Slashdot Mirror
Who 'Owns' the Google Driverless Car IP?
theodp writes "Google co-founder Sergey Brin recently revealed that he is now leading Google's efforts to ready a driverless car for the consumer market, but one big, publicly-unanswered question is: Who exactly owns the intellectual property behind the highly-touted vehicles? To develop the Google Car, the company said it tapped 'the very best engineers from the DARPA Challenges,' a series of autonomous vehicle races organized by the U.S. government which provided university teams with millions in development funding and millions more in prizes. Last year, Carnegie Mellon reported that 8 of the 15-member Google Car team had current or past ties to DARPA Challenge participants CMU and Stanford. Whether Google's sponsorship of the Stanford Racing Team and CMU Tartan Racing entitled it to the IP is unclear. Clouding matters further is that key Google Car Team members are listed as inventors of autonomous car technology in pending patents assigned to the likes of General Motors and Toyota, and it was reported that the credit (and liability) for another key team member's successful robotic, autonomous Prius project was his-and-his-alone, not Google's. Could another party lay claims to the technology, or does Google have all of its IP ducks in a row on this one?"
Don't worry, I hear they're not really the litigious type.
s/[stupid comments]/[intelligent discourse]/gi
The other question should who wants own the rights?
As all it will take is 1 death or serious injury for the some one to get sued and maybe lose millions + there may also be some criminal liability that may also fall on the people who coded, run the systems, build the system, linked this system to the car and so on.
I am not a scientist nor a statistician, but I am fairly certain more than one person has died in an automobile accident. In fact some died in accidents that were the result of poor car design.
How would this be any different?
It is almost like Google designed this car to be the epitome of the worst patent law could do. That it has ties to every company possible. I mean, what next? Google throws in a built in iPod to drag apple in?
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
"does Google have all of its IP ducks in a row on this one?"
How on earth should we know this?
And why should a customer care?
Because in this case it would be Google's fault if someone dies. If someone dies because of his own hand then he can only blame himself, but it's much worse if you kill someone. Of course, this only applies if it wasn't some other person that caused it, but the point still stands.
Patent thickets are common occurrences. Here's a nice post from a law-professor's blog on how industry has historically resolved them: http://volokh.com/posts/1241493210.shtml. No reason to think this is any different.
If the team members are working for and/ or with Google on the project, Google can use their work on the project. Unless Google is using technology from peoples' work outside the team, there is no way a problem should arise. So, unless someone has proof that Google is in fact using work from people outside the development team or work that the members clearly state falls outside what they are doing for Google, where is there a problem?
For that matter, is this just Slashdot speculation or does one of those links actually point to a TFA (full of speculation)? Because I couldn't find one. Seriously, summaries are summaries. Don't try to turn them into not-quite-full articles themselves please Slashdot.
Also, is this actually a question someone is answering? Again, I skimmed all the links and couldn't find it. Even the last link didn't (seem to) say anything about Levandowski (the unnamed "key" team member) claiming the IP was his-and-his alone (although I may have missed it.)
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Google co-founder Sergey Brin recently revealed that he is now leading Google's efforts to ready a driverless car for the consumer market, but one big, publicly-unanswered question is: Who exactly owns the intellectual property behind the highly-touted vehicles?
In my opinion, it's a sad, sad reflection of our current technological atmosphere that "Who exactly owns the intellectual property behind the highly-touted vehicles?" is the big, publicly-unanswered question, far ahead of, say, "How is it going to work?", "What infrastructure will need to be in place for it to work?", "How much will it cost?", "What sort of services and/or functionality will it supply?", or "What's the underlying technology?", each of which are either vital considerations to the actual functioning of the car or just would be really really interesting and cool to know.
Hell, the fact that it even rates above "What are the legal ramifications of such a device?" or more specifically "How are road laws going to change with these devices on the road?" paints a picture I don't think anyone commissioned.
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
You can't sue. You broke the seal on the EULA when you opened the car door.
EULA Rule Number One: "No suing!"
