OP here. I didn't say it was illegal (IANAL), I said it should be illegal. A consortium to develop new tech or something is reasonable. A consortium to play patent troll is not. As it is, patents are just government granted monopolies. Collusion (oops, I meant a consortium) to leverage those little monopolies into a big monopoly is grossly anti-competitive. Business laws should be about fostering competition, not hindering it.
Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what happened? Apple forums openly talk about problems in their products and fixes. What Apple deleted was an attempt to organize a protest which would be expensive for Apple rather than work with Apple to resolve a problem in line with the terms of warranty. That is Apple deleted posts where people were engaging in a activities which arguably consisted of a conspiracy to defraud Apple.
How much does Apple pay you? Frankly, it's too much, because your astroturfing is so transparent.
How do you come to that conclusion? Seriously - no snark. I'm not familiar w/ MMI's patent portfolio in detail, but they did a lot of important tech work on cell phones. Their business downfall was, like Nokia's, about choosing the wrong cell/smart phone fashion trends, rather than any technical shortcomings.
Meanwhile, what kind of important patents has Apple, for example, come up with? Rounded corners on rectangles? Small wonder they lose patent suits, and an obvious reason for them to buy into this patent extortion racket.
Motorola (actually Motorola Mobility - it was only half of the original company) also has well established expertise in the design and manufacture of wireless products. What a strange company - they can actually produce something other than government writs of monopoly (a/k/a patents).
True. That's the problem with the term "intellectual property" - it's male bovine manure. It's a government granted monopoly, not property in any meaningful sense like a car or a shirt.
Either my parody detector is on the blink, or you make the Nazis seem compassionate. Seriously. With the obvious exception of certain minorities, they treated their own people more compassionately than what you suggest.
Every time someone spouts off about how their newfangled language has some awesome new feature, Lisp had it 50-60 years ago.
When we build the Museum of Computer Languages we'll be sure and devote an entire wing to the many Lisps. If I were to hop into a time machine and go back 60 years, I'd be sure to program in Lisp. That says nothing though about the best choice of language today. I don't mean this as an anti-Lisp rant; I just want to point out that the "we had it first" argument for Lisp is irrelevant.
How long would it take to come up with a purpose-built device that would attach to the relevant access port the same way illegal bank card readers attach to ATM's?
Are you busy this Sunday? We could probably hack it out.
For the sake of argument, let's say it would have WiFi or Bluetooth capability
If the bus controlling safety critical functions has any wireless connectivity, it's a problem. The fix is easy though.
All it would take is one crooked mechanic at a dealership or service center
If this is the only way a mechanic can think of to sabotage a car, then he's a lousy mechanic.
they are "fixed" at the rom level, change the chip to do anything else
Do you know they're not using Flash? It's been a long time since I've seen masked ROM for anything but boot functions and whatnot. Even if it's cheaper, masked ROM is a production nightmare.
What's surprising to me is that single-function devices can have their functions changed. The speedometer has one function: to report the vehicle's speed. What requirement is satisfied by allowing this to change? Why would you even need to upgrade it?
From what I read, it's not clear whether they actually modified the speed sensor (or wheel position, or whatever they use) of if they spoofed the packets between the sensor and other parts of the system (e.g. the instrument panel).
He's wrong about the mechanical backup, but there is backup in the sense of dual hydraulic circuits. It's about the only place on a car where there is redundancy. On airliners almost everything that's safety critical has 4 or 5 redundant systems.
Which device, a big red stop button? That's only true for stopping the engine. It wouldn't work for steering or brakes, as would be needed in a self-driving car.
It's also presumptuous to assume his fear is irrational. He stated his reasons (and he sounds like a programmer, so he's not just talking about a bogey man he doesn't understand). If you disagree with him it doesn't necessarily mean his fear is irrational.
it doesn't address neoritter's demand for a human fall back
My point was that a simple and extremely reliable mechanism prevents the most likely cause of injury or death. It doesn't rely on software (neoritter's fear) or even a power source.
