You Own It. Or Do You?
In 2015, John Deere filed a legal argument with the US Copyright Office that should have made every consumer in America stop and reconsider what the word "own" means. The company claimed that farmers who purchased Deere tractors — machines costing $150,000 or more — did not actually own the software running those tractors. They had purchased "an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle." The software, Deere argued, remained Deere's property. And with it, the right to decide what you could do with your own equipment.
Deere lost that particular battle. But the war it was fighting — the systematic redefinition of ownership through software licensing — is being won, quietly and relentlessly, across nearly every category of consumer product.
The Legal Architecture of Non-Ownership
The mechanism is elegant in its simplicity. When you buy a product that contains software — which in 2025 means almost anything with a circuit board — you are not buying the software. You are licensing it. The End User License Agreement you agreed to without reading (everyone agrees without reading) specifies the terms of that license. And those terms routinely include provisions that would be unthinkable in a traditional property transaction.
You cannot resell the software. You cannot modify it. You cannot circumvent technical measures that restrict what the product does, even if those restrictions serve no purpose other than to limit your control. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Section 1201, circumventing digital locks is a federal offense — regardless of whether you're trying to pirate anything, regardless of whether any copyright is actually being infringed. The lock itself is the crime.
The result is a legal framework in which the manufacturer retains permanent authority over a physical object you paid for and possess. They can use software updates to remove features you relied on. They can use authentication systems to prevent you from using compatible parts. They can, in some cases, remotely disable or brick a product entirely. And they can do all of this without breach of contract, because the contract you signed — the EULA — gave them permission.
The John Deere Playbook
Deere didn't invent this model, but it executed it with particular thoroughness. Modern John Deere equipment runs proprietary software called John Deere Operations Center. Diagnostic tools — the software needed to identify why a tractor is throwing an error code — are controlled by Deere and accessible only through authorized dealers. If your $300,000 combine harvester breaks down during harvest, you cannot diagnose it yourself. You cannot take it to an independent mechanic. You wait for a Deere-certified technician, at Deere-certified rates, on Deere's schedule.
Farmers in the American Midwest began responding by sourcing cracked diagnostic software from Eastern European hackers — the same software, illegally obtained, because it was the only way to keep equipment running during the narrow windows that determine whether a year's crops are profitable or lost. This is not the behavior of people trying to steal intellectual property. It is the behavior of people trying to use equipment they own to do work they need to do.
The Deere situation is extreme because the stakes are extreme — a combine sitting idle for three days during harvest represents losses that can threaten a farm's financial survival. But the underlying dynamic appears in consumer products at every price point.
Apple's Parts Pairing: Ownership by Serial Number
In 2020, Apple introduced a system called parts pairing for iPhone repairs. The technology cryptographically links components — screens, cameras, batteries, Face ID sensors — to the specific iPhone they were originally installed in. A genuine Apple screen transplanted from one iPhone to another triggers warning messages and, in some cases, feature disablement. The part is real. The screen works. But because it hasn't been authorized through Apple's proprietary software, the phone treats it as an intruder.
The practical consequence: independent repair shops cannot perform many repairs using salvaged genuine Apple parts, even when those parts are in perfect condition. A screen pulled from a water-damaged iPhone — the exact same hardware Apple uses — cannot be used to repair another iPhone's cracked screen without triggering Apple's pairing restrictions. The only fully functional screens available to independent repair shops are either new parts purchased from Apple at Apple's prices, or used parts that can be paired using Apple's System Configuration tool — which requires an Apple account and Apple's approval.
Apple has defended this as a security and quality measure. The security argument has merit in limited contexts (Face ID relies on hardware authentication). The quality argument is more strained — a genuine Apple screen pulled from another iPhone is by definition an Apple-quality screen. What parts pairing accomplishes, in practice, is the routing of repair revenue through Apple's authorized service network.
Under pressure from right-to-repair legislation in the EU and several US states, Apple has made incremental concessions. The company now allows some repairs using used parts with pairing unlocked. But the infrastructure of control — the cryptographic linking of components to specific devices — remains in place, and the concessions have been narrow enough to preserve the fundamental dynamic.
Tesla: The Car You Own, Updated by Someone Else
Tesla's over-the-air update system is legitimately remarkable engineering. The ability to push software improvements to an entire fleet simultaneously, to fix safety issues without recalls, to add features to vehicles already in the field — these are genuine advances. They are also the infrastructure for something else entirely.
In 2019, Tesla remotely reduced the battery capacity of some Model S and Model X vehicles in Florida, in the days before Hurricane Donetsk, to extend the vehicles' range. The intent was safety — giving owners more range to evacuate. The act was a demonstration of capability: Tesla can alter the fundamental operating parameters of vehicles sitting in your driveway, using software, without your initiation or approval.
