Reasons for hacking DSOs

[rx8pilot]

If a warranty claim end up in court - everyone has lost. The time and money for even the smallest of legal actions is more than a nice scope.

[Brumby]

Again, my question was not answered directly.

While an answer was given, it was in the third person - whereas my question was presented in the second person.

[kcbrown]

What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.

The difference is that fiddling with the code of necessity requires making copies of the code, whether it be for the purpose of getting your code onto the computer for modification, or for inspection, or whatever, and certainly requires making a copy when flashing the firmware.

That lands you straight into the middle of copyright law.  You don't have that problem when hacking the hardware.

Now, if your question is whether or not there's an ethical difference, well, I can't reasonably say that there is.  In both cases, you'd be making changes to something that is rightfully in your possession (because you paid money in exchange for it).  It's not like you'd be distributing copies of the manufacturer's firmware to the world or anything like that (even in that case, one can reasonably argue that the because the code being modified is simultaneously not in source form and sufficiently specific to the hardware, the normal concerns of copyright do not arise).

[kcbrown]

A side question....

Would you consider any modification to the hardware and/or software (incl. firmware) as actions that would void warranty?

Would you include 'cracking' unpurchased software keys in this?

I'd have to say that, in the general case, I would consider both to give the manufacturer proper justification to void the warranty, depending on the circumstances.  The warranty's purpose is to ensure that you are provided with a properly functioning product that meets the specifications and feature set that was advertised for the product you specifically purchased.  To expect the manufacturer to adhere to the warranty after you've made changes to the hardware is plainly unreasonable in the general case, since to do so would be to insist that the manufacturer guarantee functionality in the face of your changes, which are arbitrary in nature.   Now, if you can prove that the malfunction in question is unrelated to the change you made and cannot arise from the change you made, then you'd have a reasonable warranty claim, but in the absence of that, the manufacturer would be perfectly justified in denying the claim.

So: what about cracking the software keys?  Well, in that case, I'd say that your warranty claim would be valid as long as it is with respect to functionality that exists in the absence of the keys.  If you attempt to make a warranty claim that depends on the functionality that you unlocked, then the manufacturer is perfectly within its rights to either deny the warranty claim, or to "satisfy" the warranty claim by deactivating the functionality you activated, thus restoring the device to its as-manufactured state.  After all, the purpose of the warranty is to ensure that you possess a product with the attributes advertised for what you purchased.

[mnementh]

We are all free to do whatever we choose to do. You are free to live by a narrow, rigid set of rules. I am free to ignore them.

This is what FREE WILL means.

Grown-ups can recognize that if you live in a society then you have a moral debt to that society. That society is what made you who you are and allows you to live freely.

Moral debt?!? You bring this infantile "Philosophy 101" BS and call me immature?  If you understood the Social Contract, you'd understand that the fact we're having this conversation means you've already violated it.

You do not have the right to go ANYWHERE and expect ANYTHING. Once you realize THAT, THEN you can start building a meaningful Social Contract.

You can start by pulling your head out of your entitlement and realize you also don't have any right to expect me to adhere to your narcissistic judgmental bunk, either.

We WERE discussing legal and licensing issues around hacking a piece of equipment after one buys it; a tenuous argument at best. Once you try to bring morality into play, then you really are just shouting up your own posterior; as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.

"Entitlement" and Moral Debt" are both aspects of the same lie and you know it; the latter is the one you tell yourself to justify telling others how they should live.


mnem
No.

[Fungus]

You can start by pulling your head out of your entitlement and realize you also don't have any right to expect me to adhere to your narcissistic judgmental bunk, either.

You deserve it because you're smarter than the rest! Got it.

it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.

It's OK because they're foreigners! Noted.

[tggzzz]

as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.

The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.

Do you support them doing that?

[kcbrown]

We are all free to do whatever we choose to do. You are free to live by a narrow, rigid set of rules. I am free to ignore them.

This is what FREE WILL means.

Grown-ups can recognize that if you live in a society then you have a moral debt to that society. That society is what made you who you are and allows you to live freely.

And if the society in question is one that does not allow you to live freely?  Do you then still have a debt to that society because you live in it?

Do the citizens of North Korea have a debt to the authoritarian society that has arisen there merely by the fact that they live there and, in most cases, grew up there?

I'd wager you believe not, but I'll let you answer that one yourself.


