Ford looks even worse when you see how Tesla and Toyota behave. Ford is trying to take the most hostile to customers action it can get away with under the broken copyright system. Meanwhile Tesla and Toyota are giving away patent rights in order to encourage innovation and help customers.
This is just a very visible example of how Ford thinks and how Tesla and Toyota think. Sadly Ford's behavior is a very common USA management practice while Tesla and Toyota are rare. It is short sighted thinking and results in many less visible bad decisions that cripple companies in the long term.
It claims they told the owner that the activity "can be related to industrial espionage and advised me to stop investigation, to not void the warranty”.
Usually when people use words like "industrial espionage" and "void the warranty", there's something that they don't want you to know that they think you're about to know.
Welcome to business culture that is oriented on year-to-year performance bonuses, rather than longevity of product, customer satisfaction and building long term strategy.
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) article kindly submitted here points out, there is just about surely no copyright protection under United States law for the Ford FFData file, so this effort on Ford's part should fail if litigated. But pulling in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as an additional layer of protection for Ford's data file complicates the legal analysis, and I'm glad that the EFF is on this case to urge a clarification of how that act applies to cases like this, so that buyers of cars can have choices in seeking service for their cars.
Of course, on my part I am appalled that Ford is even trying this, and so as a consumer I am now less likely to suggest to any of my friends that they should consider buying Ford cars. (Disclosure: we own two Toyota vehicles, both bought new from the local Toyota dealer in the last few years. Before we bought the first one, we shopped at a Ford dealership but didn't like the cars we tried as well as the Toyota cars we tried.)
The app that this data was "stolen" from is a big java mess. The files are encrypted with AES but it takes about three seconds to find the key in the jar file. It doesn't really take any thought or effort to get.
The app also contains material from other carmakers, because of mergers and acquisitions. For instance, there is material from BMW so that Ford is able to support certain Land Rovers built by BMW which have BMW engines and electronics.
I'm sure that the developers of the free "Forscan" app have examined the material in question too.
Sort of, `(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
However, as ROT13 is not limited to just protecting copy-write works and is reversible you could have an effective tool with other works. (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105eDJ...:
On the other hand, if you only apply ROT13 to part of a file then it probably does qualify for protection.
yes, it's very stupid. Also, DMCA (from what i read, IANAL) overrides the fair use clause of doing reverse engineering for compatibility, so you can trivially sue somebody for reverse engineering your protocols/interfaces by just doing a token rot13 on it and then claiming that the reverser is circumventing DRM.
I am not a lawyer or legal expert, and to my knowledge rot13 hasn't been tested in the courts. DeCSS has though, and the code is 434 bytes, or you can brute force a key in seconds on a modern system (per Wikipedia). That was litigated, interestingly, and some people may remember 2600 got sued over it.
I think it is, by reading the DMCA. I personally believe that would not withstand a rebuttal.
The material cited in this case can also be seen as a subject of the "right to repair" laws in the USA, so in light of other laws that stand along with the DMCA, the DMCA may have some "environmental limitations" (sorry)
I don't know if they could claim damage for loss of trade secrets because Ford distributed the information far and wide on their own.
Having a family owned auto shop, I'll chime in here.
I didn't read everything but here is what the facts seem to be:
I found it odd that a "part list" is the root of the issue here since common repair software has lots of "lists" and diagrams. ex: http://www.ondemand5.com/ yet Ford isn't suing them...
The issue seems to be that this company hacked/stole/cracked/reverse engineered Ford's own software and is now giving non public data to the public. You really can't think that this is right... They clearly had to circumvent some kind of encryption. An obvious sign that you shouldn't be doing this... (hence why the encryption is there, no matter how simple)
Competition is a big issue in the automotive industry. There will be no "github" for your vehicle. Auto repair and manufacturing is a totally different world. And plus lives are at stake here. You can't have people unofficially getting part specifications and blindly stamping out inferior (and unauthorized) replicas.
Protection of IP is a big thing still in many industries. Even at my family's small shop, we get regular calls from people that download $10k auto repair software from bittorrent and call up the shop asking if they can install some "awesome" software for our shop for a low price of $500... There is a lot of money to be made by stealing in the auto industry.
> You can't have people unofficially getting part specifications and blindly stamping out inferior (and unauthorized) replicas.
Why not? If the part itself is not patented, and the branding is clear, and any safety regulations apply to the competing part, it's just competition and should result in cheaper, better, safter parts.
That is pretty shady of Ford. They were one of the few American car companies I kind of respected. Not anymore.
> Autel violated the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by writing a program to defeat the "encryption technology and obfuscation" that Ford used to make the file difficult to read.
This sounds a lot like Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.
It is like Sega v. Accolade, in the sense that it’s clear abuse of IP law to limit competition. But there are two major differences: Although there were accusations of unauthorized copying in Sega v. Accolade, the major issue was that Sega forced the console to display their trademark upon successfully loading a game, and then claimed that Accolade was committing trademark infringement by making a game that could successfully boot. Additionally, the DMCA didn’t exist back then, so violating copy protection wasn’t actually against the law on its own.
There have actually been several copyright cases with good results (Sega v. Accolade, Galoob v. Nintendo, Sony v. Bleem, Sony v. Connectix, Lexmark v. Static Control), but so many cases that have ended in a negative result (Blizzard v. Jung, Universal v. Reimerdes, Macrovision v. Sima) did so largely due to the DMCA. This is why, although I hope Ford loses this case, I hope even more for active effort to fix the DMCA through Congress, not the judiciary.
