Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 4 Apr 2010 17:17 On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:07:37 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 15:58:51 -0500, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > >> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 12:26:43 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:08:13 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> What's a fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture? >>> >>>Development costs, amortized over the quantity of product sold, plus >>>overhead and profit. >> >> Ok, you've defined profit, but I'll ask Larkin's question again. What's a >> fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture? > >No, I defined pricing, not profit, Not really (pricing is what the market will bear). You still didn't answer his question, in any case.
From: John Larkin on 4 Apr 2010 17:23 On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 13:50:49 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:18:01 +0100, markp wrote: > >> >> "Fred Abse" <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:pan.2010.04.03.17.41.20.820536(a)invalid.invalid... >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:05:18 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> Once a scope is in my posession, converting it to 100 MHz does Rigol no >>>> economic harm. Dave's posting detailed hacking directions to the world >>>> does them real harm, and they may have legal recourse. >>> >>> That's the crux of the issue. >>> >> >> But what they get if they modify it is *not* the same as the 100MHz 'scope >> that they could buy. At best it is something that may be OK, without any >> guarantees. They may also void their warranty on the 50MHz version they >> bought as well. I don't think Rigol sell a 'it might be 100MHz but we won't >> guarantee it and you have no warranty at all' 'scope, so exactly what >> economic harm is done? Thay *can't buy* what they are modifying this to be. >> >> Information itself is not dangerous, it's what people do with it that might >> be. >> > >Read John's post again. The economic harm is done when someone buys the >50MHz version, intending to modify it, when in the absence of the >disseminated information, they would have bought the more expensive >instrument. > >The moral thing would be to have announced that "We have discovered that >the two instruments are electrically identical, and it is possible to >modify the 50MHz version, in firmware, to behave identically to the 100MHz >version. We are not disclosing how to do this. We invite comments from the >manufacturer." Yes, do what ethical people do if they discover vulnerabilities in software: inform the manufacturer and give them time to do a fix before you go public... if you go public at all. John
From: John Larkin on 4 Apr 2010 17:27 On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 15:58:51 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 12:26:43 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:08:13 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> What's a fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture? >> >>Development costs, amortized over the quantity of product sold, plus >>overhead and profit. > >Ok, you've defined profit, but I'll ask Larkin's question again. What's a >fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture? What people are willing to pay, of course. If you had a rusty VW beetle up on blocks in your back yard, and somebody offered you $200 for it, and somebody else offered you $24,000, would you sell it to the $200 guy because that's a fair price? John
From: John Larkin on 4 Apr 2010 17:31 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:23:54 +1100, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >For those who thought Rigol may bin the scopes to get 50MHz and 100MHz >models, and that they aren't actually identical hardware and firmware, I've >been informed that Rigol have finally admitted this to an irate customer who >contacted them about the issue. > >Partial Quote from Rigol : >"The firmware of the instruments is made >to enable capability based on the version purchased just like any software >licensed product you would buy." > >Betcha they would never have admitted that before it was all exposed a few >weeks ago. > >Dave. Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and the compromises it forces. John
From: markp on 4 Apr 2010 17:46
"Fred Abse" <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2010.04.04.21.34.49.354346(a)invalid.invalid... > On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:13:07 +0100, markp wrote: > >> >> "Fred Abse" <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:pan.2010.04.04.20.49.12.768703(a)invalid.invalid... >>> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:18:01 +0100, markp wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "Fred Abse" <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2010.04.03.17.41.20.820536(a)invalid.invalid... >>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:05:18 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Once a scope is in my posession, converting it to 100 MHz does Rigol >>>>>> no >>>>>> economic harm. Dave's posting detailed hacking directions to the >>>>>> world >>>>>> does them real harm, and they may have legal recourse. >>>>> >>>>> That's the crux of the issue. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But what they get if they modify it is *not* the same as the 100MHz >>>> 'scope >>>> that they could buy. At best it is something that may be OK, without >>>> any >>>> guarantees. They may also void their warranty on the 50MHz version they >>>> bought as well. I don't think Rigol sell a 'it might be 100MHz but we >>>> won't >>>> guarantee it and you have no warranty at all' 'scope, so exactly what >>>> economic harm is done? Thay *can't buy* what they are modifying this to >>>> be. >>>> >>>> Information itself is not dangerous, it's what people do with it that >>>> might >>>> be. >>>> >>> >>> Read John's post again. The economic harm is done when someone buys the >>> 50MHz version, intending to modify it, when in the absence of the >>> disseminated information, they would have bought the more expensive >>> instrument. >> >> Again, what they get when modifying it is *not* a guaranteed 100MHz >> scope. >> What they may have bought instead of the 50MHz version is not the same, >> they >> would need to pay for a guaranteed scope. They are quite entitled to buy >> a >> 50MHz scope and run it out of scec. > > I wouldn't dispute that. It's not what is at issue. > >> >>> >>> The moral thing would be to have announced that "We have discovered that >>> the two instruments are electrically identical, and it is possible to >>> modify the 50MHz version, in firmware, to behave identically to the >>> 100MHz >>> version. We are not disclosing how to do this. We invite comments from >>> the >>> manufacturer." >>> >> >> But at no point does anyone say that this mod equals the real thing, only >> that it 'appears' to be the same thing. > > You've already said that, twice. I have no disagreement with that. > >> >> If you're saying that it is OK for someone to discover how to modify >> their >> own equipment and then run out of spec but not OK to tell others how to >> do >> it, then surely all those websites that provide financial information as >> to >> how to move their money around with credit cards and hence pay less >> interest >> are also wrong, after all you could discover how to do that yourself. In >> either case the results are legal. > > I was making a moral, not a legal point. Maybe you don't distinguish. > OK, I understand. However I assume you also think these websites that publish these less well known financial tricks are also ammoral. I conceed that your point was a moral one though not a legal one. Mark. |