Force Cars To Be Open?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 21, 2009.

  1. Cars nowadays are full of proprietary diagnostic systems that you need specialized tools to access. Looks like car
    makers have been using these as a competitive weapon to shut out dealers and repairers they don’t like. Should
    Government step in to legislate against this?

    <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/congressmen-want-automakers-to-cough-up-diagnostic-codes.ars>
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 21, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    PeeCee Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:gv2u34$b9c$...
    > Cars nowadays are full of proprietary diagnostic systems that you need
    > specialized tools to access. Looks like car
    > makers have been using these as a competitive weapon to shut out dealers
    > and repairers they don’t like. Should
    > Government step in to legislate against this?
    >
    > <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/congressmen-want-automakers-to-cough-up-diagnostic-codes.ars>
    >




    Yes!

    An example told to me the other day.

    Vehicle Chevrolet Blazer which is a large US style 4 wheel drive.
    (actually needed for pulling 4 wheel trailers loaded with timber poles, so
    not a poseurs Remuera tractor)

    Complaint brakes 'softish'
    Mechanics repeatedly bleed the system using all sorts of techniques, put it
    down to that's the way they are.
    Chance conversation with Ambulance driver who drives an ambulance using the
    same Blazer chassis revealed the brakes can only be properly bleed by
    plugging in the Chevrolet dealer 'only' computer tool and commanding the ABS
    to open all it's valves.

    Haven't heard the result as the brakes were due to be done with the
    appropriate tool today Friday but it strikes me that this is a real safety
    issue.
    Nowhere in the manual or on the vehicle does it say this vital safety part
    of the vehicle requires a 'proprietry' tool to make them work properly.
    The brakes had been worked on by qualified mechanics and brake specialists
    because the owner was aware his vehicle fully loaded was quite a potential
    disaster if the brakes failed.

    By locking the brake maintenance into this 'dealer only' system Chevrolet
    are in my opinion exposing the innocent to harm should such a vehicle suffer
    a brake failure.



    Paul.
     
    PeeCee, May 21, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Tony in Oz Guest

    "PeeCee" <> wrote in message
    news:gv4ltv$jsl$...
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:gv2u34$b9c$...
    >> Cars nowadays are full of proprietary diagnostic systems that you need
    >> specialized tools to access. Looks like car
    >> makers have been using these as a competitive weapon to shut out dealers
    >> and repairers they don't like. Should
    >> Government step in to legislate against this?
    >>
    >> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/congressmen-want-automakers-to-cough-up-diagnostic-codes.ars>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > Yes!
    >
    > An example told to me the other day.
    >
    > Vehicle Chevrolet Blazer which is a large US style 4 wheel drive.
    > (actually needed for pulling 4 wheel trailers loaded with timber poles, so
    > not a poseurs Remuera tractor)
    >
    > Complaint brakes 'softish'
    > Mechanics repeatedly bleed the system using all sorts of techniques, put
    > it down to that's the way they are.
    > Chance conversation with Ambulance driver who drives an ambulance using
    > the same Blazer chassis revealed the brakes can only be properly bleed by
    > plugging in the Chevrolet dealer 'only' computer tool and commanding the
    > ABS to open all it's valves.
    >
    > Haven't heard the result as the brakes were due to be done with the
    > appropriate tool today Friday but it strikes me that this is a real
    > safety issue.
    > Nowhere in the manual or on the vehicle does it say this vital safety part
    > of the vehicle requires a 'proprietry' tool to make them work properly.
    > The brakes had been worked on by qualified mechanics and brake specialists
    > because the owner was aware his vehicle fully loaded was quite a potential
    > disaster if the brakes failed.
    >
    > By locking the brake maintenance into this 'dealer only' system Chevrolet
    > are in my opinion exposing the innocent to harm should such a vehicle
    > suffer a brake failure.
    >
    >
    >
    > Paul.
    >

    Agreed. Same goes for any model of car. I object to taking my (e.g)
    Commodore to a Holden dealer where they extract my testicles by way of my
    wallet because they fired up their Holden Computer to diagnose a problem. In
    reality I am paying for their fancy dealership, their fancy waiting room
    with the expensive coffee machine and the plush carpet, and the corporate
    "technicians" uniforms. I would far rather go to a small, privately owned,
    grubby-but-functional workshop, with a mechanic who knows his stuff, and has
    a good attitude, where the overheads are not huge, and you can get a good
    job done for a reasonable price.
     
    Tony in Oz, May 22, 2009
    #3
  4. In message <zfpRl.12657$>, Tony in Oz
    wrote:

    > I object to taking my (e.g)
    > Commodore to a Holden dealer where they extract my testicles by way of my
    > wallet because they fired up their Holden Computer to diagnose a problem.


    What if they have a patent on their particular diagnostic systems and
    protocols? Do they have a right to restrict access based on patent rights?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 22, 2009
    #4
  5. In message <4a173ee5$>, vitw wrote:

    > On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:58:33 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> What if they have a patent on their particular diagnostic systems and
    >> protocols? Do they have a right to restrict access based on patent
    >> rights?

