Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars

[Timco]

The people that make our laws and form our fed and local gov are so far disconnected from us wrench slingers (hobby and to save $$$) and influenced by lobbyists who talk their talk. The rich, elite making laws over people they don't have anything in common with.

It's like plumbing boards making rules for apprenticeships. Nobody asked the contractors. Just the good old boy club and what best suits their needs and ideas for the future. They lobby the law makers at a level you and I don't get to participate in.

[Perfectlap]

New Jersey recently got on-board with 20+ other states in getting rid of vehicle inspection as part of the regular inspection process. The state DMV no only check for emissions and take a look to see if you have your cats still installed. While this is certainly convenient, I really have to wonder how many people put off brake and tire replacement because they "intend" to DIY or because they don't have the money. Seems to me like you can't have DIY repairing without some manner of vehicle inspection at a regular interval.

[KRAM36]

I think a crashed car should be sent to a junk yard and never fixed.

This will never pass, at least not in the current form. Way too much money in taxes for the Government to pass this.

[thstone]

The issue is whether a DIY repair or modification might infringe on the manufacturer's intellectual property rights.

The John Deere story took this argument to its logical (but IMHO wrongheaded) conclusion - that a product protected by patent is not actually purchased by the customer, it is only licensed for use to the customer.

And there is ample legal precedent in the software world to support JD's claim.

This is both worrisome, irritating, and frustrating to those of us who feel that what we buy, we own.

[Timco]

So, you can't fix it, but can you smash it intentionally? Paint it a different color? Aftermarket seat? Fuzzy dice?

Originally Posted by thstone

The issue is whether a DIY repair or modification might infringe on the manufacturer's intellectual property rights.

The John Deere story took this argument to its logical (but IMHO wrongheaded) conclusion - that a product protected by patent is not actually purchased by the customer, it is only licensed for use to the customer.

And there is ample legal precedent in the software world to support JD's claim.

This is both worrisome, irritating, and frustrating to those of us who feel that what we buy, we own.

[KRAM36]

Originally Posted by thstone

The issue is whether a DIY repair or modification might infringe on the manufacturer's intellectual property rights.

The John Deere story took this argument to its logical (but IMHO wrongheaded) conclusion - that a product protected by patent is not actually purchased by the customer, it is only licensed for use to the customer.

And there is ample legal precedent in the software world to support JD's claim.

This is both worrisome, irritating, and frustrating to those of us who feel that what we buy, we own.

Did JD win that case? What were farmers doing that prompted this, adding blowers to their tractors?

I can see this with software, once it's sold, that's all the Government is going to make on it.

Modification to cars are a whole different game. There are companies out there like Lingenfelter, Hennessy, Shelby and many more, plus all the after market companies. There is just too much money in taxes for the Government to allow this.

[Porsche9]

I imagine SEMA would have something to say about this topic.

[patssle]

cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.

While I certainly don't support them - I do understand their viewpoint. An electric car will fry you if you touch it in the wrong spot while trying to work on the electrical or motor system. There are only a handful of qualified GM technicians in the entire country that can work on the Volt. They will tow the car across entire states, for free, to those specific technicians. Electric/hybrid cars do bring a significant issue about 3rd party and DIY repair and safety. Aside from who is actually qualified to fix those systems - electrical is a lot different than combustion.

[jsceash]

This impacts the individual on a different level, would be my belief. They have the ability to prevent a aftermarket source of what ever part, software, etc., that could be manufactured form being sold. If after market is control by patent, copyright laws then how would you work on your car short of purchasing from the manufacturer. Manufactured parts fall under a patent time period 7 to 14 years, on the other hand software has no such time line. They could go after any company that produces an interface to modify the software.

They may also be able to prevent dismantlers from re-selling parts. Similar to restrictions that Microsoft can impose on anyone trying to re-sell a used operating system.

[BFeller]

Wasn't there an old economic theory that communism and capitalism are both creeping towards each other? One by tightening regulation - the other by relaxing it?

[KRAM36]

Originally Posted by BFeller

Wasn't there an old economic theory that communism and capitalism are both creeping towards each other? One by tightening regulation - the other by relaxing it?

They are so far apart, they could never be the same at any point and time. You would actually want to compare Communism to Democracy.

[jb92563]

Actually our Democracy is leaping towards Socialism and Communism is reaching out to Capitalism.

Democracy is leaving the building on all fronts.

[thstone]

Originally Posted by KRAM36

Did JD win that case? What were farmers doing that prompted this, adding blowers to their tractors?

DMCA is a vast 1998 copyright law that (among other things) governs the line between software and hardware.

The Copyright Office has been asked to decide what modifications, hacks, and repairs are allowed under the law. They have to hold hearings and solicit comments and word is that they will make a decision (issue guidelines) by July.

Several manufacturers (including John Deere and General Motors) recently submitted comments as part of this process.

JD argued that allowing people to alter the software—even for the purpose of repair—would “make it possible for pirates, third-party developers, and less innovative competitors to free-ride off the creativity, unique expression and ingenuity of vehicle software.”

Now, you have to understand, JD is not literally saying that owners can't repair their tractors. But JD is saying that owners shouldn't be allowed to go into John Deere's software and make changes even if it is to perform a repair.

The question is whether changing software in a vehicle would be considered a modification or a repair and whether either of those would be allowed under the law.

IMHO this law has been misused. The original intent was to shut down illegal use of someone else's software IP, but the meaning has been expanded repeatedly by the courts to cover all kinds of crazy concepts like this one.

[KRAM36]

Originally Posted by thstone

DMCA is a vast 1998 copyright law that (among other things) governs the line between software and hardware.

The Copyright Office has been asked to decide what modifications, hacks, and repairs are allowed under the law. They have to hold hearings and solicit comments and word is that they will make a decision (issue guidelines) by July.

Several manufacturers (including John Deere and General Motors) recently submitted comments as part of this process.

JD argued that allowing people to alter the software—even for the purpose of repair—would “make it possible for pirates, third-party developers, and less innovative competitors to free-ride off the creativity, unique expression and ingenuity of vehicle software.”

Now, you have to understand, JD is not literally saying that owners can't repair their tractors. But JD is saying that owners shouldn't be allowed to go into John Deere's software and make changes even if it is to perform a repair.

The question is whether changing software in a vehicle would be considered a modification or a repair and whether either of those would be allowed under the law.

IMHO this law has been misused. The original intent was to shut down illegal use of someone else's software IP, but the meaning has been expanded repeatedly by the courts to cover all kinds of crazy concepts like this one.

Thanks for the explanation.

Let me ask you this. What Timco posted, is it actually geared towards not allowing people to modify their car at all or is more like the JD case?

[Timco]

Originally Posted by KRAM36

Thanks for the explanation.

Let me ask you this. What Timco posted, is it actually geared towards not allowing people to modify their car at all or is more like the JD case?

I think their using the JD case as a starting point or example for the entire car....

[KRAM36]

Ok lets say you changed the intake system of your car. This causes the ECU to compensate for the extra air and basically it's making the ECU run outside it's intended parameter. Would that be considered as tampering with their "intellectual property"?

[Jamesp]

They'll get my wrench when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

[KRAM36]

Originally Posted by KRAM36

Ok lets say you changed the intake system of your car. This causes the ECU to compensate for the extra air and basically it's making the ECU run outside it's intended parameter. Would that be considered as tampering with their "intellectual property"?

I'm still curious about this. Anyone?

[tommy583]

I guess I won't be buying those new tail lights after all

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Jamesp

They'll get my wrench when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

That's awesome.