Creating 'compatible' parts

[ed_reardon]

Sorry this is vague;

Say you work for a company who supports 'legacy' equipment, the company that initially designed the product has no interest in supporting a product several generations old (20+ years) and the product is an especially high value and niche bit of kit, outlay to customer to replace could exceed $50,000 ( with little actual benefit in terms of function) but you could create a PCB that's becoming a failure mode with age.

Not a copy, but a PCB that does a similar job.

Answers please?

[wraper]

You are asking for answers but did not write a question.

[ed_reardon]

Oh dear.

Essentially what would the EEV blog members do?

- Refer to current owner of current version of product.

- Create a compatible part?

[CatalinaWOW]

Are you asking if it can be done?  Sure.

Can it be done for less than 50k?  Maybe.  Sometimes it will be a lot less than 50K, and sometimes lots more.  It depends on the complexity of the board, the complexity of the interfaces, the amount of documentation available about what the board does, and how well characterized and documented you want the replacement board.

Does it make sense if it can be done for less than 50k?  Maybe.  Things to ask are what other parts of the system are getting long in the tooth.  Both software and hardware.  The 50K you mention resets the clock to zero on everything so may prevent future bills/downtime.

[ed_reardon]

Sorry I've written a rubbish original post. I am talking in terms of ethics and law.

I can create a compatible board with a margin for $300.

[CatalinaWOW]

If the original company has declined support I see no ethical reasons not to do this.  I have no legal expertise so can't give any definitive help on that side, but twenty years is beyond patent expiration dates.  Some purchase contracts have clauses forbidding reverse engineering, so there might be some minefields out there.

[daqq]

I do not see any reason for declining due to ethics. It's pretty much refurbishing, if done by a different company.

This is actually fairly common for heavy duty industrial stuff - you want to use your giant specialized machine that was built in the dark ages (40+ years ago) and cost millions back then, but you don't want to feed it spools of paper punch tape, the original designer has been sold, resold, merged, bankrupted and has kicked the bucket several times over, so companies hire someone to install new, up to date control stuff around that blast furnace, generator, reactor or whatever...

[voltsandjolts]

The trouble with buying parts for my car is there are *so* many compatible parts from different manufacturers.
I am spoiled for choice and they are all undercutting the OEM.
I guess they believe they're not infringing any patents or copyright so fair game.

[ed_reardon]

Oh I agree,  (many) years ago I worked for a label (at the time) owned by a very  major European car maker (let us call them Ceugeot-Pitoren* Group) who operated such a large aftermarkets parts operation amongst the European car parc that they were selling aftermarket parts to dealers of rival brands under a different name undercutting the franchises in the aftermarket.

However,  by my logic,  a 'track rod-end' is exactly that,  just a ball-joint with a threaded portion, all cars use them and there is always a claim of prior art,  however when, at the time the new-and-novel automotive discharge lighting was introduced we could only resell a product bought off-label from a notable manufacturer of vehicle lamps and lighting solutions.

Trouble I have here is that this is such an explicit part and that brand x will still supply ex-stock very expensive replacements from old stock they have laying around, but their preferred method is to advise the purchaser to contact their local sales-rep for an 'informal evaluation of their current product..... blah, blah, blah..."

I am just an individual and have no desire to upset A.N. Other (or even D.A. Naher) who in all likelihood somewhere in their vault of millions of products do own the right to the original schematic.


Thank you all for taking the time to reply, all given me different things to think about!






^{*(No, none of use would buy them either)
**Yes,  I can say it with the proper French accent.}

[Neomys Sapiens]

Basically, patent law does prohibit COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION only. So digging into an design in order to keep a machine working that you have already paid for is not covered by it. Except, like stated above, if contractually forbidden. But this would not apply if the appliance was aquired 2nd hand and the original contract not referenced. It might be a bit mushy if you are not a employee of this company, but I personally have never heard of specialized repair contractors getting sued for doing their work.