PROMs and Copyrights...

[Mike]

>
>Yes, bad PR and bad for sales...  there is a segment of the market
>that considers the availability of 'performance enhancing' chips
>a factor in what vehicle to purchase.  If GM stomp out the chip
>vendors, and without a doubt they could, then they lose this
>segment of the market.
>

But GM has demonstrated that it's not really *that* interested in that
segment with the demise of the Impala SS and the rumored demise soon of the
Camaro and Firebird - arguably the main carlines that involved any
aftermarket computer "chipping" at all. I think more Trans-Am buyers will
tweak their computers than, say, Park Avenue owners.

Chip modifications have been around for quite some time, since the mid-80s
at least and GM apparently showed no interest in all of that time period to
do anything about "hacked" PROMs. I should ask myself "Why would they (or
any carmaker for that matter?) all of a sudden express an interest to stop
hobby-hackers?" 

In the early going (mid to late 80s), the outfits making money from GM PROMs
(the Hypertechs and ADSs etc, etc) were small in size and numbers and GM
could have leveraged it's not-inconsiderable legal clout to close down such
upstarts in a wink but chose, for whatever reason, not to. Maybe that's
evidence of tacit approval? Or maybe they had no legal way to do it? Maybe
things have changed in the legal field since the 80s vis a vis firmware
protection under copyright law?

Keep in mind that one of the tennets of OBD-II was non-removable "PROMs" -
that is, program/calibration memories that were not socketed so replacement
with higher-emission "performance" PROMs was, except for a vanishingly small
number of owners who are skilled in electronics, out of the question. But
this was not the choice of GM (I'm quite certain they'd have been happy not
having to re-engineer their entire powertrain control computer line) but
rather politicians.

>So I think they are busy looking the other way.

Apparently so. I guess all makers are looking that way since none of the
majors (that I know of) have mounted legal challenges to chippers. Maybe
you're right when you said above about the "market segment". I think of Ford
Motorsports, for instance: They *must* be aware that modules exist to
enhance EEC-IV systems but they don't seem to mind. In fact, they may see
such modules as encouraging the purchase of stuff from their own shelves.

>
>As far as copyright is concerned, my guess (IANAL etc.) is that
>it is technically illegal to sell a chip containing modified GM
>code - it would be a derivative work.  Just changing a few bytes
>or tables isn't sufficient...
>

That's what _I_ think too. 

But I've looked at an ADS chip for an '88 Z24 (P4) compared to the ATZA OEM
chip and they really did not change a whole lot of stuff yet they sell
(sold?) the thing for quite a tidy sum. Apparently, GM saw no reason to
intercede...

>However, GM would be hard pressed to prove any actual damages.  After all,
>you need their hardware to run the code!

Sort of the ultimate hardware key :)

>
>Now if someone was to sell their own hardware with GM code, I
>would expect GM to stop them.
>

Looking at traditional GM code, I'd say that for that hardware to work with
GM PROMs, it'd have to be designed pretty-much trace-for-trace the same as
the GM ECM since the code is so deeply integrated with the hardware, which
certainly would be grounds for an "Ahem...what do you think you're doing?"
letter.


--
 Mike