It does nothing to protect you from out of control elevator computers bouncing you up and down the shaft.
No, but the big red stop button does. It bypasses computer control. It's long been common, and very good, design practice to put in some sort of very simple and reliable override in case the more complex control machinery (not even necessarily a computer) fails.
They've done a good job of making ABS fail soft, but an ECU that controls the throttle is needlessly asking for trouble. Keep the mechanical linkage to the throttle plate, and the ECU can't force the engine to produce more power than you'd get at idle. That's a simple approach that was used for years. Why did they abandon it? While they had a good track record, it seems like the car companies may be getting over confident about electronic control.
The reason they went fly-by-wire was wire is a LOT lighter...
Strictly speaking you're right, and FBY doesn't require computers (it can just replace hydraulics). Concorde was FBY in the 60's. These days though FBY usually refers to what possibly should be called fly-by-wire-and-digital-computers, but that's kind of verbose (though undoubtedly some clever person could come up with a good acronym).
You're right that airliners still have traditional positive aerodynamic stability, but apparently that can be reduced for cruise by shifting fuel to the rear. Between that and things like computer throttle control they do save fuel.
Elevators use a mechanical safety device that was invented by Elisha Otis in 1854. Prior to that elevators were rightly considered death traps. Take out that mechanical safety device and I wouldn't trust them either.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Google tried to buy all of these patents themselves I doubt they can now claim that these aren't valid.
Are you familiar with how law is practiced?
I'm not defending Google. "Do no evil" has been parodied enough. I'm faulting the law for allowing a patent troll consortium.
OP here. I didn't say it was illegal (IANAL), I said it should be illegal. A consortium to develop new tech or something is reasonable. A consortium to play patent troll is not. As it is, patents are just government granted monopolies. Collusion (oops, I meant a consortium) to leverage those little monopolies into a big monopoly is grossly anti-competitive. Business laws should be about fostering competition, not hindering it.
Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what happened? Apple forums openly talk about problems in their products and fixes. What Apple deleted was an attempt to organize a protest which would be expensive for Apple rather than work with Apple to resolve a problem in line with the terms of warranty. That is Apple deleted posts where people were engaging in a activities which arguably consisted of a conspiracy to defraud Apple.
How much does Apple pay you? Frankly, it's too much, because your astroturfing is so transparent.
I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product.
So buying the company that developed it is "stealing"? Who knew Jobs was such a socialist.
How do you come to that conclusion? Seriously - no snark. I'm not familiar w/ MMI's patent portfolio in detail, but they did a lot of important tech work on cell phones. Their business downfall was, like Nokia's, about choosing the wrong cell/smart phone fashion trends, rather than any technical shortcomings.
Meanwhile, what kind of important patents has Apple, for example, come up with? Rounded corners on rectangles? Small wonder they lose patent suits, and an obvious reason for them to buy into this patent extortion racket.
Motorola (actually Motorola Mobility - it was only half of the original company) also has well established expertise in the design and manufacture of wireless products. What a strange company - they can actually produce something other than government writs of monopoly (a/k/a patents).
In other words, it's their fault that they chose not to be part of an anti-competitive extortion scheme.
True. That's the problem with the term "intellectual property" - it's male bovine manure. It's a government granted monopoly, not property in any meaningful sense like a car or a shirt.
Apple, Microsoft, Sony, RIM, and others, who bought the patents for $4.5 billion as a consortium named Rockstar Bidco
I presume it's not, but that should be illegal collusion and an anti-trust violation.
Either my parody detector is on the blink, or you make the Nazis seem compassionate. Seriously. With the obvious exception of certain minorities, they treated their own people more compassionately than what you suggest.
the Mythical Man Month returns
It never went away.
That only works in Bangalore.
Isn't that also what Dylan was supposed to do?
