I don't think the WIRED article isn't really doing justice to what Kytch is trying to show. The important argument is whether or not McDonald and Taylor conspired to prevent Kytch from selling / franchisees from purchasing this equipment, essentially a 'right to repair' argument.
If Kytch wins, there could be ramifications for the tractor debate in the agricultural world as well.
As someone who has looked into alternative data business models for the finance industry, this is really awesome to see someone doing this as a company. I was interested to understand how you think about your revenue model? I feel that if your data provides alpha (i.e. selling before other people are aware of the problematic disclosures), as your models become validated within the industry, someone/some firm is going to use it to generate alpha. But then you have a problem where, that one firm that captures most of the value, and takes it from other participants who now lose the value-add of your product.
How do you balance those two sides? I mean it as a potential customer who would love to pay for your product, but want to understand how you prevent this becoming a alpha-generating NLP strategy for one hedge firm who pays the most for it.
I don't think the WIRED article isn't really doing justice to what Kytch is trying to show. The important argument is whether or not McDonald and Taylor conspired to prevent Kytch from selling / franchisees from purchasing this equipment, essentially a 'right to repair' argument.
If Kytch wins, there could be ramifications for the tractor debate in the agricultural world as well.