"The producer of this vehicle is not responsible if it starts driving like someone out of "Death Race 2000"
"You bought it, you used it . . . it's your problem now . . ."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
You missed the part about deaths occurring due to poor engineering in automobiles. This has already happened and the company involved still exists.
Suppose a driverless car is caught speeding or running a red light? Who gets the ticket? The owner? The person who programmed the route? The manufacturer who programmed the car itself? Or do the standard laws of the road not apply to these vehicles at all? If I'm hit by one of these cars, do I get to sue somebody or am I responsible for all the medical bills myself?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Flip side: With these cars, any accidents that occur have extensive telemetry data recorded including stuff like throttle, brakes and steering, but also data from cameras and laser data.
So in the court room the data can be played back in 3d with complete accuracy.
Why is Slashdot trying to create the impression of a scandal when there isn't one? What is theodp hoping to gain from his FUD?
you don't have to sue someone to get your medical bills covered, that's why people have insurance.
There is no links to make between responsability and IP rights. If Google decides to produce, market and sell a driverless car, it doesn't mean they need to own all the IP rights on the technology inside the product. Most car manufacturers don't own all the IP rights for the technology they include in their cars. The main point here, they are selling these cars, so they are making money from them and then they are responsible. It has nothing to do with IP ownership. You are responsible for what you sell and because you selected technology X, Y, Z to produce and include in your product. Many cars are including embedded computers these days and the OS and other software components IP rights are not owned by the car manufacturers. Same thing for software in avionics and so on. No, sorry, because you are selling a product including technology X doesn't entitle you to claim IP rights on it. You just have to pay the royalities to the owner. And it doesn't engage the responsability of the owner neither in regard of eventual casualities. Only the manufacturer that make and sell the product is liable. It is up to him to negociate with the IP owner for the royalities.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Who 'Owns' the Google Driverless Car IP?
Google, obviously. Since they have "the" IP address for all these driverless cars, how will drivers' private data be protected?!
If your understanding of an issue is too confused, you're forcing a model too hard. (I believe it was about the Earth in the center of the Solar System)
Besides, let's think a little, o dumb ones: what will happen when another country (one that starts with the letter C, for instance) has a more powerful structure to put out new ideas? And if by then you're tied to international treaties about patents, will you comply and pay them a hefty sum every month?
No to so funny now, eh?
You may not know it, dudes, but we know you won't comply, so what's the incentive to pay you for something that historically WAS NEVER A PROPERTY OF ANYONE?
Are you dumb to talk about Idea Property for how long?
There's a saying: "If you can dream it, you can do it". You want people to not dream about things, or think about them?
You want people to not do things and just stay put, not using their hands? Well, YOU keep dreaming.
You want to come up and charge others for doing things, just like M$? Don't you have any shame? Go work and get a life, lazy bums... you're so like Monarchy in in 1789!
Because human error car deaths are understood and expected. We live in a culture where the media see's a story, that will sell if they blow it out of proportion, followed by a wave of ambulance chaser lawyers etc... It dosn't matter if the cars are less then 1% as likely as a human to mess up, what matters is the 1% of situations where they might mess up that a human would probably not have. People were well adjusted to the risks and problems of normal cars, back when lawsuits over stupid crap were much less frequent then they are these days. The good old days when paint was lead and every product didn't have to have 500 warning labels about why you shouldn't stick your dick in an electric socket or eat rat poison or whatever other things a few idiots tried.
I wish the "components" were made available.
All I want to see is the steering.
If inventors had that steering-wheel, we could build all sorts of fun projects.
Jim Pruett, Director
WikiSPEEDia.org
Open Speed Limit Database
Ck out Speederaser app+HW for the hacker in you.
Pffft. Rookie.
Rule #1: We can change the terms at any time and you must accept them or cease using the product you paid for.
Rule #2: No suing.
you don't have to sue someone to get your medical bills covered, that's why people have insurance.
the first thing you sign in an insurance policy is the right for the insurer to sue on your behalf. Insurance companies foot the bill for insured parties who are at fault, they rarely pay for insured parties who are injured by non insured parties.