    >
    > Any case where inventions/innovations offer nothing more than an
    > anticompetitive weapon is a clear case of market failure.


    But a patent is a legal, Government-granted monopoly. That's true of ALL
    patents. And monopolies by definition suppress competition, do they not? So
    is there such a thing as a patent that is not "an anticompetitive weapon"?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 23, 2009
    #5
  6. In message <4a177526$>, vitw wrote:

    > On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:16:02 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> But a patent is a legal, Government-granted monopoly. That's true of ALL
    >> patents. And monopolies by definition suppress competition, do they not?
    >> So is there such a thing as a patent that is not "an anticompetitive
    >> weapon"?

    >
    > You've missed the point. The intention of a patent is to encourage people
    > to disclose their innovations in return for a limited-time monopoly - in
    > the area of innovation.


    Is that worth the anticompetitive price being paid?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 23, 2009
    #6
  7. In message <4a18b8b7$>, vitw wrote:

    > On Sat, 23 May 2009 16:16:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >>> You've missed the point. The intention of a patent is to encourage
    >>> people to disclose their innovations in return for a limited-time
    >>> monopoly - in the area of innovation.

    >>
    >> Is that worth the anticompetitive price being paid?

    >
    > Yes - as long as the term of the patent is realistic.


    So it's all right to have an anticompetitive monopoly, so long as it's for a
    "realistic" duration? Why is it all right to put up with suboptimal market
    conditions for any duration at all?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 24, 2009
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    greg Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <4a18b8b7$>, vitw wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 23 May 2009 16:16:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>>> You've missed the point. The intention of a patent is to encourage
    >>>> people to disclose their innovations in return for a limited-time
    >>>> monopoly - in the area of innovation.
    >>> Is that worth the anticompetitive price being paid?

    >> Yes - as long as the term of the patent is realistic.

    >
    > So it's all right to have an anticompetitive monopoly, so long as it's for a
    > "realistic" duration? Why is it all right to put up with suboptimal market
    > conditions for any duration at all?
    >


    Yawn.............no one give a toss about anything you post about
    anymore flamer......yawn
     
    greg, May 24, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > Cars nowadays are full of proprietary diagnostic systems that you need specialized tools to access. Looks like car
    > makers have been using these as a competitive weapon to shut out dealers and repairers they don’t like. Should
    > Government step in to legislate against this?
    >
    > <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/congressmen-want-automakers-to-cough-up-diagnostic-codes.ars>


    No, what they should do is make sure that all advertising is clear in
    the message that it requires servicing in this manner, and revoke the
    laws that make them have to put this safty crap onto cars in the first
    place. Its hard to find a decent car without an airbag even used these
    days.
     
    Richard, May 24, 2009
    #9
  10. In message <gvamf1$eh3$>, Richard wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> Cars nowadays are full of proprietary diagnostic systems that you need
    >> specialized tools to access. Looks like car makers have been using these
    >> as a competitive weapon to shut out dealers and repairers they don’t
    >> like. Should Government step in to legislate against this?
    >>
    >> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/congressmen-want-

    automakers-to-cough-up-diagnostic-codes.ars>
    >
    > No, what they should do is make sure that all advertising is clear in
    > the message that it requires servicing in this manner, and revoke the
    > laws that make them have to put this safty crap onto cars in the first
    > place.


    I don't think the excuse for these proprietary diagnostics has much to do
    with safety.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 24, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Sun, 24 May 2009 17:39:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <gvamf1$eh3$>, Richard wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> Cars nowadays are full of proprietary diagnostic systems that you need
    >>> specialized tools to access. Looks like car makers have been using
    >>> these as a competitive weapon to shut out dealers and repairers they
    >>> don’t like. Should Government step in to legislate against this?
    >>>
    >>> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/congressmen-want-

    > automakers-to-cough-up-diagnostic-codes.ars>
    >>
    >> No, what they should do is make sure that all advertising is clear in
    >> the message that it requires servicing in this manner, and revoke the
    >> laws that make them have to put this safty crap onto cars in the first
    >> place.

    >
    > I don't think the excuse for these proprietary diagnostics has much to
    > do with safety.


    A lot of the basic codes to do with airbags, anti-emission gear and
    engine tuning are required to be standardized in the US and the EU. Its
    all of the other stuff that is the problem. My old Nissan could flash out
    the error codes on the dashboard LED in morse code and their meaning is
    in the service manual (but not the owner's handbook)
     
    Roger_Nickel, May 27, 2009
    #11
  12. In article <4a1cb137$>, Roger_Nickel <> wrote:
    (snip)

    >A lot of the basic codes to do with airbags, anti-emission gear and
    >engine tuning are required to be standardized in the US and the EU. Its
    >all of the other stuff that is the problem. My old Nissan could flash out
    >the error codes on the dashboard LED in morse code and their meaning is
    >in the service manual (but not the owner's handbook)


    Serice manuals used to be available for most if not all makes and models.
    Are they not now ?
     
    Bruce Sinclair, May 27, 2009
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. lbbs
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    10,183
    Bebop & Rocksteady
    Jan 29, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,225
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,535
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,849
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    965
    Bert Hyman
    Dec 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page