Perfectly reasonable. I’m not sure I’d easily classify it as DRM however. I confess that I am no expert on that but it always seemed to me that the core of DRM has to do, not with the withholding of information but with restrictions on it reproduction. So, e.g. I also find withholding the information to be a stupid idea. But, legally speaking, I wouldn’t find it odd for there to be a fee structure set up for access to it. The thing that makes it especially tricky is that in purchasing a car I now must have some rights to that information - though I wouldn’t necessarily say I should have unlimited rights to it.
When you buy a DVD player, for example, dothey give you a schematic and troubleshooting chart for it? Lots of consumer items must be returned to a factory authorized service center for repair. Why should cars be different?
Why should cars be different?
Maybe b/c you can’t just go buy another one at WalMart for $49.99
And every car manual says over and over “take it to your dealer’s service department”…and, well some people are silly enough to listen. And the last time my dryer broke down, the schematic for it was right on the back of the control panel… There are no consumer items that must by law be returned to an authorized service center. I can take my DVD player to a local electronics repair shop. But if that’s how car companies want it - legally - then I want a lot more responsibility taken on their part for certain kinds of repairs.
No you don’t have any rights to embedded software in any product you buy. You’re dead wrong about that. You’re confusing it with software PRODUCTS that you buy like computer programs where they must specifically state who retains the rights.
BTW the microsoft vs apple reference; microsoft has always withheld certain information from all but their primary partners so they would have an advantage over the rest of the developers. There was a lot of hacking going on to discover special codes/operations that were unadvertised and books written about them by then the preferred vendors had already launched and been making money for some time. This has been since day 1, even in the old BIOS commands…
It makes sense. The early adopters are taking risks and being rewarded for it.
What I find annoying is I have seen lots of big words but no concrete example(s) of a car owner trying X at an indepedent mechanic and find out Y.
I have found the best independents anyway are make specific and have good connections to a dealership for insider knowledge.
Hey, if you bought a new car everytime yours broke, this wouldn’t be an issue! 
Just like any consumer product, you can always TRY fixing it yourself, no one is stopping you from trying. They just aren’t enabling you…
And that local electronics repair store is just like the independant mechanic. They use what tools and knowledge they have to ATTEMPT a repair. Sometimes, they are successful. Sometimes, they don’t have the skills, knowledge, tools or information to do the job and they say- go buy a new one.
The good ones used to work for somebody and decided they could do better on their own rather than being a slave to the dealership.
TT is correct that buying the product does not give you rights to its operating software. As a matter of fact some manufacturers maintain proprietary systems and only an authorized dealer can obtain the software to read and interpret thair codes. That is tha basis of the Mass proposed legislation, to prohibit this practce.
It’s also inaccurate to say that the manufacturers codes can tell the technician exactly the problem. The codes only tell the tech what signal is incorrect, and perhaps what that incorrect signal suggests. More diagnosis is necessary in most cases. For example, a P0259 says "Injection Pump Fuel Metering Control “B” High (Cam/Rotor/Injector) ". The tech needs to know where to go from there.
Personally, I wonder why cars cannot include built into them a screen that provides the codes and descriptions without having to buy a seperate code reader. Of course, that would negate the whole proprietary question.
Here is one for you, Andrew. When my mother took her 2002 Toyota Sienna to Pep Boys to have the CEL codes checked, they gave her one code because of the limitations of their reader. Pep Boys also misdiagnosed the problem. At the dealership, they have a code reader that returned three codes, enabling them to properly diagnose and repair the problem.
In my opinion, if companies withhold their computer codes, they can ensure the person interpreting the codes has the training and the know-how to reach a proper diagnosis. If they release their codes to anybody, they can’t ensure their customers receive proper diagnoses when they have problems.
I like that we have a choice. It is just like the PC vs. Mac issue. If you want a versatile machine that costs less than a Mac, and can run more software than the Mac, buy a PC. If you want a machine that is more reliable, but has fewer software titles available, you can buy a Mac. The same can go for cars. If you value your ability to go to your favorite mechanic to save money, buy a PC type of car, one whose manufacturer makes computer codes public. If money is no object, and you appreciate that your car company withholds these codes to ensure quality high-cost service, buy a Mac type of car, one whose manufacturer withholds the computer codes.
I am also curious as to what information is being withheld. Even a cheap scanner will give all the codes. These codes point you in the right direction. If a component flags up as being defective, all the wiring, fuses and service bulletins should be used in determining the problem. A stopped -up fuel filter will sometimes flag an oxygen sensor code. The best computer to solve problems is sitting on top of your shoulders. There are numerous web sites that are available to determine problems that can be used by everyone.
What this legislation is trying to do is get this information to the local mechanic for FREE…
This information can be obtained by reverse engineering. I understand the local mechanic will NEVER be able to do this…but companies that make the scanners or places like AllData do this…and then sell that information to local mechanics. There might be a delay of several months to maybe even a year after the car is introduced before that information is available to the local mechanic.
BTW the microsoft vs apple reference; microsoft has always withheld certain information from all but their primary partners so they would have an advantage over the rest of the developers
BY FAR the company that withholds the MOST information is Apple…they are well ahead of everyone else.