Presumably if the car is speeding or running red lights, either the owner of the car has tampered with it and is liable, the company intentionally built the car to break the law and is liable, or it is a bug in the system and would be handle much the same way it would be handled the stop light equipment had a flaw that caused all of the lights to turn green at the same time. This would be a notification of the bug and someone fixing it if no one was injured, and a lawsuit if someone is.
If it saves a half million lives in a decade, I want it, and to hell with the IP. Make it public domain.
Except this kind of thing has been dealt with in the aviation industry before. There are many, many incidents where pilots override the autopilot and cause a crash. The same will happen here - many incidents where people who "know better" try to do something stupid and crash the car, when an automated system would have protected them. If an accident occurs, the telemetry can be used to determine why it happened and prevent it in future. If something really horrendous happens, then a recall will be issued while a software update is made. Eventually, the technology will mature to the point where it is factually safer than human drivers and I, for one, cannot wait. The usefulness and benefits from these automated cars cannot be overstated. They will be safer, they will be more efficient (both in terms of congestion and fuel efficiency as they can maintain specific speeds to help both) and frankly, they'll be more comfortable.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Any accident related to this will result in a huge fishing expedition for deep pockets. Even an unsuccessful fishing expedition will bankrupt all the graduate students in the crosshairs.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
It's actually illegal to drive above the speed limit or below the speed limit in the US. The only exceptions for civilians are when conditions dictate that one must drive more slowly or when the flow of traffic is over the speed limit.
The case of a car speeding or running a red light is almost certainly going to be less common than with drivers. The car would know ahead of time if it has time to stop for a yellow light and would push through if it didn't. Providing the cars aren't being hacked by the end user, running red lights should be rare.
Same goes for speeding, a car would know where the other cars are, otherwise it shouldn't be on the road without a driver. With a few sensors and you could probably have it slow down if conditions dictate that, although with radar, fog would be less of a hazard than it currently is.
You left out the best part, we can start drinking in cars! No more expensive taxi rides, just have the car take you home after a night at the bar.
Think of all the lives saved by DWI no longer being a problem.
Suppose a driverless car is caught speeding or running a red light? Who gets the ticket? The owner? The person who programmed the route? The manufacturer who programmed the car itself? Or do the standard laws of the road not apply to these vehicles at all? If I'm hit by one of these cars, do I get to sue somebody or am I responsible for all the medical bills myself?
Initially, the driver will get a ticket, because these "driverless" cars will be sold as "driver assisted" cars - the driver will still be expected to remain in control of the car.
After years of refinement and demonstrated safe operation, the cars will be allowed to operate truly driverless, but by then the laws will have caught up.
Perhaps by the time these cars are commonplace, having valid insurance will be enforced by the car itself - if you don't have an insurance plan, the car won't move. Making your question of who pays in an accident moot -- the insurance company pays.
The road to success is to let others do all the work, then claim all the credit for yourself. I'm so proud of you Google I'm wiping my tears.
WTF are you talking about? The best part is that we can have actual working JONNY CABS! Pay the fare or it'll TRY TO MURDER YOU. That's the future I want to live in.
I also presume it'll somehow lead to women with three breasts. Definitely the future I want to live in.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
I am not a scientist nor a statistician, but I am fairly certain more than one person has died in an automobile accident. In fact some died in accidents that were the result of poor car design.
How would this be any different?
You prove to be a fucking useless, ignorant git with every post you make.
What's different is that "driver error" is the fault for 99.99% of all other automobile fatalities.
Mechanical, electrical, or software failure is far, far, far less common, and when it does happen, there are typically warning signs and fail safes in place.
The most major manufacturers do for automated driving is that auto parallel park system, and there are big ol' disclaimers about you having to maintain control and what not. The system works, but it does it at about 1 or 2 MPH and requires you to set it up in a cherry spot and tell it to go, while maintaining control.
