exigators, loaders, backhoes. Forestry has
harvesters, forwarders, and they make the diesel
engines for all of them. And we can't forget
the technology that links all this massive equipment
together. Their proprietary Starfire GPS systems.
This moves us directly into the biggest transformation
of the century, automation and software. This
is the pivot from mechanical power to processing
power. The future of deer is entirely based on
proprietary tech designed to maximize efficiency.
And they've made strategic acquisitions to lead
this shift. Which acquisitions stand out as defining
their future? Two in particular. Blue River Technology
for its computer vision and machine learning.
This is what enables their sea and spray system.
And Bear Flag Robotics, which focuses specifically
on autonomous ag technology. Let's talk about
sea and spray. The outline mentions weed reduction.
Can we quantify the efficiency gains here for
the listener? It's revolutionary for input costs.
Traditional spraying involves broadcasting herbicide
over an entire field, weeds, crops, everything,
which is wasteful and expensive. Blue River System
uses cameras and machine learning to identify
individual weeds in real time. It then sprays
only the individual weed, not the surrounding
soil or crop. And the savings? It's reported
to reduce herbicide use by up to 80%. 80%. That
single -handedly justifies the price tag of a
smart machine and changes the entire economics
of farming. It absolutely does. And the other
culmination was at the Consumer Electronics Show
in 2022. They introduced a fully autonomous tractor
that can till a field without an operator managed
remotely from a smartphone. The larger goal here
is staggering, tying everything into the cloud.
The stated corporate goal is to connect 1 .5
million machines in service and a half billion
acres in use to its cloud -based John Deere Operations
Center. Think of the data streams. Every second
of every machine's operation, every bushel harvested,
every drop of fuel consumed, it all flows back
to the cloud. And that data relies on their proprietary
GPS and cloud platform, locking farmers into
the Deere ecosystem. That shift from physical
mechanics to cloud -based operations is the bridge
to our next, most contentious section. But first,
we need to quickly address the recent economic
and political headwinds this global titan has
faced. Right. Despite the innovation, they're
not immune to market fluctuations. In 2024 and
2025, Deere announced significant layoffs across
Midwest facilities in Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas,
citing decreased demand. And there are political
headwinds associated with their global manufacturing
footprint, too. The sources note they announced
plans to possibly move some component production
to Mexico. And this is where we just shift to
impartial reporting on the context provided.
That global shift drew political fire. Donald
Trump in 2024 publicly threatened to impose 200
percent tariffs on any Mexican made equipment
in response. And there's also an important note
on the company's complex tax structure. A 2018
report showed that Deere, along with many other
large corporations, paid an effective federal
tax rate of 0 % or less because of the 2017 Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act. This whole complex political
environment, global manufacturing, threatened
tariffs, leveraged tax structures, it shows the
massive scale we're dealing with now. It's far
beyond that local Midwestern employer. And all
of this complex global financial and technological
power converges on the single defining question
facing the agricultural world today. If the machine
is controlled by software and connected to the
cloud, who truly owns the machine? And this final
battle over the machine's code brings us full
circle. We started with John Deere the man who
created the steel plow to solve a farmer's labor
problem and grant them greater self -sufficiency.
Now we are looking at the critical issue defining
modern equipment ownership, the right to repair
conflict. This issue is critical because late
model John Deere equipment, those sophisticated
smart tractors and combines, are explicitly designed
to be non -serviceable by the owners or independent
third parties. Only authorized John Deere dealerships
have the necessary access to the diagnostics
and the specialized tools. And that access is
tied directly to the computer code running the
machine. They need this proprietary code not
just for repairs but also to calibrate replacement
parts. Without the software handshake, the machine
is just a very expensive paperweight. Deere's
core legal argument relies heavily on intellectual
property law, specifically the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, or DMCA. They claim the internal
software license prevents any modification by
independent mechanics and farmers. Let's clarify
this. The DMCA was designed primarily to protect
digital media music, movies, e -books from piracy.
How does a law meant for copyright protection
apply to a 1 ,000 -horsepower physical tractor?
That is the critical tension. Deere argues that
repairing the machine, which often requires running
diagnostic software or overriding certain locks,
involves bypassing digital rights management
or DRM. And the DMCA forbids bypassing DRM controls.
So by saying the farmer only licenses the software
that runs the machine, they're leveraging this
copyright loophole to protect their service and
parts monopoly. So the argument is you bought
the steel and tires, but you only licensed the
operational brain. Critics. most notably the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, argued that's
exactly what it is. They say this strategy creates
an exclusive monopoly for John Deere dealerships,
effectively undermining the fundamental right
to repair an asset you physically purchased.
And the real -world consequences are staggering,
especially when a combine breaks down during
harvest. Every hour of downtime costs thousands
of dollars. Timeliness is essential. And the
issue of remote locking illustrates the extreme
implications. The manufacturer can remotely lock
equipment. The most famous anecdote happened
during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Russian troops stole Ukrainian farm equipment
and the dealers were reportedly able to remotely
disable it. rendering it all useless. Wow. So
while that was a unique form of digital defense
in a war zone, it profoundly demonstrates the
ultimate control they have. If it can be disabled
when stolen, it can be disabled for other reasons,
too. Precisely. And faced with costly, time -consuming
dealer repairs, resourceful farmers did what
they always do. They found a workaround. The
sources mentioned a fascinating one involving
international software. They resorted to using
unauthorized circumventing software to perform
essential repairs. And get this, because of varying
international regulations, this included obtaining
and using Ukrainian versions of John Deere software
to overcome the company's domestic repair lockouts.