The "debt" you speak of is a mutually beneficial implicit agreement.  It applies as long as the benefit remains mutually beneficial and well-balanced.  It is nullified the moment it becomes substantially one-sided.

[Brumby]

OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....

Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.

Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?


Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units.  Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.

Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?

[Fungus]

The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.

Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?

Nope. The owner has no right to anything more than they paid for. The manufacturer is even doing them a favor by honoring the warranty.

When the DS1054Z was released there was some discussion about whether or not the 50MHz units were binned versions of the 100MHz units.

There's no evidence that they are ... OTOH there's no proof that they aren't.

[mnementh]

OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....

Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.

Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?


Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units.  Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.

Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?

The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.

Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?

Nope. The owner has no right to anything more than they paid for. The manufacturer is even doing them a favor by honoring the warranty.

When the DS1054Z was released there was some discussion about whether or not the 50MHz units were binned versions of the 100MHz units.

There's no evidence that they are ... OTOH there's no proof that they aren't.

Absolutely right, Fungus. In all honesty, the moment you open up the enclosure or the FW and start tinkering inside, you no longer have a warranty. This is pretty much universal under both US and Chinese Export laws. They COULD charge you Parts & Labor for OOW Service PLUS return shipping; anything more than that which you receive is them doing you a favor. It is entirely reasonable for them to assume that your meddling is what caused the failure in the first place; it constitutes abuse of the product.

Taking on responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the unit is part of the cost of modding ANYTHING; if it breaks in half after you hack it, you now own two pieces. By returning a modded product for warranty service, you are in essence attempting to commit fraud.


mnem
No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope.

[Zero999]

OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....

Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.

Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?


Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units.  Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.

Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?

The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.

Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?

Nope. The owner has no right to anything more than they paid for. The manufacturer is even doing them a favor by honoring the warranty.

When the DS1054Z was released there was some discussion about whether or not the 50MHz units were binned versions of the 100MHz units.

There's no evidence that they are ... OTOH there's no proof that they aren't.

Absolutely right, Fungus. In all honesty, the moment you open up the enclosure or the FW and start tinkering inside, you no longer have a warranty. This is pretty much universal under both US and Chinese Export laws. They COULD charge you Parts & Labor for OOW Service PLUS return shipping; anything more than that which you receive is them doing you a favor. It is entirely reasonable for them to assume that your meddling is what caused the failure in the first place; it constitutes abuse of the product.

Taking on responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the unit is part of the cost of modding ANYTHING; if it breaks in half after you hack it, you now own two pieces. By returning a modded product for warranty service, you are in essence attempting to commit fraud.


mnem
No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope.

I agree with that, unless the failure was obviously nothing to do with the hack, such as the LCD failing. In that case, the manufacture should replace the LCD for me but even then, they're perfectly within their rights to reset the firmware to its unhacked state.

[Fungus]

No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope.

And this is why I wouldn't hack anything until I've owned/used it for a few weeks.

I recall a few people on here posting about how they hacked the bandwidth of their DS1054Z as soon as they got it out of the box then noticed a problem on channel 4 a few hours later (or whatever). Yes, I enjoyed a little schadenfreude ...

(and yes, we know you can un-hack them)

[mnementh]

No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope.

And this is why I wouldn't hack anything until I've owned/used it for a few weeks.

I recall a few people on here posting about how they hacked the bandwidth of their DS1054Z as soon as they got it out of the box then noticed a problem on channel 4 a few hours later (or whatever). Yes, I enjoyed a little schadenfreude ...

(and yes, we know you can un-hack them)

Yes, but that is NOT the same. When you hack, you take responsibility for your actions. Or at least you SHOULD. One of the consequences of those actions is that you no longer have a Manufacturer's Warranty.

I agree with that, unless the failure was obviously nothing to do with the hack, such as the LCD failing. In that case, the manufacture should replace the LCD for me but even then, they're perfectly within their rights to reset the firmware to its unhacked state.

Really? How do you know the hacked FW didn't alter the scan frequency, causing the LCD to fail because it was being incorrectly driven? Aside from a VERY few individuals, most folks using the "updating tools" are effectively little more than script kiddies, with no idea what the tool is actually changing in the brains of their 'scope.

If you opened up the scope to hack it, how do you KNOW you didn't accidentally short something to ground which ultimately caused the fault?

So yeah... I think it's fair for them to refuse ANY warranty service on ANY modded scope. Once it's modded, it is no longer THEIR scope.


mnem
In other news...

