Who cares? As long as it meets specification, I don't care.
The only ripoff I see is that some manufactures artificially cripple their products to sell them for more money. I couldn't care less, if people remove these limitations.
Who cares? As long as it meets specification, I don't care.
The only ripoff I see is that some manufactures artificially cripple their products to sell them for more money. I couldn't care less, if people remove these limitations.
and making a good profit
Why do you think a peace of "cripped" hardware is so cheap.
Software != Hardware.
If I buy a scope, I buy hardware (with original EPROM/flash whatever) and I can do with it, whatever I like. If I modify the software and it gets better, it's not my problem, because I didn't buy the scope for the software, it came along and the manufaturer probably gives a damn, if I have problems with it.
Buying/selling cracked software is different, because I didn't buy the original CD/DVD whatever.
I would definitely expect a "cease and desist" letter from their lawyers in short order.
They'd probably start with that. Until then you could probably pocket the cash.
I think it would be pretty hard to prove a case of enabling crippled hardware. Enabling software options are closer to more conventional copyright type situations.
Has anyone, ever, anywhere been prosecuted? Closest thing that comes to mind is modchips, but that was about facilitating copyright infringement of media/software.
Printer cartridge hading may be another comparison - ISTR companies have failed to bring cases for this.
I think enabling crippled hardware, removing bandwidth limiting features by changing or removing in them for instance, would be fair game, a bit like removing washers in moped exhausts to increase power, you bought the hardware and it only needs a hardware circuit mod to upgrade it.
Removing software locks/enabling features, dubious but if obsolete and no longer available for purchase, to my mind that's not unreasonable and while dubious the manufacturer would be hard pressed to do much more than bluster.
Enabling software features when the devices are in active support is where it gets dodgy, ISTR Daniel Bogdanoff has said that Agilent/Keysight take a dim view and action against people who sell equipment that's got hacked upgrades.
I personally don't see the moral difference between HW and SW: if you are comfortable in considering a sale of a modified HW (one of the simplest is the conversion of a TDS744 into a 784), you should also be comfortable in doing so with SW.
I personally don't see the moral difference between HW and SW: if you are comfortable in considering a sale of a modified HW (one of the simplest is the conversion of a TDS744 into a 784), you should also be comfortable in doing so with SW.
I haven't phrased it particuarly well but I meant hardware modding to be something akin to redesigning a bandwidth limited hardware defined filter in a 'scope to take advantage of the full bandwidth it's capable of or other such 'fundamental' hardware design change.
I think with the TDS744 you're still 'tricking' the firmware by changing a few 'jumpers' so it thinks it's a different model aren't you?
Don't misunderstand me though, I know it's a dubious moral area and I have no problem doing that for personal use (see the CMU200 feature unlocking thread I started), however, I feel that there's a moral distinction between that and trading in test gear which was bought specifically to unlock and resell with the extra features being a selling point, I regard that as little different from software piracy for profit, they probably didn't develop the hack themselves either so they're also taking advantage of the people who put in the effort to create it.
*>30 years ago and Apple were very determined to stop us repairing their product as we weren't 'authorised'. Sadly for them, the law doesn't make desoldering chips and replacing them illegal, that didn't stop them trying a few times though, the other times the cease and desists landed from some other American companies our legal team told them American law doesn't apply in the UK and they went away with tails between their legs.