GM says you don't own your car, you just license it

Seamus1964

http://boingboing.net/2015/05/21/gm-says-you-dont-own-your-ca.html

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-ford-others-want-working-own-car-illegal-160000229.html

End of the backyard-mechanical age..:D

mickdw

Seamus1964 wrote: »

http://boingboing.net/2015/05/21/gm-says-you-dont-own-your-ca.html

End of the backyard-mechanical age..:D

I don't see an issue with the software being licenced only but I don't see how this stretches to the physical machine being owned by the manufacture.
That said, the way finance is going with pcp deals, it has very much gone that way for people buying new cars.
How does the gm proposal relate to older cars?

porsche boy

Well I have never and will never buy/rent or 'licence' any GM metal. .

dieselbug

Major changes coming down the line on how manufactuers will allow access to their software. This will include having to access the manufacturers server through wifi to carry out many diagnostic procedures that are now available through the obd port. Software will no longer be stored on the scantool.

Correct me if I'm wrong but afain Autologic have released a new scanner to replace the present one but software programming and flashing updates are no longer available as they were.

This will go some way to dealing with the pirates of software and at the same time give them better control of who carries out serviceing and repairs, ie more control to the main dealer.

alias no.9

Servicing for the most part does not require software. If people were copying the GM software onto your Ford, I could understand the claim. Either way, if their only claim is on the software but the customer clearly owns the hardware, it leaves a gap in the market for third parties to develop alternative software...

pred racer

alias no.9 wrote: »

Servicing for the most part does not require software. If people were copying the GM software onto your Ford, I could understand the claim. Either way, if their only claim is on the software but the customer clearly owns the hardware, it leaves a gap in the market for third parties to develop alternative software...

Microsoft, Adobe etc don't let us copy their software either.............;)

edburg

This be another way to stop re-mapping to OE ECU's which they have been trying to do for years, mainly due to warranty claims to damaged parts etc, which I understand.

As mentioned with having to buy OE parts possibly to, which will sting the aftermarket business's.

Having said that will it apply in Europe?? How would U.S law be governed here??

Perhaps we get our very own F.B.I division headquarters in Dublin lol

jimgoose

I see. So they want to play that kind of hurling, do they? :):)

visual

Great revenue stream IP
but GM will have to decide if they are in car business or Iphone business.

Pov06

edburg wrote: »

This be another way to stop re-mapping to OE ECU's which they have been trying to do for years, mainly due to warranty claims to damaged parts etc, which I understand.

Not only that but cars are mapped the way they are to pass all the required regulations.

I wonder how many of these "mappers" actually care about emissions and regulations?

Manach

It had been a little while since I look at permitted exceptions to ip licensing agreements but my understanding is there are common law exceptions relating to being able to make modifications if it needed to fix under-lying issuers. As well there was an EU ruling that permits the selling of second hand software, brought against Oracle.

theShire

I would be interested to know how many of the car companies use open-source software in their cars onboard computers. Depending on the license they would have to release details of anything that isn't proprietary.

GM and John Deere heading down this route could cause them serious probs if any open-source is found in their systems

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Software will be up on torrents so fast it'll make your head spin.

cajonlardo

Another reason why my next car will probably about 30 years old.

Progress ain't what it used be

edburg

Pov06 wrote: »

Not only that but cars are mapped the way they are to pass all the required regulations.

I wonder how many of these "mappers" actually care about emissions and regulations?

If done properly emissions would be better, even more so if mapped to specific fuel (i.e irish standards petrol 95ron), base OE maps are a generic map which have to able to run different elements and be safe for a wide variety of markets with different fuels available (95-99ron).

A OE standard map is mass produced to 1 test engine, even though all engines will have differences in them.

jimgoose

I hope the venerable Head-Buck-Kids at GM understand that they are one Linus Torvalds away from death, like a certain other corporate behemoth. Learn this well, young Master-Jedi. :):)

ArnieSilvia

I think that manufacturers should make good cars with good OBD diagnostics so nobody has to buy specific scan tools. Repair manuals should be available online for everybody. Fixing a car means that it wasn't done right in the first place.

As for software updates, this time and day this should be an easy task with generic ecu programmer and access to manufacturer website, same as windows, adobe etc.

But in reality, people have to crack software, buy inferior chinese interface clones and pray these don't mess up anything. Try to get a Peugeot/Citroen car fixed without lexia/PP, good luck

And the fact of life is that It's only a matter of time to break any systems.

On a side note, these things have become sooo easy these days it's shocking. I remapped my Peugeot 407 1.6 hdi recently and it cost me 150 euro all in. Got the right tool, downloaded map, got someone to work on the map, uploaded, job done. It transformed the car, it's way better now.