This article will give you an idea of what John Deere's been doing. If GM has their way in court, they would at least be legally enabled to do the same:
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/
This article will give you an idea of what John Deere's been doing. If GM has their way in court, they would at least be legally enabled to do the same:
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/
GameboyRMH wrote: The legal angle they're pursuing implies all of that, but for now let's assume you're right and that out of the goodness of their hearts they won't sue anyone "committing DMCA violations" by simply reading data from the ECU after reverse-engineering the communication protocol. If you can't write to the ECU there may be problems you can't fix. I know some German cars need some injector calibration values written in when you change injectors, if any GMs need the same thing done, you could only change injectors at a dealership. ECUs generally store codes in RAM so they're cleared when you pull the battery, but theoretically they could be stored in nonvolatile storage (some sportbike ECUs do this for anti-theft IIRC?). If GM had any ECUs like this, you could only clear codes at a dealership. Modern USDM cars have TPMS. If this agreement covers the TPMS module (Edit: And assuming GM uses the type where you program the receiver instead of the sensors), you could only change TPMS sensors at a dealership So at best, this could still prevent 3rd party shops from performing certain repair jobs.
This is where GM sells a diagnostic box to independent repair shops after providing training. And you know what? That's been happening for as long as there have been computers in cars.
The Wired article about John Deere starts off with exactly the sort of situation the manufacturers want to avoid. The random repair guy wants to bypass a sensor and make the tractor run without it. What does the sensor do? Something with hydraulics. That sensor is there for a reason, probably to detect a hazardous condition. Now why wouldn't the manufacturer be okay with bypassing it? Think about it. Farmers are notorious for half-assed fixes on dangerous equipment. I say this as the son of a farmer and the son-in law of farmers.
Actually, some of those farmers got to experience a modern stability setup go wrong. They just about went off the road because of it - I kid you not, a Vietnam vet, his wife and his two daughters driving to his son's graduation ceremony from basic training. How's that for a potential PR nightmare? It took GM a huge amount of effort to figure out what was wrong with the car, including flying out a factory technician and keeping the car for weeks. That's with the full support of the factory.
Now, say it was a bad stability control sensor. Jenny Soccermom wants to drive her kids to school anyway, and asks her teenage son to bypass the sensor, which he does using forum posts written by random people and some software he downloaded off a website in Russia. You can probably see why GM doesn't want that to happen.
I think GameboyRMH got it right in terms of what this is really about regarding copyright and DMCA. It's not so much that "modifying the software" is going on, it's more akin to the end user not being allowed to change software settings. I think one analogy that might fit is if speaker volume was a locked down setting in your ipod only to be adjusted by an authorized Apple Store technician. A third party app to adjust your own music volume would be a similar violation.
If the ECU is encrypted and it requires a factory authorized tool to access, any scan tool even simply reading a CEL code that is using an alternate method to "break in to" the ECU is in violation even if it is only telling you why the light is on.
Edit to say Keith Tanner is also spot on with his example regarding dangerous repairs and soccer moms. I just argue that I really like to play with my settings.
There is going to have to be a compromise. I am getting my MA Inspection license and I am going through the training and there is going to have to be separation between the actual programming and code that controls a vehicle and the access to computer trouble codes. Additionally there are other things that the EPA mandated testing equipment accesses to determine if a car can be tested and if it passes inspection. These are what is really being accessed by 99% of people that are accessing the cars computer system and this will have to remain accessible. Messing with the actual code that controls the car is a completely different thing and locking it down really will only be something that us one per centers actually care about. What is going to happen is that instead of modifying the code in the cars computer the days of piggyback systems and things that fake out the computer system are going to return. What is old will be new again.
I have used a non-BMW scanner to alter the settings on the M5, turning off the bulb monitoring system on the front lights because my aftermarket headlights (with LED angel eyes instead of the original incandescent ones) were triggering the warning. An alternative would have been an inline resistor. One of these approaches infringes the BMW IP, the other does not.
Emissions monitoring and related codes are going to remain open and accessible, as they are a mandated protocol.
In reply to Keith Tanner:
You're answering your own argument if you look hard enough.
Your lights are an easy scenario. Let's say whatever sensor is looking at whatever component that BMW no longer makes. You want to keep your car on the road. Should it be illegal for you to modify the software to suit whatever aftermarket/created part you can find? This doesn't have to be safety related. Suppose it's an oil pressure sensor or something, which, in the future, is BMW specific. With the rights as JD and GM is trying to establish, you would be totally 100% stuck.
The ramifications of this are as deep as you can imagine. BMW could immediately begin making all of their sensors operate on some CAN bus like protocol, encrypt it, and all of the sudden the IP protection overrules the ability for people to repair their own cars. Planned obsolescence of sensors can force people to buy new cars.
