Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Hobbs on 1 Apr 2010 13:21 On 4/1/2010 11:31 AM, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:43:23 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> On 3/31/2010 10:53 PM, terryc wrote: >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:49:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> It may be illegal to use a computer to hack firmware if it >>>> deprives the IP owner of revenue. >>> >>> There in lies your problem; prior publication. The IP owner has nil >>> chance of proving that his IP doesn't rely on someone else's IP. That is >>> how the whole process of technical development has taken place. The >>> concept that some brilliant individual created something new is 99% >>> bullshit. I've never met any programmer who is totally self taught >>> without recourse to any example(someone else's IP). >>> >>> >> >> In US patent law, there's a strong presumption that any granted patent >> is valid. That's supposed to be what the USPTO does for a living. (I >> know, I know.) >> >> Thus it's up to the alleged infringer to prove the patent invalid, and >> that's one of the forms the defense always takes. In a patent suit, >> each side has to provide a couple of reports to the other, containing >> the arguments they intend to present at trial and the evidence they >> intend to use. (It's actually a pretty good system in its >> way--otherwise more cases would be wrongly decided due to the good guys >> [whichever side that is] getting blindsided at the trial.) >> >> I've done two expert witness gigs in the last year, one defending an >> alleged patent infringement and one defending an alleged trade secret >> misappropriation. It's pretty interesting, and it makes much more sense >> when you get into it. >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > > Hypothetically, what would happen if there were no patent or copyright > laws? > > John > China. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Spehro Pefhany on 1 Apr 2010 13:34 On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:31:32 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:43:23 -0400, Phil Hobbs ><pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: > >>On 3/31/2010 10:53 PM, terryc wrote: >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:49:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> It may be illegal to use a computer to hack firmware if it >>>> deprives the IP owner of revenue. >>> >>> There in lies your problem; prior publication. The IP owner has nil >>> chance of proving that his IP doesn't rely on someone else's IP. That is >>> how the whole process of technical development has taken place. The >>> concept that some brilliant individual created something new is 99% >>> bullshit. I've never met any programmer who is totally self taught >>> without recourse to any example(someone else's IP). >>> >>> >> >>In US patent law, there's a strong presumption that any granted patent >>is valid. That's supposed to be what the USPTO does for a living. (I >>know, I know.) >> >>Thus it's up to the alleged infringer to prove the patent invalid, and >>that's one of the forms the defense always takes. In a patent suit, >>each side has to provide a couple of reports to the other, containing >>the arguments they intend to present at trial and the evidence they >>intend to use. (It's actually a pretty good system in its >>way--otherwise more cases would be wrongly decided due to the good guys >>[whichever side that is] getting blindsided at the trial.) "Discovery" as it's called in the US and Canada is an essential part of the civil law process. Typically there can't be a serious attempt to settle a lawsuit until all the actual evidence on both sides that could appear at trial has been seen by everyone. That's the theory anyhow-- it's rather gamed in practice, IME. >>I've done two expert witness gigs in the last year, one defending an >>alleged patent infringement and one defending an alleged trade secret >>misappropriation. It's pretty interesting, and it makes much more sense >>when you get into it. >> >>Cheers >> >>Phil Hobbs > >Hypothetically, what would happen if there were no patent or copyright >laws? > >John A lot of people would be employed differently. It might be better, all told, if monopolies of arbitrary duration were not imposed by governments. Consumer labeling laws (much as we have now) could deal with a lot of the confusion that would arise. Software companies would have to sell service and/or lock their software so it called home or used a dongle if they wanted to get paid for it. Would open-source software be more available or less available under those conditions?