Every time someone spouts off about how their newfangled language has some awesome new feature, Lisp had it 50-60 years ago.
When we build the Museum of Computer Languages we'll be sure and devote an entire wing to the many Lisps. If I were to hop into a time machine and go back 60 years, I'd be sure to program in Lisp. That says nothing though about the best choice of language today. I don't mean this as an anti-Lisp rant; I just want to point out that the "we had it first" argument for Lisp is irrelevant.
Imagine being able to hack your car from your laptop, tablet and phone?
You've been able to do that for years. A CAN bus adapter is hardly rocket science. You can buy them off-the-shelf.
How long would it take to come up with a purpose-built device that would attach to the relevant access port the same way illegal bank card readers attach to ATM's?
Are you busy this Sunday? We could probably hack it out.
For the sake of argument, let's say it would have WiFi or Bluetooth capability
If the bus controlling safety critical functions has any wireless connectivity, it's a problem. The fix is easy though.
All it would take is one crooked mechanic at a dealership or service center
If this is the only way a mechanic can think of to sabotage a car, then he's a lousy mechanic.
they are "fixed" at the rom level, change the chip to do anything else
Do you know they're not using Flash? It's been a long time since I've seen masked ROM for anything but boot functions and whatnot. Even if it's cheaper, masked ROM is a production nightmare.
What's surprising to me is that single-function devices can have their functions changed. The speedometer has one function: to report the vehicle's speed. What requirement is satisfied by allowing this to change? Why would you even need to upgrade it?
From what I read, it's not clear whether they actually modified the speed sensor (or wheel position, or whatever they use) of if they spoofed the packets between the sensor and other parts of the system (e.g. the instrument panel).
He's wrong about the mechanical backup, but there is backup in the sense of dual hydraulic circuits. It's about the only place on a car where there is redundancy. On airliners almost everything that's safety critical has 4 or 5 redundant systems.
And such a device could easily be put on a car.
Which device, a big red stop button? That's only true for stopping the engine. It wouldn't work for steering or brakes, as would be needed in a self-driving car.
It's also presumptuous to assume his fear is irrational. He stated his reasons (and he sounds like a programmer, so he's not just talking about a bogey man he doesn't understand). If you disagree with him it doesn't necessarily mean his fear is irrational.
it doesn't address neoritter's demand for a human fall back
My point was that a simple and extremely reliable mechanism prevents the most likely cause of injury or death. It doesn't rely on software (neoritter's fear) or even a power source.
It does nothing to protect you from out of control elevator computers bouncing you up and down the shaft.
No, but the big red stop button does. It bypasses computer control. It's long been common, and very good, design practice to put in some sort of very simple and reliable override in case the more complex control machinery (not even necessarily a computer) fails.
They've done a good job of making ABS fail soft, but an ECU that controls the throttle is needlessly asking for trouble. Keep the mechanical linkage to the throttle plate, and the ECU can't force the engine to produce more power than you'd get at idle. That's a simple approach that was used for years. Why did they abandon it? While they had a good track record, it seems like the car companies may be getting over confident about electronic control.
The reason they went fly-by-wire was wire is a LOT lighter ...
Strictly speaking you're right, and FBY doesn't require computers (it can just replace hydraulics). Concorde was FBY in the 60's. These days though FBY usually refers to what possibly should be called fly-by-wire-and-digital-computers, but that's kind of verbose (though undoubtedly some clever person could come up with a good acronym).
You're right that airliners still have traditional positive aerodynamic stability, but apparently that can be reduced for cruise by shifting fuel to the rear. Between that and things like computer throttle control they do save fuel.
if there is a large leak of engine oil into the cylinders
I doubt that would do anything. The fuel has to be well atomized to burn effectively.
Elevators use a mechanical safety device that was invented by Elisha Otis in 1854. Prior to that elevators were rightly considered death traps. Take out that mechanical safety device and I wouldn't trust them either.