Sure, it's extreme. No, it hasn't happened yet. I suspect more than a few OEMs (and tractor manufacturers) would like that, though.
In reply to Keith Tanner:
As a farmer, I can tell you there are certain things that should never have been put on equipment.
The clutch, gear, hydraulic, etc sensors they use can easily lead to massive problems if they don't work right. We had to pull one tractor out of a field last year due to a failed clutch safety switch. If they can't make one that won't fail, go back to mechanical linkages. Also, you have to pretty stupid to buy a john deere in the first place.
In reply to tuna55:
Spot on mate!
tuna55 wrote: The ramifications of this are as deep as you can imagine. BMW could immediately begin making all of their sensors operate on some CAN bus like protocol, encrypt it, and all of the sudden the IP protection overrules the ability for people to repair their own cars. Planned obsolescence of sensors can force people to buy new cars. Sure, it's extreme. No, it hasn't happened yet. I suspect more than a few OEMs (and tractor manufacturers) would like that, though.
It's already happening, some sensors do communicate over CANbus, like the TPMS receiver for example. (these often double as a keyless entry receiver too). On the Tesla S almost all the parts communicate over either TCP/IP on Ethernet, or CANbus.
My motorhome is a 1981. The previous owner took it to a CAT engine facility to have an oil change done. While it was there they dismantled his propane injection system and told him it wasn't authorized for that engine. (This was in 2011) I would have burned the place down but he for some reason just accepted it.
The way I see it if they want to do E36 M3 like this then all the enthusiasts that like cheap tuner cars will go to companies like Ford or Subaru anyways. Which they are already doing. Typically the only people who buy cheap GM cars lately are people who don't know E36 M3 about cars or don't care to buy a car of that kind and just want an appliance.
In reply to kanaric:
SoA can cram it up their ass......they can't even tune things properly from the factory.
I have a feeling Ford will be going down this road too.....although they shouldn't.
GameboyRMH wrote:tuna55 wrote: The ramifications of this are as deep as you can imagine. BMW could immediately begin making all of their sensors operate on some CAN bus like protocol, encrypt it, and all of the sudden the IP protection overrules the ability for people to repair their own cars. Planned obsolescence of sensors can force people to buy new cars. Sure, it's extreme. No, it hasn't happened yet. I suspect more than a few OEMs (and tractor manufacturers) would like that, though.It's already happening, some sensors do communicate over CANbus, like the TPMS receiver for example. (these often double as a keyless entry receiver too). On the Tesla S almost all the parts communicate over either TCP/IP on Ethernet, or CANbus.
I love Tesla has been brought up, because didn't they go open source a while back?
yamaha wrote: In reply to kanaric: SoA can cram it up their ass......they can't even tune things properly from the factory. I have a feeling Ford will be going down this road too.....although they shouldn't.
Well with Subaru at least you can just take it to a tuner and get it tuned, the ecu is completely open. That's the first thing I did when I owned one. There is actually a recall for some of the subarus in 91 octane states over the tunes lol. My fix only cost $400 and gained me a ton of power, a friend of mine didn't and had engine failure obviously because it what makes a subaru a subaru. My car was very reliable with that tune and the current owner is happy as well.
With this GM E36 M3 I wouldn't be surprised if they try to sue Cobb over an accessport for the Sonic RS or the upcoming turbo camaro. Or companies like Cobb won't even bother with the car out of fear for this.
IDK if Ford is going to do this. They seem to be more connected to enthusiasts with cars like the Fiesta ST and have affiliations with people like Mount Tune who would be against it.
Sounds like Yamaha is a Massey Ferguson man.
bearmtnmartin wrote: My motorhome is a 1981. The previous owner took it to a CAT engine facility to have an oil change done. While it was there they dismantled his propane injection system and told him it wasn't authorized for that engine. (This was in 2011) I would have burned the place down but he for some reason just accepted it.
If he were me it would have meant that my lawyer would have been paying them a visit. What is legal in 1981 is legal now unless there has been a recall or some sort of TSB bulletin and even then he was there for a oil change not a safety inspection. I would have gone biolistic on them. But that is how I am. People get to big for the britches some times and it sounds like that shop stepped WAY over the line and should be made to either put the system back in place (that probably now can not be legally done) or put one back in place that is compliant with current regulations at not cost to the vehicle owner. In short the Vehicle owner needs to be made whole for there messing with something that they were not authorized to mess with and don't have authority over its use on a vehicle.
