BrianCunningham

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/20/g...-car-software/

waddisme

Read the article last week pertaining to the John Deere lawsuit. Requiring repair work to be done by "authorized" shops is set to put a huge dent into farmers pockets, and huge profits into the shops. Interesting to see where it goes. I know in my Tundra, Toyota makes it really hard to access ECU for tuning, but it can being done.

SouthernSon

What about the programs in my PC's and laptops? Am I required to let the software engineers do all the maintenance when they conflict or don't work? Where does this end? As far as modern vehicles, a stand alone injection system (retrofit for older vehicles) works better and faster anyway. It doesn't have to deal with all the other programming crammed into the vehicle. I see an uptick in the older cars and aftermarket providers.

Interesting that this is coming about just after reducing the warranty mileage and time.

dhowdy

Actually I'm pretty sure you only have a license to use the software, not ownership of the code. Unless it's open source, you really don't have any way to implement your own bug fixes, so yes you would be reliant on software engineers to issue patches.

SouthernSon

I am not selling the code. I bought it for my own use. The tangents of this practice by GM are far reaching in this age of technology.

bags142

I see Mega Squirt becoming VERY popular

wtb-z

You didn't buy it, you bought a license to use it. Breaking locks they put on the code, or selling something that makes use of the code would be illegal.

This is very standard in the tech world, and is clearly one of the things that threaten cars as we know them today.

hklvette

I was with you up until that last bit about threatening cars as we know them. The only thing this would change is the legal ability to modify code in everything but the ECU and for those that have them, TCU. The engine and transmission code are technically illegal to modify due to the EPA already.

This should come as a shock to nobody, especially those who work in the software/ firmware world.

SouthernSon

AGAIN, I am not using it for resell. I am the end user. That for which they market it is the purpose for which I am using it; for my own purpose. I am not buying into a system of perpetual renting. If I don't have control over it, I don't need it. However, if we are entering a realm of retainership for service at my beckoning, I might have an angle with which I can live.

SouthernSon

[QUOTE=hklvette;1589671442.......The engine and transmission code are technically illegal to modify due to the EPA already.

This should come as a shock to nobody, especially those who work in the software/ firmware world.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, we have laws that govern what we do as far as that is concerned. You modify and get caught, you pay the penalty. GM 'ain't' got nothing to do with that part. As far as modifying and negating warranty coverage, well, that is covered, too! Don't try to sell me programming mumbo jumbo.

Actually, this is no different from cutting or gutting the catalytic convertors. One is hardware the other is software.

edge04

most of us that use software to access our PCM's are only changing the how we want our engine to operate. We are not changing code or methodologies used by GM (or anyone else).

We don't have access to HPT's code even though we've bought the software.

fatbillybob

For consumers this will not be won on the merits of the case. The only way to win is to present this as just another big corporation power grab against the little guy. It is all about money and control.

Socko

At the end of the day I am astonished this hasn't passed due to the safety concerns of it. In the real world I imagine 9 out of 10 people think we are all idiots for making our 400+ hp cars have more horsepower.

I also agree that pretty much all software you buy works this way, you have no direct access to it, and in reality people love not having access to it, look at the current popularity of iphones/ipads vs much more open systems available, or even windows vs linux. People don't like open software.

My take on the whole thing, the laws will eventually pass. No one will ever be prosecuted by the manufacturers for cracking and modifying them, so it will happen, but the manufactures will have a legal loophole to get out of trouble when you kill someone with you 1000whp car driving like a jackass. Eventually someone will sue and win and put someone out of business, and all tuning software will end up open source to keep from it being a legal liability. Just like xbox modding and iphone jail breaking. At the end of the day, the law will likely help most of us cause we will be able to get access to our ecu's for less money.

QKSLVRZ

I concur that we don't (usually) own the software we use. But, I know of no way they can do anything (other than take their software back) if you hack it, as long as you're not selling their code (or giving it to an unlicensed user). They can void your warranty, I could even see them refusing to sell you a car. But the Auto Manufacturers all buy each others cars, where they do exactly the same thing, take them apart and figure out how they work, and at least the dealers know this (been there). I've seen what's left of them.
I also don't ever remember signing a license agreement when buying my car, though those lawyers are tricky, it could be in there or implied somewhere.

Zoxxo

Gang - the manufacturers couldn't care less what individual owners do in this regard (aside from the warranty issue which came up early in the C6 time frame.) They are just covering their legal asses by making a clear, public statement that anyone wanting to fiddle with their *copyrighted* software (that is *licensed* to the car owner - no you do *not* own it) has to reach some deal with them in order to not be sued for infringement. GM, et al, simply can't allow a situation where every corner gas station is coming up with their own software "SuperChip" that does who knows what to the car all while possibly implying that this is all with GM's approval. The world's lawyers all start salivating at things like this.

But, do you really think that GM is going to kill off the likes of Callaway and other legit third party supporters over this? Hardly. Callaway will sign a licensing agreement that indemnifies GM from any damages that occur as a result of changes made by Callaway, etc. (They most likely already do this.) They'll pay GM a modest annual fee, etc.

As for "laws being passed" or not, they don't need to do a thing. This is a copyright issue that is already handled by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) which expressly prohibits deconstructing/disassembling/modifying copyrighted computer code.

All of this is nothing new and for the large majority of end users (like maybe 99.99%?) it has no meaning whatsoever. Just more Chicken Little fodder. Relax.

Z//

Bill Dearborn

It also depends on the definition of software and the interface used to reach it. Tuners and others can only access and modify the tables in the ECM. They have no ability to modify the controlling software. Are the table contents considered software?? Maybe, maybe not.

It also depends on how the interface is designed and what it is called. Back in the early years of computing IBM Leased all of their Main Frames to business. Competitors started offering memory options that were installed inside the IBM owned machines. IBM said it wasn't right that somebody besides IBM could install a non IBM product inside an IBM owned machine but the court said as long as there was an open interface to the outside world competitors could do that. After that IBM became very careful what it called an interface. The word practically became verbotten within the company.

I imagine there is a lot of precedence in the IBM Antitrust Rulings that could get applied to the car industry.

Bill

Zoxxo

As a long-time software engineer I say yes. The software was designed with those tables as a part of the software system for the sole purpose of allowing easy changes to things without having to recompile the software and reflash the car every time you wanted the blinkers to slow down by X%. If the system design was documented as having those tables for that specific purpose then they can certainly defend the idea that they were not meant as an "open interface" for everyone with a laptop to fiddle with.

Hmmm. I think I just said that It would be interesting to hear what a given third-party plaintiff says he heard them called. I haven't heard them called anything (much less "open interface")

Back in the early days it may not have occurred to them to PATENT everything in sight ("a metal case with hinged doors for the purpose of holding circuit boards and cables...") or to have a EULA that specifically precluded customers from installing *anything* not approved by IBM. I know that by 1990 when I was started working at Commodore Business Machines the patent thing was picking up speed and we were doing regular "think about your ideas" hours and trading patents with IBM, et all, for basic computer stuff like implementing blinking cursors, etc. Of course 25 years has only driven the process insane.

Probably so. But then the IP lawyers are pretty on top of this stuff now (that 25 years thing again.) But I again point out that it's hard to imagine that GM (for example) would want to screw over the likes of Callaway, Lingenfelter, etc., who are nothing but a positive for Corvette PR for the "crime" of adjusting those tables. And it's going to take a third party with some serious spare cash to litigate the issue with the the world's auto makers. Seems unlikely to be worth the time, effort, and expense (especially if you lose and have to pay GM's attorney fees.)

I still say this was just the posting of a "trespass at your peril" sign.

Z//