raymw Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/ It's always been that most software is licensed. Now it seems that if your hardware includes software, you don't hold the hardware (or at least that is what 'they' are saying). Look out for the small print on your dcc fitted locos. Hopefully the European courts will tell 'em to get lost, like they did with the car warranty service restrictions a few years back. Of course, if you get a second hand dog from RSPCA, you don't own that either - but you pay all the bills, so maybe that's where the idea originates. Best wishes, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Same thing with Monsanto and genetic modified crops, seeds etc. Welcome to the new millennium. It can only get worse. Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 96701 Posted April 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 22, 2015 Does the same law apply in UK? If not, I'll bet TTIP has something to say about it. Perhaps not? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/26/copycat-software Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 30801 Posted April 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 22, 2015 So what's the difference between not owning the copyright to the software in your tractor, and not owning the copyright to a book ? . The book's author doesn't have the opportunity to gain ongoing revenue from maintenance of the book. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted April 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 22, 2015 I think the story loses credibility when it see's some sinister plot in securing the pdf of a letter. I work in a business whose core business is certification and every letter or certificate I issue has to be secured to prevent tampering. We moved to all electronic certificates and only send a hard letter if requested (or if we're demanding money....) and clearly such pdf documents have to be secure. I don't know about John Deere but I'd be risking disciplinary action if I did not secure official documents I issue in pdf form. On software, it is legitimate I think to protect the intellectual property that is in software. In modern engines the software is absolutely critical to performance, it is common to hear people asking for manufacturers to offer good old fashioned engines with no electronic trickery and to see modern electronically controlled engines as a ruse to make more money and to increase the throwaway nature of engines but efficiency and emissions performance pretty much depends of things like common rail fuel systems with variable timing, charge air pressure and temperature management, variable inlet and exhaust valve timing etc and the only way to deliver this stuff is via software controlled engine systems. That software has huge market value and can make the difference between an engine being competitive or being an also ran in the market. So I see protection intellectual property rights of this stuff as entirely legitimate. This is no different from the fact that if you buy a car you do not buy the engine design or the body styling or the right to use the manufacturers logo and image etc etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymw Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Taking an example, say a text book. If you purchased the book, and find some of the statements erroneous then you can cross it out, write in your own definitions, etc. I don't think you could republish the book, but you could possibly publish the errata. Often happens in book reviews, afaik. The point with the tractor/hardware, is that if you alter the software, e.g. reprogram to give better? performance, then the device may be damaged, and a device that 'inexplicably fails' damages the manufacturer. It is not easy to prove (in a court of law) where changes have been made, or who made them, in a few bits in perhaps a terabyte or so of software, but then the software could be reset to as original anyway. There is/was an after-market in remapping car engine performance, all of them invalidating any claims against the car maker (and your insurance unless notified). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_Ava_Hay Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 As the very recent acquirer of an electronic controlled car, I was told by the handover guy that re-chipping the vehicle would invalidate both the warranty and the guaranteed residual value. On enquiry I was told there is a burgeoning market to do just that, particularly on diesel models. In these days of advanced product liability I can see the point of banning interference in the way the vehicle is programmed to deliver its stated performance. What is more worrying is the reliance on sophisticated chipboards in a hostile (wet,salty) environment. I can also see that it would be dead easy for the powers that be to tap into my vehicles electronics and only allow me to drive the vehicle to their say so. How any of this can apply to a tractor is beyond me apart from the Americans being much more advanced in their interpretation of product liability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I'm not entirely sure what the point of that article was, but I wish the people trying to write their own software for the embedded microprocessor in the tractor well. Or at least I think that's what the writer was saying, although I suspect they may be confusing a whole load of issues together without really understanding any of them. There didn't seem to be anything particularly surprising in what John Deere was after - making it hard for competitors to reverse engineer their products and stopping people doing untested modifications. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 It's not as simple as the author makes it out to be, and it's not just John Deere / GM. Audi too. Take an Audi S4 (v6 330hp). Add some new firmware and it performs just like an Audi RS4 (v8, 450hp) without paying the tens of thousands of pounds difference in price. Software licensing matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The other dimension of uploading firmware of unknown provenance is security. For all you know you have introduced a Trojan virus that will permit someone taking over your car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The hardware will break down before the software ever does Not necessarily. I don't recall the model, but Mercedes had huge problems with a high-end model a couple of years ago, to the extent where owners had to literally pull over and reboot the car sitting on the side of the road to get it to run at all. The level of software complexity in modern cars is staggering. They can now contain as many as 100 million lines of software. Software licenses can be transferable to a new owner. It is a legal matter covered in Ts&Cs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 23, 2015 Verifying software can be extremely difficult and this can cause problems in safety critical applications. Most modern safety systems rely on software (sometimes without people realising it, such as plc controllers in electro-mechanical equipment) and for many applications the only way suppliers can offer the required performance is by using software controlled systems. There is nothing wrong with this and there are tools to do the software assessment but some of it is frighteningly complex and the tools are not infallible. For a long time in marine certain key safety functions were required to have a traditional mechanical device even where a modern electronic device was used but this is no longer the case and in many applications it would no longer be practical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kylestrome Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 23, 2015 I'm not entirely sure what the point of that article was, ................... My understanding of the article is that it is more about the ownership of the hardware, resulting from the manufacture owning the software. Really the headline for this thread should read: "Ownership of hardware" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 23, 2015 Oh they keep trying it on but how many computers get sold second hand with software that tries the same thing? They can make it practically difficult to do so but the law probably isn't on their side if they insist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 23, 2015 This article is aimed at embedded software which to all intents and purposes in the real world is part of the hardware and there are no issues with selling a car and software licenses etc. What manufacturers are concerned with is to prevent tampering with the software and prevent their IP being violated. Some of the anti-tamper is indeed commercial in that why buy an RS4 if you can buy an S4 and amend the mapping but some is regulatory and safety in that the operation and emissions compliance of the engine depends on the software controlling the engine as intended and as per the emissions testing. This is not just about cars, I don't know if it was still the case but a lot of digital cameras had a standard sensor and they'd vary the pixel count to offer it at various pixel ratings. I really think this is a complete non-story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2015 Wonder what will happen when we all get chips in our heads.....no, not with fish. I'm fully convinced that it will happen one day, counter terrorism, migration checks, even health monitoring, someone with a lot of clout will think it's a good idea and start the ball rolling. It's started in a small way in Sweden where employees in a company have chips inserted in their wrists to gain access to premises. Hopefully I'll be pushing up daisies by then! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 But if they take this ownership thing to extremes, the guys who each wrote a few lines of code could argue that they 'own' the software from now on, and not the manufacturing company they were subcontracted to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 23, 2015 But if they take this ownership thing to extremes, the guys who each wrote a few lines of code could argue that they 'own' the software from now on, and not the manufacturing company they were subcontracted to. That's the whole "work for hire" thing, which isn't really any different from, say, making a chair for someone paying you to do so. Software companies tend not to like people writing code in their own time then sticking it in something at work for pretty much that reason, it creates all sorts of ownership hassles to sort out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 What manufacturers are concerned with is to prevent tampering with the software and prevent their IP being violated. I also suspect there's a degree of reputation control. If you tinker with a product and it starts to become unreliable or unsafe, then the manufacturers image suffers and sales may drop. Again this is purely commercial. But if they take this ownership thing to extremes, the guys who each wrote a few lines of code could argue that they 'own' the software from now on, and not the manufacturing company they were subcontracted to. They need to read their contracts. The classic example is around patents - if you invent something in company time, then the company owns the patent to it and not you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 My old 1973 Rover 3.5 litre has a coil, distributor, points and a condenser. A few on / off switches for the lights, etc. That's it. Modern cars are way over complicated, expensive and a depreciation nightmare for the private buyer.. This is an interesting article from today http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3052303/Car-clocking-stages-comeback-drivers-try-hide-excess-mileage.html World has gone tech mad. Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 30801 Posted April 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 23, 2015 My old 1973 Rover 3.5 litre has a coil, distributor, points and a condenser. A few on / off switches for the lights, etc. That's it. Modern cars are way over complicated, expensive and a depreciation nightmare for the private buyer.. I don't have figures for depreciation to hand but I'm sure things are better than they used to be simply because cars last longer with less maintenance. Rust is a thing of the past. Of the cars I've had new, the most fettled was a Vectra which in 80k miles had two wheel bearings done. Everything else has only ever had oil, tyres & fuel. Not to mention things like seven year warranties. When you consider how much a 70's car could deteriorate in five years or so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.