These companies cant keep ALL information…especially for certain things if it makes them a monopoly or stifles competition. Many years ago IBM was sued and LOST over it’s proprietary information on how their mainframes communicated with Disk Drives and tape drives. By withholding that information they kept anyone else from making competing tape or disk drives that would work with the IBM mainframe. As it turned out IBM later found that is actually BETTER for them to be more open…A lesson Microsoft later learned.
One of the biggest reasons Microsoft leaped well past Apple was because Microsoft was more open. This allowed many vendors to build software on the Microsoft operating system. Not so with Apple. You had to do a lot more digging for some very important information just to do some simple things.
Yes you bought the bits…but you didn’t buy the KNOWLEDGE ON HOW THOSE BITS are used to create the program. All you did was buy the running software.
If what you’re saying is true…then if you’re using a computer with a Microsoft operating system installed on it you have the RIGHT to know exactly how it works. Sorry…but you don’t even have the right to look at the source code. See the difference.
If my scanner system is connected to any domestic or Asian automobile made in the past 20 years it will communicate with the system just like the dealerships. Some legislation is being considered that would block access to the OBD system to anyone other than the dealers. Only the codes would be accessible. Private shops would have no more insight into the problem than McParts counter people with their $69 code reader.
So basically you’re fine with leaving info legally with the car manufacturer’s then? That’s fine if that’s what you think. I think it is a terrible idea.
What legislation is that??? You need to show me this. What the OP is saying is just the opposite…that there is legislation to make it MORE open. There is no legislation to make it MORE restrictive.
Since I do ALL my own work, no, I do not want to see it degrade past the point it is today. I can buy materials and tools now to aid in servicing the vehicle. This proposed legislation is a joke however as it goes completely in the opposite direction where the consumer basically owns the entire design just because they bought one of the products. If I lease a vehicle, I’m entitled to the firmware running in the ECM?! I think not. Heck, even though I bought one of them outright, I don’t believe I have any rights to the proprietary information used in the design or manufacture of the car. This would be unprecedented in consumer goods. When you buy a microwave, do you think you should own the design of it? Should you have a right to the firmware running in it? How would we protect the rights of the people who invested $$$ to bring that product to market if the design information was disseminated to anyone who bought one???
I’m in design myself and even when customers come to us and foot the entire NRE bill, we do not transfer any rights to the design unless they pay through the nose for that right. Under no circumstances will we (or any employer I have worked for) give them source code regardless of the situation.
It used to be cars were purely mechanical and repair was fairly obvious to a mechanically inclined person. Even jigs and fixtures for the repair could be fashioned with simple tools. As cars became more complex electrically, the barriers to repair became more substantial. You need expanded skills, knowledge and training to be successful. The tools typically cannot be made at home and you rely more heavily on information regarding the design, diagnosing and troubleshooting from the manufacturer. Many of these systems could easily be attributed to a safety concern. In a litigous society, we see many doors closing due to liability concerns. In the end, I think it is up to the manufacturer to decide what can be “field” serviceable and by whom. As I pointed out, there are many examples of far less complex equipment that we accept as not field serviceable and must be returned to the manufacturer.
Personally, I do not believe anyone should be allowed to mess with any software or firmware on the vehicle, other than the manufacturer. Theoretically, firmware and software do not fail individually and therefore there should be no need for the aftermarket to address any “repairs” in this regard. If a bug exists or an enhancement required, then the OEM should be doing that and the upgrade to deployed vehicles in the field. I’d love to get my hands on the source code for my ECM as I’m sure lots of people would. How many would be running modified programs circumventing the emissions reporting (hint: alot).
Sorry for the rambling post…
TSM, you raise a good point. Many cars had provided a means to access the codes without a special reader when it was OBDI. Some flashed the SES light, some the radio indicators. I had one car that would display the number directly on the radio display. The flashing readouts became too limited when the number of codes ballooned w/OBDII. Now you also have a letter preceding the number (e.g. B, P etc) to identify the system associated with the fault. All these disparate methods were confusing to repair shops and so an enhanced standard was developed, albeit a very complex and confusing one in its own right. As you know, there are manufacturer specific codes in addition to the standard codes as well.
Some cars are still pretty basic and do not have display screens. Imagine a scenario where the radio displays the codes and the owner wishes to install an aftermarket upgrade. In the quest to standardize and not adversely impact initial purchase price, the CAN/OBD bus architecture already existed to support the distributed processing technical direction of the industry, so adding an electrical and mechanical interface to the bus was much less costly than the alternative of supplying a display method in each car.
Besides, it’s still only a code. You still need info from the manfr to decode it and a troubleshooting chart to diagnose the actual fault…
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! 
What a bummer! I got bit by the “multiple posts to a single thread without logging out” bug where it trashes your post.
I rewrite but it won’t be as good second time around-
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. I was only trying to correct what I percieved as a misconception that MS was WIDE open. Each approach has it merits and detractions. As you’re well aware, it’s necessary to offer a carrot to potential business partners to lure them into investing $$$ in your approach and the carrot can take many forms. As one example, MS often witheld their most powerful graphics commands from the unwashed masses and gave them to their graphics hardware developer partners to insure they would have a leg up on the eventual competition. Like you, I spent many hours reverse engineering designs to learn of these codes and exploit them myself or buying the books written by others who had done the same. Fortunately for me, we never worked with Apple systems as they were far and away much more difficult to break. I agree w/you that this really hampered their efforts to be widely accepted in the early years even though they had a much more stable base to build from.