What they should have done is write up some sort of repair ticket stating that it was not currently a "legal" system to have in place and that they recommended that it be removed immediately. Even get the customer to sign something declining service. This gets them off the hook if something bad happens. I am not sure but unless they are doing a safety inspection they can not hold the vehicle either. I don't think they can mandate that it be towed off the property unless it is a actual safety inspection but I am not sure on that one.
Junkyard_Dog wrote:GameboyRMH wrote:I love Tesla has been brought up, because didn't they go open source a while back?tuna55 wrote: The ramifications of this are as deep as you can imagine. BMW could immediately begin making all of their sensors operate on some CAN bus like protocol, encrypt it, and all of the sudden the IP protection overrules the ability for people to repair their own cars. Planned obsolescence of sensors can force people to buy new cars. Sure, it's extreme. No, it hasn't happened yet. I suspect more than a few OEMs (and tractor manufacturers) would like that, though.It's already happening, some sensors do communicate over CANbus, like the TPMS receiver for example. (these often double as a keyless entry receiver too). On the Tesla S almost all the parts communicate over either TCP/IP on Ethernet, or CANbus.
They promised not to sue anyone for infringing their patents and they use some standardized charging systems, but I don't think they've open-sourced any software.
tuna55 wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: You're answering your own argument if you look hard enough. Your lights are an easy scenario. Let's say whatever sensor is looking at whatever component that BMW no longer makes. You want to keep your car on the road. Should it be illegal for you to modify the software to suit whatever aftermarket/created part you can find? This doesn't have to be safety related. Suppose it's an oil pressure sensor or something, which, in the future, is BMW specific. With the rights as JD and GM is trying to establish, you would be totally 100% stuck. The ramifications of this are as deep as you can imagine. BMW could immediately begin making all of their sensors operate on some CAN bus like protocol, encrypt it, and all of the sudden the IP protection overrules the ability for people to repair their own cars. Planned obsolescence of sensors can force people to buy new cars. Sure, it's extreme. No, it hasn't happened yet. I suspect more than a few OEMs (and tractor manufacturers) would like that, though.
That's why I mentioned it, it illustrates another potential problem area. In the case of proprietary sensors (which have always been a factor in vehicles), it's up to the aftermarket to develop ones that output the same signals. In the case of my lights, it means the aftermarket designers would have to come up with a replacement light setup that doesn't trigger an error code. In the case of the lights, it could be a simple resistor. In the case of a more complex component, it would have to have the same I/O characteristics. GM could share the API if they wanted, or decide not to. That's a bigger factor than arguing over the IP of the software code.
Where this becomes problematic is in highly complex components such as airbag controllers or stability control subsystems. Of course, there's never really been an aftermarket option for those anyhow. If I wanted a new ABS pump (which is computerized) for an obsolete car, what would I do today?
We're dealing with CAN bus modification on our V8 NC Miatas. The gauges run off CAN. The GM PCM has CAN outputs - but they're different. So we've got an interpreter box that sits in between, taking in GM input and sending Mazda output. Seems to me that would be okay as we're not altering either software, but I'll bet the lawyers might have fun with it.
Keith Tanner wrote: We're dealing with CAN bus modification on our V8 NC Miatas. The gauges run off CAN. The GM PCM has CAN outputs - but they're different. So we've got an interpreter box that sits in between, taking in GM input and sending Mazda output. Seems to me that would be okay as we're not altering either software, but I'll bet the lawyers might have fun with it.
But you're reverse engineering the communication protocol, which is a no no.
Is it? It's not encrypted. We're not altering the GM software (or hardware) at all. We're simply replacing the receiving device with something else. Heck, we could get a lot of (all, actually) this info out of the OBD-II stream with a simple scanner using an open protocol.
While this thread is essentially a GM bashing thread, I have read a few different articles that have stated that "The Big Three" all feel this way. So until Ford, FCA, and any other auto manufacturers come out and say that they are not supporting this idea, I will assume that they feel the same way.
1988RedT2 wrote: This is what happens when you allow corporations to run the country.
BOHICA
They are already trying to patent YOUR genes.
this is why i wouldn't own a new car or truck even if i could afford it: as much as i'd love a new Z/28, i would not want all the nanny state bullE36 M3 that comes along with it... maybe a Holley efi setup or something like that would get the job done...
In reply to Keith Tanner:
You're still missing the point. This legislation that they are seeking would allow them to encrypt all of the information you speak of, and make it illegal for the aftermarket to do anything like that. Essentially, in additional to other nasty things, the OEM could make oil pressure sensors which they alone could legally duplicate, and forbid you from knowing the proper way to fool the computer into using a different sensor, and then stop selling that sensor to force you to buy a new car.
Sorry, I misplaced my tinfoil hat. I don't think I'd give corporations quite that much credit.
You'll need to log in to post.