Automated driving, in traffic, with other cars, driven by bots and people, and in inclimate weather, etc. etc., is an infinitely more complex problem and the first time one of these crashes into something it's going to be legal chaos. Manufacturers are going to approach this very fucking slowly and carefully. Ages of development, small pilot programs, endless disclaimers and liability waivers, fail safes out the ass, blackbox logging of everything, always ensuring the driver can override the car manually, etc.
I also presume it'll somehow lead to women with three breasts. Definitely the future I want to live in.
Three? Breasts in mammals are always symmetric. I demand we got straight from two to four!
But, hey, this is Google. They probably declare the car a "Beta"-car, and don't really *sell* it, but make it available on a invite-only advertisement-sponsored basis.
The 32'' flat screen that displays the ads can then also be used to display the EULA that tells the driver... eeehhhh. passenger that if something happens, tough luck, he is on his own.
You prove you can't fucking read, how you can type is a wonder for the ages.
Just to see if you catch it this time;
I did mention poor car design, which would include a self driving car that crashed. That would be pretty poor fucking design.
What's yours is ours, what's ours is ours.
The criminal part can't just be pushed away by a EULA.
And in a auto drive car that will billed as you don't need to pay attrition to the road, cars can move in packs bumper to bumper at high speeds.
What if a auto drive car things a kid on the road is just a skunk or other road kill like squirrels, raccoons and others and just drives on.
That kids family will sue the deep pockets of Google.
Also auto insurance will have to cover the auto cars and they may want go after Google or others who made the software to cover there pay outs.
but who will pay for the software update will that be dealer only? with a big fee? What about if you need a new Computer? only the dealer can swap the system out?
Will they find a way to lock out jiffy lube, non dealer repair shops, 3rd party radios?. Updates need to be free and if a system part needs to be changed make it a recall and make so it is free to swap it out.
Three? Breasts in mammals are always symmetric.
Not on Mars.
^^vv<><>BA
In the case of an accident, Google would do what most other companies do. Offer a reasonably large settlement offer now to avoid the prospect of a 2 decade long court battle to possibly win more. Besides, chances are good that Google's car will likely cause far fewer accidents than human driven cars would, so they wouldn't need nearly as large of a settlement budget that conventional car companies do. Also, in the case of an accident, there is a huge flood of data available to the engineers to determine the exact cause of the problem and implement a solution to prevent a similar accident from happening in the future. The patch can then be applied to ALL of their vehicles currently on the road without requiring an expensive recall action.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Because in this case it would be Google's fault if someone dies. If someone dies because of his own hand then he can only blame himself...
For now perhaps, but once the technology matures we could just as easily hold manual car manufacturers responsible for any accidents caused by human error. Seat belts and airbags are required safety features now, I imagine one day automated driving will be as well.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Insurance companies will do what they always do. Try to avoid every major payment that they can and, in the future, when they have a statistically relevant sample set on these cars, they will set the rates in a way to ensure that they make money.
Google would have to weigh the potential litigation costs of these auto-cars against the money they could make selling them. They would then make them or not depending on if they see a net positive to the operation financially.
Personally, I don't see any way that driverless cars or auto cars or whatever you want to call them will ever be sold to the public without some legislation being passed concerning them. Either limiting damage claims, or having governments take a major role in the systems.
that only america could care about. check out the rest of the developed world and most americans will find mass transit is the dominant means of personal conveyance.
TL;DR: i already have a "driverless car." its called the subway.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Conventional car companies don't have to pay for accidents resulting from driver error.
Time for a 'shrink wrap license"?
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
I"P" is bullshit. Copyright and patent monopolies need to be abolished. They're certainly not worthy of any further respect.
oh dear.. what spoils an otherwise fine post.....?
Well "there is no links"......
# then we have "responsability" which should be "responsibility"
erm.. that should either be "there are no links" or
"there is no link"
then, again we have "responsability" which should be "responsibility" and then at the end "It is up to him to negociate with..."
which should be "It is up to him to negotiate with..."
might i suggest that perhaps a spot of spell-checking and also a touch of brushing up on grammar?