Same here - I just purchased my first brand-new car from a dealership, and never thought it'd be a Ford. I've really come to respect them in the last year and they have actually become a close second in my top list under Tesla...
But this really hurts. I hope they realize how bad this looks in modern times.
Yes, Henry Ford also was one of the big business man in history, that realized that also his well-being was depending of the well-being of his workers. But since that time, the shareholder value has taken over the government.
that realized that also his well-being was depending of the well-being of his workers
Ford was incredibly nosy into workers' lives. If you wanted the infamous "five dollars a day," you had to let management make sure you were living decently at home, including the wife staying at home if she had a husband.
But since this time, the shareholder value has taken over the government.
I'm not quite sure, but I think this is saying that Ford got taken over by the government following bankruptcy. But Ford (unlike GM and Chrysler) did not go bankrupt.
> If you wanted the infamous "five dollars a day," you had to let management make sure you were living decently at home, including the wife staying at home if she had a husband.
This is something I'd happily put up with if I could find this mythical job that pays well enough to support a family on a single income.
The median income for an individual with a Bachelor's Degree was around $49,000 per year (2003 census data). That's enough to support a family -- maybe not in your favorite high-cost-of-living city, and maybe not with a lot of expensive hobbies, but it's perfectly doable.
Not sure about Ford, but it's the same thing with Tomas Bata, famous Czech shoemaking enterpreneur and contemporary of Ford. He is also still lauded as a progressive by some, and he was for his era (he built homes for his workers, paid them well, etc.); however, judging from the today's moral standards, we would consider him very elitist and also nosy. For instance, he put part of employee's savings into his own bank.
Massachusetts tackled this with a ballot initiative and legislation, so they can't do that here.
Supposedly there's a "memorandum of understanding" that would prohibit it in all 50 states (but no federal legislation signed yet) I'm guessing this is a violation of the MOU.
Is there any sort of "frivolous claims" counter one can make for bad DMCA requests? Perhaps some sort of exponential backoff for companies who submit requests which are found to be bad, e.g.,
* 1 bad DMCA take-down, no action.
* 2 bad DMCA take-downs, 1 month until future DMCA take-downs accepted.
Ostensibly DMCA claims are made under threat of perjury which is supposed to be the check and balance. That being said I can't think of a single case of that portion of the law being enforced. Unfortunately if a group were to take the action that you suggest, they would forfeit their safe harbor and be able to be sued just as had as the original "infringer". You don't get hardly any leeway in responding to DMCA requests.
I don't think perjury is an enforceable solution because there is no way to prove that you knew that the claim was invalid. "It seems I was mistaken" or "I disagree with the court's decision" is an iron-clad defense.
IANAL, so take everything I say with a truck of salt.
The DMCA requires that each takedown notice is made under penalty of perjury. However, the statement is "I believe that this work infringes on my copyright." rather than "This work infringes on my copyright." So long as the person issuing the takedown notice believes that it is valid, there are no consequences.
IANAL, but I'm not sure Ford actually has a leg to stand on.
1) If I understand it correctly this data could be considered a list of facts and thus isn't copyrightable (just like a table of contents, or the list of ingredients in recipe). If it's not copyrightable, then the DMCA doesn't apply. See Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components.
2) The DMCA has a specific exemption for "interoperability purposes" which I could see this falling under as well but that's a weaker argument.
There is a little more. I believe that in every firstworld country, there are legislative mandates that car makers must make proprietary information required for servicing their products available. This is colloquially known in the USA as 'right to repair' and the idea is to prevent a situation where independent mechanics, or owners themselves, will be unable to repair vehicles because the information and tools to do so are held only by the manufacturer or his agent (dealer.)
Some other carmakers have apparently decided that leaked/extracted information or software is not really a big problem for them. I know that one carmaker that I have worked with views that situation as a sales driver for car parts, and would rather be on friendly terms with its customers anyway. Ford Motor Company, on the other hand, simply refuses to support old cars. They seem to have a very efficient system to landfill old parts inventory as soon as they are no longer legally required to support the cars that those parts apply to. While other carmakers shift production of parts for old cars to secondary vendors, I have not seen any examples of Ford doing this.
Point 1 is not a given. I think it's actually the heart of the case. Ford is arguing that their list of parts is copyrightable and their case is plausible even if I don't agree with it.
DMCA was created to defend platforms not creative authors. And Ford cars and ecosphere is a platform the same way like for example Apple's iPhone/iOS/iTune/etc ecosphere. Independent auto-repair shops, after-market parts manufacturers and the likes have to be ready to start paying a "Ford(GM/Toyota/etc) tax" similar to the "Apple tax".
Does anyone have a reference for the EFF claim that factual data collections can only be copyrighted "if the selection and arrangement are sufficiently creative"? I always thought the method of acquiring these facts was also important. Isn't that the point of inserting trap streets[1] and other fake entries[2] into your data, a practice that many tech companies including Google[3] still do?
this is not just about Ford.
eff is pointing out a common business practice of using DCMA to undermine competition and maintain market share. The link at the end of the article is laundry list of what i view as disturbing behavior.
https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-ye...
This is just a very visible example of how Ford thinks and how Tesla and Toyota think. Sadly Ford's behavior is a very common USA management practice while Tesla and Toyota are rare. It is short sighted thinking and results in many less visible bad decisions that cripple companies in the long term.