PROMs and Copyrights...

[ron.boley]

Mike wrote:
The bigger question on copying and modifying the OEM code is who out
here does emissions testing on the final results?  The OEM's spend huge
$$$ on testing and I suspect are on the hook for any changes that effect
emissions.  Do any aftermarket tuners who make PROM changes recertify
the cars or even test for emissions?

The thought of the trying to stand your ground with state and local
Environmental Groups/Associations, the EPA would make anyone pale.

Ron


> 
> >
> >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