[Howardlong]

What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.

The difference is that fiddling with the code of necessity requires making copies of the code, whether it be for the purpose of getting your code onto the computer for modification, or for inspection, or whatever, and certainly requires making a copy when flashing the firmware.

And if you don't copy any code? For example, you start the scope with a different set of boot parameters?

[Howardlong]

What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.

I don't see any difference, morally, ethically or legally. If the manufacturer is also selling and supporting an equivalent to the modified device, then in neither case is there a valid entitlement to the modification.

What is your view if you were to discover that your scope operates beyond its specified bandwidth without you doing any modification?

For example, you discovered it's twice its specified bandwidth in certain (non-contrived or fiddled) scenarios?

Would it be morally, ethically or legally wrong to use the scope in a way that benefitted from this additional bandwidth that you didn't pay for?

The specific case I am referring to is that I have a 600MHz scope that runs at 840MHz bandwidth in real time, and when running in equivalent time has a bandwidth of over 1.2GHz.

[kcbrown]

The difference is that fiddling with the code of necessity requires making copies of the code, whether it be for the purpose of getting your code onto the computer for modification, or for inspection, or whatever, and certainly requires making a copy when flashing the firmware.

And if you don't copy any code? For example, you start the scope with a different set of boot parameters?

It depends on how you managed that.

If you managed that by changing the parameters through an interface on the scope itself (e.g., by giving it a different set of boot parameters through a SCPI command or something), then no copying of the firmware or any other copyrighted work occurred, and you're free and clear of copyright law.

But if you managed it by copying the firmware (be it the whole thing or a portion of it) off the scope, then modifying it, then uploading it back to the scope, then that would be copyright infringement.  But that doesn't mean it's unethical.

You'll find that law and ethics rarely overlap.  The law is an expression of what people with power think you shouldn't do.  It is an expression of control, not of ethics.  People with power tend to be more ethically challenged than most people, and tend to want to control others for their own (direct or indirect) gain rather than for some more noble purpose, which is why the law and ethics are so divergent.

[tggzzz]

What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.

I don't see any difference, morally, ethically or legally. If the manufacturer is also selling and supporting an equivalent to the modified device, then in neither case is there a valid entitlement to the modification.

What is your view if you were to discover that your scope operates beyond its specified bandwidth without you doing any modification?

For example, you discovered it's twice its specified bandwidth in certain (non-contrived or fiddled) scenarios?

Would it be morally, ethically or legally wrong to use the scope in a way that benefitted from this additional bandwidth that you didn't pay for?

The specific case I am referring to is that I have a 600MHz scope that runs at 840MHz bandwidth in real time, and when running in equivalent time has a bandwidth of over 1.2GHz.

No problem, of course. The manufacturer exceed their specification; good for them. HP used to do that kind of thing all the time with their instruments.

As an engineer I would, of course, be a fool to order such a scope in the expectation that the particular one delivered to me would exceed the specification. Ditto ordering 1% resistors in the expectation that they would be 0.1%, because I once had a 1% resistor that was only 0.1% away from its nominal value.

Here's a more interesting and less contrived example of this...

In the late 70s when digital was being introduced between exchanges and before optical fibres were widespread, the PCM was carried by existing paper insulated quad pairs. These were specified and guaranteed at 1.6kHz, but they were being used for 2Mb/s PCM - or at least the subset of pairs in a cable that were sufficiently good were being pressed into service.

The GPO, because it was before BT, would have liked to agree test specifications with the cable manufacturer for 2Mb/s operation, which wouldn't have changed the cable's manufacture. But the GPO didn't dare do that because it would have given the cable manufatrures the opportunity to hike prices. Instead the GPO developed a test set to measure which pairs would work in any give cable.

The cable company delivered cables tested at 1.6kHz, and the client used bits at 2Mb/s. Everybody knew what was happening, none had any grounds for complaint.

[tggzzz]

You'll find that law and ethics rarely overlap.  The law is an expression of what people with power think you shouldn't do.  It is an expression of control, not of ethics.  People with power tend to be more ethically challenged than most people, and tend to want to control others for their own (direct or indirect) gain rather than for some more noble purpose, which is why the law and ethics are so divergent.

Simple observation: we have courts of law, not courts of justice nor courts of ethical behaviour.

[Zero999]

No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope.

And this is why I wouldn't hack anything until I've owned/used it for a few weeks.

