PROMs and Copyrights...

[Greg Hermann]

>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Dave Williams wrote:
>
>>
>> -> Actually, they are not modifying code...
>> -> They are modifying look-up tables.  There is no copyright or patent
>> -> that covers timing curves, fuel curves etc...
>>
>>  US and European copyright law doesn't distinguish between "code" and
>> "data."
>>
>
>The real question is could someone buy say 100 books, and modify a
>word and resell it?   I don't think this would violate copyright, and
>under the same conditions buying a computer with the right to run a
>given set of code, and adjusting it, should also not be a copyright
>violaction.  You have right to one copy, you only have 1 copy, you
>have just corrected/adjusted a byte.  Now if you sold that to others
>that did not also have a legal license to run one copy (computer from
>someone else other than original prom writer) then you could be in
>trouble.
>
>
>				Roger

Roger, I THINK you are correct, and on the right track. As I said before,
what the chip makers are doing and have done is most analogous to what the
writer of a system extension or system patch for a computer operating
system does--and it is pretty well established and obvious that that kind
of work is OK legally, and that it is legally OK to distribute such work to
licensed users of the target system for profit.

This is NOT a comment on what the EPA or CARB might think of it in re chips
for cars, but they are NOT the copyright or patent police.

Another point--for those who believe that the chip makers may be operating
on wishful thinking--THEY might have been willing to operate on a wish at
the beginning, although that is doubtful, given the investment that their
principals made in their businesses. But, as they grew, it is EXTREMELY
doubtful that their bankers or their bankers' lawyers would have allowed
them continue and grow on such a shaky legal basis!!

Furthermore, I am not aware of any licensing agreement which buyers of
(say) GM cars must execute in order to buy a car new (let alone anything
which would be binding on the buyer of a used car) in order to use the car
or the software included with/in it. No "not to copy", "not to modify", no
nothing. I suspect that you prolly have as much right to copy the ecu and
sell functionally similar copies in the aftermarket as you do to copy the
pistons, and sell functional copies of them in the aftermarket!! When you
buy a car, it, including all of the included software, is yours to use,
however you wish. Nothing remotely like what you agree to when buying and
using software for your computer. The basis for any such agreement would
prolly be further complicated by the fact that title to the car (and
included software) usually is vested in the dealer before it goes to the
buyer. In fact, the gummint even forces the mfgrs to honor their
warranties, despite modifications/non-mfgr parts to/used in a vehicle,
unless they can show that a given modification/non mfgr part was the direct
cause of the failure for which a warranty repair is being denied!!

Writing better software for a vehicle's ecu is legally NO different than it
would be for someone to design, build, and sell , say, a more durable
bracket for the power steering pump on some vehicle which habitually broke
such brackets. I do not believe that the MFGR can go after anyone for
software changes any more than they could go after someone for making the
bracket match their bolt patterns.

The same logic applies to innumerable aftermarket replacement parts. The
mfgrs have TRIED to stop aftermarket body parts (sheet metal) mfgrs--and
could not do it!! Best they could do was TV ads telling you why you should
pay more for their parts! (Of course it was the insurance industry who paid
the lawyers on the other side of that fracas, (they were fond of the
savings on crash repair claims) so things were evenly matched in terms of
who had enough money to pay the legal extortions involved. ) And there is
even an element of design originality and brand recognition in body parts!!

As warped as our legal system may be, not even GM gets to have things both
ways to this degree!! IMHO selling anything as "original equipment" is
about the only thing that the mfgrs can stop anyone from doing, no matter
whether hardware or software.

Regards, Greg