Code protect (not)

[Simon]

yea, it's never work again 

[Zero999]

That sounds like something the MoD would do to stop North Korea from stealing their secrets.

Interesting most military equipment has a destroy sequence enabling the contents of all the memory to be erased and a section in the manual describing the best places to put the explosives to render it inoperable to the enemy.

Copying firmware and ICs is nothing new. the USSR would often clone US ICs, see link below.
http://www.cpushack.com/soviet-cpus.html

I'm a supporter of open source software. When I think about how good some open source programs are (OpenOffice, Inkscape, KiCad etc.)  I can't help but think it's the future. As the same time I realise it's not the only way (not everyone can make a profit from the open source model) but I firmly believe DRM (including code protection) is clearly not the way to go.

Where I work, we give the customer the drawings for their machines, including all the code we write for them and long may the open and transparent policy continue. Don't get me wrong, it's not free, all the information is copyrighted but the fact we share it with our clients is great, after all, it's their machine and the more they can understand it the better for both them and us ( it lowers the support costs).

[Simon]

Where I work, we give the customer the drawings for their machines, including all the code we write for them and long may the open and transparent policy continue. Don't get me wrong, it's not free, all the information is copyrighted but the fact we share it with our clients is great, after all, it's their machine and the more they can understand it the better for both them and us ( it lowers the support costs).

well making a one off machine or small quantities for a customer is a little different. They're paying a packet for the the design as much as for the physical machine

[Zero999]

What would you rather have? A scope which comes complete with schematics and source code or one which is essentially a black box.

[Simon]

I'd rather have a free scope end of but i suppose the manufacturers won't quite agree with that.

No longer providing manuals and schematics is not about protection. It is more about cutting costs and making things hard to repair so that you buy a new one.

[bilko]

It is not a major cost to provide manuals and schematics on pdf, but then it would be easier for the competition to copy the design, so probably more about protecting the design than cost of distribution.

I think that most on this board who have purchased Rigol / Hantek or Tekway it is because of the information available (from here).

I bet also that Agilent and Tektronix have lost some market share because some customers have switched because of the 'comfort factor' of having information available. Providing schematics and manuals would greatly enhance customer confidence and loyalty. Why would you want to purchase a scope from a 'clone' manufacturer when you can have the original, unless of course the original was vastly overpriced?

[ziq8tsi]

No longer providing manuals and schematics is not about protection. It is more about cutting costs and making things hard to repair so that you buy a new one.

Code protection restriction is the ultimate in making things hard to repair.  When the chip fails you cannot obtain a replacement short of writing your own software for it.  Should customers not be allowed to make their own backups?

We established at the beginning of this thread that the cost of defeating the restrictions is actually quite small for anyone with the resources to become your competitor in the first place.  And the assumption that someone who looks at the code intends to "rip it off" on a scale that could hurt you is incredibly paranoid.  Far more likely they want to study or modify it for their own personal use.

Would you apply the same restrictions to the hardware if it was as cheap and easy to do so?  Potting the entire board to make it difficult to copy (and impossible to inspect or repair)?  Is there a difference?

I am not really convinced that copying by competitors is the motivation for code restriction at all.  I think there is an element of fear that the product is not as valuable as it is costly.  And a consequent desire to think of, and treat, customers as either "consumers" or "pirates".  Sheep or wolves, not fellow humans.

[bilko]

In my experience, those who do not release code, schematics or other 'service' information to their customers have reason to be embarrassed about the quality of their product design. I have had cause to reverse several products for maintenance purposes and have seen the mess they wanted to hide.

[Simon]

I remember the large schematics you used to get with TV's, they were on A2 sheets or bigger, not the cheapest distribution. They also provided troubleshooting information, not the sort of thing they like to let you have now. It's convenient to sell a TV every 2 years to the same person

[bilko]

If your TV only lasts 2 years would you buy the same brand ?

[Lance]

If your TV only lasts 2 years would you buy the same brand ?

Probably not, but you probably will anyway. I hate modern electronics practices.

[Simon]

If your TV only lasts 2 years would you buy the same brand ?

Well considering that I know that most companies are just rebranding stuff, I know it makes little difference. Unless you spend a lot of money these days who ever you buy from is like playing the lottery. And knowing they are mostly the same.....

[Zero999]

I'd rather have a free scope end of but i suppose the manufacturers won't quite agree with that.

No longer providing manuals and schematics is not about protection. It is more about cutting costs and making things hard to repair so that you buy a new one.

Put it another way, how much would you be willing to add on to the price for the schematics and source code? Can you put a price on it?

I think it's something to be expected from high quality test equipment.

[Wim_L]

I'd rather have a free scope end of but i suppose the manufacturers won't quite agree with that.

No longer providing manuals and schematics is not about protection. It is more about cutting costs and making things hard to repair so that you buy a new one.

Put it another way, how much would you be willing to add on to the price for the schematics and source code? Can you put a price on it?

I think it's something to be expected from high quality test equipment.

Not that it would do you much good if all you see on the schematics is a set of boxes representing custom ICs...

It's important for another reason though... You may need to know how the machine works. Some measurements and tools are simple. Other measurements are harder, and may be susceptible to normally minor disturbances. I've had cases where having the schematics for a device gave helpful clues on how to improve the reliability of a measurement.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I think the main reason for service info for almost anything not being available these days is lack of demand. If availability of service info swayed purchasing decisions for any significant part of the market, manufacturers would be more likely to do it.

Equipment is hugely cheaper than it used to be, so repairs are less financially viable.

Much more use is made of custom chips and high-density packages, also making repairs less viable.

Equipment is much more reliable, so repairs are less likely to be needed in the first place.

The bottom line is not enough people want service info to justify providing it.

[Mechatrommer]

maybe competition, or this protection stuff. maybe long time ago, the scenario is... "you build oscilloscope and i build a circuit, i buy your oscilloscope, someone else will buy my circuit", but now the scenario is "you build oscilloscope, i build oscilloscope too! you give me schematic, i'll make it better and sell my oscilloscope better than yours".

[Zero999]

Not that it would do you much good if all you see on the schematics is a set of boxes representing custom ICs...

What custom ICs?

I've never opened a Rigol up but  by all accounts the components seem to be pretty standard.

[Simon]

maybe they mean FPGA's ? you welcome to look in mine any day

[Zero999]

That's why I said the manual should contain both the schematics and source for firmware. I knew a schematic on its own would be pretty useless.

[Tony R]

I am a student now and i don't feel the need to code protect anything, however, if i was trying to make money on my project then yes i probably would, but as for now im trying to make good grades on them.