I recall a few people on here posting about how they hacked the bandwidth of their DS1054Z as soon as they got it out of the box then noticed a problem on channel 4 a few hours later (or whatever). Yes, I enjoyed a little schadenfreude ...

(and yes, we know you can un-hack them)

Yes, but that is NOT the same. When you hack, you take responsibility for your actions. Or at least you SHOULD. One of the consequences of those actions is that you no longer have a Manufacturer's Warranty.

I agree with that, unless the failure was obviously nothing to do with the hack, such as the LCD failing. In that case, the manufacture should replace the LCD for me but even then, they're perfectly within their rights to reset the firmware to its unhacked state.

Really? How do you know the hacked FW didn't alter the scan frequency, causing the LCD to fail because it was being incorrectly driven? Aside from a VERY few individuals, most folks using the "updating tools" are effectively little more than script kiddies, with no idea what the tool is actually changing in the brains of their 'scope.

If you opened up the scope to hack it, how do you KNOW you didn't accidentally short something to ground which ultimately caused the fault?

So yeah... I think it's fair for them to refuse ANY warranty service on ANY modded scope. Once it's modded, it is no longer THEIR scope.


mnem
In other news...

I had a feeling you'd say something like that and yes, if you actually modified the firmware, there's a slim chance something like that could happen but it's BS that simply entering a key to unlock more bandwidth or memory would damage the LCD. A better example would be something like a switch or encoder (used for the standard non-hacked feature set of course) failing, which is obviously nothing to do with the firmware.

as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.

The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.

Do you support them doing that?

That's not a straightforward question.

The laws and whether they're enforced or not differ greatly between the US and China. Many people in the US would say it's wrong that the Chinese can simply copy US products at low cost and not have to pay for the design. They may say China has an unfair competitive advantage, being able to use pirate copies of US software, while the US companies have to pay for the licence.

In reality China will not change any time soon. The opposite argument could be made. If people feel China's lax copyright/patent laws put them at an unfair competitive advantage then perhaps the US could change their laws, so American companies can copy one another?

It works the other way round too. Is it fair that US companies can operate in China, polluting the environment, dumping their waste over there, poisoning the villages and making a profit?

[tggzzz]

as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.

The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.

Do you support them doing that?

That's not a straightforward question.

It is both a straightforward question, and one which reflects real problems and attitudes. You may find it awkward to answer; I understand that.

I repeat: do you support the Chinese copying and selling products without compensating the original manufacturers?

(The rest of your points are irrelevant flack about entirely different subjects.)

[kcbrown]

as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.

The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.

Do you support them doing that?

Do you support reverse engineering?

[tggzzz]

as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.

The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.

Do you support them doing that?

Do you support reverse engineering?

Depends on the objectives, and what use is made of the info gathered. Yes to enable me to continue using what I've already purchased and the manufacturer has abandoned. No to steal and/or profit from trade secrets that I have not purchased. There are many grey areas, which are outside the scope of this discussion.

[Brumby]

From the previous post of mine, namely:

OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....

Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.

Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?


Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units.  Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.

Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?

The question I was asking was NOT a matter of whether a warranty should be honoured or not.

The scenario I proposed is one where the manufacturer DID honour the warranty because, let's say, the failed chip had a history of failure in the field whether the firmware had been hacked or not.  Maybe they decided it was a good PR move and wasn't worth the pain of arguing - but they did honour the warranty.

IN THAT SITUATION, an 'upgraded' 50MHz chip was fitted to the 50MHz scope thus making it physically incapable of operating at the higher frequency.

Is that a problem?

[kcbrown]

Do you support reverse engineering?

Depends on the objectives, and what use is made of the info gathered. Yes to enable me to continue using what I've already purchased and the manufacturer has abandoned. No to steal and/or profit from trade secrets that I have not purchased. There are many grey areas, which are outside the scope of this discussion.

So your belief, then, is that the patent system should be redundant (after all, why patent something if you can simply make it a trade secret, knowing that nobody will be able to make use of it)?  That there is ownership of ideas in perpetuity?  That the only valid use of an idea you get from someone else without their explicit permission is that which would not benefit you or anyone else except in the narrowest of circumstances?

With such rules in place, the progress of man would grind to a halt.  There is a reason the United States Constitution patent/copyright clause was written the way it was.


Your (apparent) stance puts you at odds with a substantial amount (if not the majority) of what happens on this very site.