As i said, good post, good points all marred by shitty spelling and awful grammar
"It's actually illegal to drive above the speed limit or below the speed limit in the US"
This is incorrect for two reasons.
1. The US doesn't have uniform driving laws
2. I don't know of any state with such a law.
An example from california law:
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22400.htm
It is illegal to impede the normal flow of traffic, but it is not illegal to drive below the speed limit.
Who 'Owns' the Google Driverless Car IP?
Google, obviously. Since they have "the" IP address for all these driverless cars, how will drivers' private data be protected?!
...and if you complain, does the Google car just accidentally slam you into a concrete barrier at 200km/hr?
Haven't we learnt anything from films like this: ..and most horrific of all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_(1983_film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbie#Versions
Man they use to show one of these awful films at school any time they had a film half-day (so the teachers could meet). Once or twice a year. The HORROR. (*They showed the Karate Kid one year but the resulting injuries put a stop to that ever happening again. Imagine a bunch of ferral 8 year olds who think they're special beating each other up)
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
If Brin makes this device which could save tens of thousands of lives a year, and cannot bring it to market due to patent issues, it will bring the flawed patent system into the public spotlight.
Right now, the only exposure the average American has to the patent system is from radio ads by patent trolls.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newslet^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmemory implants.
Perhaps by the time these cars are commonplace, having valid insurance will be enforced by the car itself - if you don't have an insurance plan, the car won't move. Making your question of who pays in an accident moot -- the insurance company pays.
What's more likely to happen is that the cars will be sold 'pre-insured' (ie. insured by the manufacturer). This is because the probability of an 'at fault' collision being caused by the vehicle is unrelated to the skill/etc of the driver. Also, if the car causes an accident, the responsibility will end up pointing back to the manufacturer anyway - so it's pointless having the end user take out insurance if their insurance is just going to push the cost back to the manufacturers insurer.
Insurance is required at present because people are unpredictable and regularly make mistakes. Some people are more careful than others, and some people like to live on the edge and drive by the seat of their pants. In humans, these factors are variable; in a machine, they are constant.
Everyone wants to think they are 'above average'. Most are not.
I'd say pretty much exactly half of everyone is (or isn't) 'above average' :-)
And yeah, not seeing the big problem here. Insurance will take care of accidents and liabilities, as it has for public transport, taxis, aviation etc, and as soon as self-driving cars get demonstrably better (on average) than the average human driver, the insurance will be cheaper than driving manually.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Conventional car companies don't have to pay for accidents resulting from driver error.
Maybe.
http://www.google.com.au/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=toyota+speed#pq=toyota+accelerator+problem&hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=26&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=toyota+sudden+acceleration&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&safe=active&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=toyota+sudden+acceleration&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=f&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=e6e6b11bd2647b75&biw=1280&bih=711&safe=on
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Except some crashes are impossible to prevent. There will be some ambulance chasers that try to cash in on these crashes, regardless of whose fault it actually is. A likely outcome is that the lawyers trying to get money from autonomous car makers will change the question from "whose fault was it?" to "Why didn't your car prevent the crash?". Even if none of the lawyers win, the makers still have to spend a lot of money defending themselves.
The article linked sounds like whining from CMU. Whittaker never really got over losing.
The Stanford team was mostly funded by Mohr Davidson Ventures and Volkswagen. Volkswagen did all the automotive parts of the project with their own people.
As for Stanford's relationship with Google, there' s no problem there. Google is a spinoff from Stanford, and Stanford owns a big chunk of stock in Google. Stanford University has a business unit, the Stanford Management Company, which runs the endowment and, among other things, does venture capital deals. (Arguably, Stanford is a investment firm which runs a school on the side for the tax break.) The Stanford Management Company has working relationships with all the major venture capital firms, and I expect that some mutually profitable arrangement will be worked out.