More commercially significant: Tesla has sold the same physical hardware in multiple configurations. Early Model 3 vehicles contained hardware capable of longer range than the version purchased — the battery cells were identical; the software imposed a range limit that could be unlocked for a fee. You owned the hardware. Tesla owned the capability.
This model — selling hardware with software-imposed capability limits, then charging to unlock what you already physically possess — has become common enough to have acquired a name in automotive circles: feature-gated hardware. BMW charged a subscription for heated seats. Mercedes charged for acceleration improvements. Toyota charged for remote start on vehicles with all the hardware already installed. The car in your driveway may already contain features you haven't paid to access.
The Sonos Brick: When Ownership Has an Expiration Date
In 2020, Sonos announced that older speakers — the Play:5 first generation, the original Connect, the Bridge — would be reaching their "end of life." The speakers themselves still functioned perfectly. The hardware was not failing. What was ending was Sonos's willingness to continue providing software updates.
The initial plan was worse: Sonos proposed that customers could receive a 30% trade-in discount on new speakers, but to activate the discount, they would need to put their old speakers into "recycle mode" — a software-initiated process that permanently disabled them. You would brick your own working hardware to receive a discount on new hardware. The company that sold you a $500 speaker in 2010 would, a decade later, instruct that speaker to destroy itself on command.
After significant public backlash, Sonos modified the plan. Old speakers would no longer receive updates but would continue to function. The company promised five years of security updates after a product's end-of-sale date. These are better terms. But the episode illustrated something important: Sonos retained the technical capability to remotely disable speakers in customers' homes. The policy changed because of public pressure. The capability remained.
The Keurig Gambit: Licensing Your Own Kitchen
Keurig's second-generation coffee makers, released in 2014, included a "DRM system" — a digital rights management lock for coffee pods. The machines used optical scanners to read an ink pattern on licensed K-Cup pods. Unlicensed pods — including the reusable pods that had worked fine in first-generation machines, and including competitors' pods — triggered an error message: "Oops! This pack wasn't designed for this brewer."
The business logic was transparent. Keurig had built a razor-and-blades business on K-Cup sales. The second-generation machines were an attempt to close the ecosystem — to prevent the reusable pods and compatible competitors that were cutting into K-Cup revenue. The machine on your counter would only brew what Keurig licensed.
Keurig 2.0 failed commercially and was discontinued. Customers revolted; YouTube videos showing how to defeat the scanner with a piece of tape from a licensed pod went viral. The company retreated. But note what they tried to do: use a consumer appliance — a coffee maker — as an enforcement mechanism for a licensing arrangement. The machine you bought was designed, by its manufacturer, to prevent you from using it the way you wanted.
The Software That Owns Your Printer
HP's Instant Ink subscription service sends cartridges to subscribers automatically. The cartridges work while you're subscribed. When you cancel your subscription, the cartridges stop working — even cartridges you physically possess, even cartridges with ink remaining. HP has implemented this through firmware: the cartridges communicate with HP's servers, and server-side authorization determines whether the cartridge will function.
Separately, HP has deployed firmware updates that disable third-party cartridges entirely, regardless of subscription status. Printers that previously accepted compatible cartridges from any manufacturer receive an update and subsequently reject them. This has happened multiple times, across multiple HP product lines, with HP sometimes providing notice and sometimes not.
The pattern here is not incidental. It is the business model. HP's hardware margins are thin; the company's profit center is consumables. Third-party cartridges undermine that profit center. Firmware updates are the enforcement mechanism. The printer you own is being used, through software you didn't ask to install, to protect HP's business model at your expense.
What Ownership Actually Means Now
The legal framework of property has not kept pace with the technological reality of connected products. When you buy a chair, ownership is simple: you possess the object, you control what you do with it, no one else has authority over it. When you buy a smart refrigerator, you possess the hardware but the software — and with it, an increasing portion of the device's functionality — remains under the manufacturer's control.
The right-to-repair movement has made real legislative progress. Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and California have passed right-to-repair laws with varying scope. The EU's Ecodesign Regulation requires manufacturers to make spare parts and repair information available for certain product categories. The FTC has taken enforcement actions against warranty-voiding repair restrictions.
But legislation moves slowly and product design moves fast. For every right-to-repair law passed, manufacturers develop new technical restrictions — parts pairing, proprietary fasteners, serialized components — that comply with the letter of repair access requirements while undermining their intent.
The practical situation for consumers is this: the more software a product contains, the more tenuous your ownership of it is. This is not a bug in the system. It is the system. The software license — the EULA you accepted — is specifically designed to preserve manufacturer control over objects you've paid for and possess. Until property law catches up with software law, or until consumer pressure forces manufacturers to change their practices, the receipt in your drawer represents something less than ownership in the traditional sense.
When you buy a product, you are increasingly buying access to a manufacturer's hardware, on the manufacturer's terms, for as long as the manufacturer decides those terms apply.
That's not ownership. It's a lease you can't renegotiate.
Loading comments...