They were using hacked Ukrainian software to
fix their own tractors in Nebraska. It highlights
the level of frustration. and the desperate need
for self -sufficiency. This high -stakes resistance
led quickly to political and legislative action.
The movement for the right to repair gained significant
traction. By early 2022, right to repair bills
focused on ag equipment had been introduced in
26 U .S. states, and the U .S. Senate introduced
a federal bill. Deere, facing this mounting pressure,
made a critical strategic move in January 2023.
They signed a Memorandum of Understanding, an
MOU, with the American Farm Bureau Federation,
the AFBF. This was a brilliant corporate maneuver.
On the surface, it looked like a major concession.
Deere agreed to allow farmers and independent
shops to purchase access to John Deere software,
manuals, and diagnosing information. But this
MOU raises an important question about enforcement.
Was this a genuine policy shift or a stalling
tactic? This is where we need to apply critical
thinking. Skeptics like Walter Schweitzer of
the Montana Farmers Union immediately pointed
out the key caveat. An MOU is a private sector
agreement. It lacks legal enforcement. Deere
can theoretically pull out if any binding legislation
is successfully enacted. And the most crucial
part of that agreement was a tradeoff. An explicit
one. As part of the MOU, the AFBF agreed to encourage
its state farm bureaus to refrain from introducing...
promoting or supporting federal or state right
to repair legislation that went beyond the MOU's
commitments. So they traded a potential legal
right for a non -binding promise. And in exchange,
the AFBF agreed to stop lobbying for legislation.
That's a classic strategy to diffuse legislative
momentum. It absolutely stalled many state -level
bills, but the legal battle didn't end there.
It escalated into massive antitrust litigation.
The antitrust lawsuits are perhaps the most damaging
challenge. Moving this from a copyright issue
to a market monopoly issue. Correct. In 2022,
13 lawsuits from farmers were consolidated in
federal court. They alleged that John Deere and
its dealers unlawfully conspired to monopolize
the market for repair and maintenance. And the
U .S. government signaled that the stakes were
indeed national. In February 2023, the Department
of Justice filed a statement of interest in the
case, unequivocally opposing Deere's motion to
dismiss. The DOJ argued that these repair restrictions
harm consumers and the public by driving up costs
and limiting choice. And the courts have been
receptive to these claims, which was a crucial
legal victory for the farmers. A major ruling
in November 2023, a U .S. district judge denied
Deere's motion to dismiss the lawsuits. This
was huge. The judge found that the complaint
had sufficient factual allegations to support
the conclusion that Deere has the ultimate control
of the repair services market. This confirmed
the legal viability of the monopolization claims.
And the legal pressure only continued to build,
reaching the highest levels of government. Absolutely.
In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission,
the FTC, joined by five states, filed its own
antitrust lawsuit against Deere. The FTC argued
explicitly that deer inflated repair costs for
farmers by actively preventing independent shops
from operating. This governmental intervention
shows this is now viewed as a clear market failure
driven by corporate policy. And we should note,
this isn't just an American issue. It's a global
conflict. That's right. Agricultural bodies in
Australia, for instance, are lobbying hard for
specific repair laws. Their current law only
covers the auto sector, leaving massive, expensive
farm equipment unprotected. It's a worldwide
battle. It truly is. A worldwide battle between
the physical ownership of hard assets and the
proprietary control and force through digital
code. So what does this all mean? We've traced
the 188 year journey of Deere and Company. We
started with John Deere, the man who created
the self -scouring steel plow in 1837 to solve
a farmer's labor problem and grant them efficiency
and greater self -sufficiency. And we arrive
at Deering Company today, a global financial
and industrial titan that uses highly advanced
proprietary software protected by federal copyright
law to control those very same farmers ability
to service their multi hundred thousand dollar
machines. The key takeaway here is this fundamental
tension between two conflicting ideas. On one
hand, technological advancement is leading to
incredible precision agriculture, autonomous
tractors and massive efficiency gains. On the
other hand, the basic concept of ownership rights
is being challenged when that technology is proprietary
and protected by copyright law like the DMCA.
It forces us to redefine what it means to own
something heavy and physical when its operational
keys are digital, held exclusively by the manufacturer,
and tied to a vertically integrated financial
system. The initial vision was about empowerment
and self -sufficiency for the user. Which leads
us to our final provocative thought for you,
the learner. If a machine designed for increased
efficiency, one you purchase outright, maybe
even financed through the manufacturer, can be
remotely locked or requires continuous costly
involvement from the corporation for essential
upkeep, has the modern farmer gained efficiency
at the cost of genuine self -sufficiency? What
is the true value of physical ownership when
the digital keys are held by a corporation? It's
a question that defines the modern relationship
between user and technology, and the answer is
being decided in courtrooms right now.