From: Jon Kirwan on 1 Apr 2010 18:04 On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:43:23 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >On 3/31/2010 10:53 PM, terryc wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:49:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> It may be illegal to use a computer to hack firmware if it >>> deprives the IP owner of revenue. >> >> There in lies your problem; prior publication. The IP owner has nil >> chance of proving that his IP doesn't rely on someone else's IP. That is >> how the whole process of technical development has taken place. The >> concept that some brilliant individual created something new is 99% >> bullshit. I've never met any programmer who is totally self taught >> without recourse to any example(someone else's IP). > >In US patent law, there's a strong presumption that any granted patent >is valid. That's supposed to be what the USPTO does for a living. (I >know, I know.) ><snip> My patent attorney, years ago, informed me that the strength of this presumption varies by patent court region. In some, it's almost a 50/50 push. In others, it is very much like you say here. Jon
From: keithr on 1 Apr 2010 18:06 John Tserkezis wrote: > Phil Allison wrote: > >>> Where is the deception? > >> In the FACT that the 100MHz version is NOT actually a different model >> but sells with a very significant price hike - like 40%. > >> If they told buyers THAT simple truth they would not have any sales. There is no deception, you pay for a 50MHz unit, you get a 50 MHz unit, pay for a 100MHz unit and that is just what you get. The fact that they are functionally similar doesn't mean that they are equivalent. It is entirely possible that Rogol select the 100MHz units on the basis of performance. This is common in the semiconductor industry where they select the best units to be sold at a premium. They usually only expect a certain percentage to pass and stop testing once that has been met, so you may get an ordinary product that actually performs as a premium one. It may be that Dave was lucky with his, and others may not perform as well > Oddly enough, this technique is quite frequent, though, the selling > technique is more transparent, unlike Rigol who intentionally obscures > the similarities. I see no reason that they should, you get what you paid for, how they achieve that is their own business. If you can get around the system, that is your good luck and their bad luck. > One that comes to mind are multi-processor mainframe computers that are > sold fully kitted out, but only enable the number of processors the > customer pays for. > > The idea is, you have the entire box delivered, you *know* it's the > fully populated box, you call them and say you want x processors > enabled, and you pay accordingly. They connect remotely, and using > complex encrypted communications, your box is reconfigured: Almost > instantly you have the performance you paid for. > > There is a risk to the vendor, who forks out for the entire box and > have clients who never pay for all of it. But it's not all bad, this > results in possible lock-in (depending on product) guaranteeing further > income from clients that would have considered moving in the future, AND > it gets YOUR brand name out there in the market, which is always good news. Certainly not uncommon also known to happen with storage units coming fully populated with drives. > Likewise, where I used to work, when questioned about the quite > significant price difference between our lower-speced and higher-speced > acoustic products. We tell the client the control circuitry is > *exactly* the same, and the difference is in the cost of the microphone, > and show them the price list in case they were interested. > If they wanted to upgrade (or downgrade), just swap microphones, make > relevant adjustments, and re-calibrate the instrument, and that's it. > The entire process was transparent. > > > > How is this different from the Rigol situation? Three points: > > Firstly, they have ADDED circuitry to hinder native performance, verses > include, or enable circuitry (or firmware/software) to improve performance. That is not that uncommon either. Eons ago I worked for a computer company that had a range of 3 machines. All of them were identical except for one module, in the fastest model, it was just a straight pass through, in the slower models extra gates were added to delay memory references. It was a 6 figure upgrade that took 60 seconds to do but the point was that the extra expense gave a guarantee that the machine would perform at the higher speed. > Secondly, they've intentionally obscured this fact (exact same hardware > and firmware), by making it look like two different products. In these days when virtually everything has a microcontroller at it's heart, I suspect that you could find dozens of similar situations where a value stored in the firmware defines the functionality. Look on the internet and you'll find similar hacks for everything from disposable cameras to region free DVD players. > And lastly, possibly worst of all, they've made it this easy to hack. Thats either laziness or arrogance by the firmware programmers. It is so easy to prevent that I see no reason not to do so.
From: Phil Hobbs on 1 Apr 2010 18:39
On 4/1/2010 1:34 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:31:32 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:43:23 -0400, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> On 3/31/2010 10:53 PM, terryc wrote: >>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:49:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>>> >>>>> It may be illegal to use a computer to hack firmware if it >>>>> deprives the IP owner of revenue. >>>> >>>> There in lies your problem; prior publication. The IP owner has nil >>>> chance of proving that his IP doesn't rely on someone else's IP. That is >>>> how the whole process of technical development has taken place. The >>>> concept that some brilliant individual created something new is 99% >>>> bullshit. I've never met any programmer who is totally self taught >>>> without recourse to any example(someone else's IP). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> In US patent law, there's a strong presumption that any granted patent >>> is valid. That's supposed to be what the USPTO does for a living. (I >>> know, I know.) >>> >>> Thus it's up to the alleged infringer to prove the patent invalid, and >>> that's one of the forms the defense always takes. In a patent suit, >>> each side has to provide a couple of reports to the other, containing >>> the arguments they intend to present at trial and the evidence they >>> intend to use. (It's actually a pretty good system in its >>> way--otherwise more cases would be wrongly decided due to the good guys >>> [whichever side that is] getting blindsided at the trial.) > > "Discovery" as it's called in the US and Canada is an essential part > of the civil law process. Typically there can't be a serious attempt > to settle a lawsuit until all the actual evidence on both sides that > could appear at trial has been seen by everyone. That's the theory > anyhow-- it's rather gamed in practice, IME. > >>> I've done two expert witness gigs in the last year, one defending an >>> alleged patent infringement and one defending an alleged trade secret >>> misappropriation. It's pretty interesting, and it makes much more sense >>> when you get into it. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Phil Hobbs >> >> Hypothetically, what would happen if there were no patent or copyright >> laws? >> >> John > > A lot of people would be employed differently. It might be better, all > told, if monopolies of arbitrary duration were not imposed by > governments. Consumer labeling laws (much as we have now) could deal > with a lot of the confusion that would arise. Software companies would > have to sell service and/or lock their software so it called home or > used a dongle if they wanted to get paid for it. Would open-source > software be more available or less available under those conditions? > The idea of patents is to make it attractive for people to disclose their trade secrets, and that makes the art advance. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net |