This is /. it's becume the home of that sort of thang.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Yeah, it's even more than poor engineering. It's poor engineering that the company knew about and then calculated how many people would likely die due to it [and how much they would have to pay out] versus how much it would cost to fix for everyone, and found it was cheaper to let a bunch of random people die than fix the problem.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Apple will have a picture of something looking like a car somewhere and therefore claim ownership
Forget the ride home from the bar:
The trip from Ohio to Florida would be far more pleasurable if I were able to be continually drunk during that time. (Actually, it is more pleasurable, but I don't dare discuss it because I'm not sure if the statue of limitations is up yet.
Kid-proof tablet..
Magnuson-Moss, which has been on the books for nearly 40 years, already makes most of what you are pissing and moaning about illegal.
Hate to break it to you, but we're not living out "Fight Club". There are many different alleged "smoking gun" memos, but the one I'm most familiar with is the Ford memo. I won't tell you what you think it said, but I will tell you what it really said: NHTSA allowed that safety improvements that would cost more than $200K per life saved were not cost effective. In 1973, NHTSA wanted to change safety standards to reduce the posibility of a post-rollover fire. Ford then wrote and circulated a memo that showed that the compliance costs for that change were 3x the NHTSA threshold and should be opposed. Now for me, personally, an appropriate regime would be to have the auto manufacturers put a notice on the steering wheel, to be removed by the first owner, that says "We're insured to $X dollars in the event of death due to a design flaw." If that number is too low for you, buy a different car.
those who have more money!
It is amazing that people still say that "Patents foster innovation" with a straight face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Talon I'm guessing English is his/her second language. Their English is probably better than your French?
Imaginary Property is just that. Imaginary. There is no such thing as IP.
"It's actually illegal to drive above the speed limit or below the speed limit in the US"
This is incorrect for two reasons.
1. The US doesn't have uniform driving laws
2. I don't know of any state with such a law.
I'll give you point 1, but point 2 means you must live under a rock. Given that limits can be upper and lower, you must never have seen a minimum speed sign. Let me provide one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thetruthabout/2727717062/
I don't know how wide spread these are, but they definately have them across the river from me in Minnesota.
----- - The beatings will continue until morale improves
When an idiot hit me and my family with an Altima, we didn't sue Nissan, it wasn't its fault she drove like a drunken chimpanzee, totaled our car and put us all in the ER. If her car had decided, without any input on her part, that it was going to turn into oncoming traffic, Nissan would have had us AND the other driver to be worried about.
On the other hand, sometimes, the automatic instruments fail (eg: Airbus's bad air-speed indicators) and you need a pilot who knows what he's doing or you're going to crash. Most professional pilots I know won't touch aircraft that has no manual controls. These computers would need to be un-crashable, pun intended.
It's tempting to want to take that type of control out of human hands but computers aren't infallible. My state has the largest number of deer-car accidents in the country. Are we out of luck because the computer has no way of knowing that Bambi feels like playing chicken? A whole herd once jumped off a cliff onto the highway below, how many weird possibilities can we cram into a motherboard? Or, maybe it's in your best interests to keep moving (gunman steps in front of your car, zombies, etc) regardless of the fact there's something in the way.
Maybe computers should augment a driver's control over a vehicle but there has yet to be a computer that could outmatch our brains. Yeah, a lot of people don't use theirs but, to me, that says they shouldn't have cars in the first place.
Disclaimer: I think getting and keeping a driver's license should be as hard as hell. Making ourselves completely reliant on cars was stupid and we shouldn't have done it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That hasn't stopped the manufacturers from having custom codes in the ODB-II interface.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The current laws in the US handle this already. The Google car requires a person in the driver seat who is paying attention, as the driver is ultimately responsible for what the car does.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Talon I'm guessing English is his/her second language. Their English is probably better than your French?
I'm quite impressed that a fictional comic character can post on an internet forum in the first place, never mind how good their spelling is.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Why the first-owner-only warning? Resale would-be purchasers deserve the same warning. Put it in the same place as the airbag warning and prevent its removal.
...so that I can get the +5 funny achievement!
I didn't say no states have minimum limits, I said I don't know of any states for which the speed limit is ALSO a lower limit.