Access to Haas extended memory

[Vern Smith]

A couple recent threads have brought up some interesting points of machine tool ownership and taxation. Serviceman just answered a request for information on adding memory to the Haas control saying it's a soldering job on older machines. This implies that the additional memory must be physically installed. I know this sounds simple minded but give me a minute.

Another thread got into the area of personal property taxation as it applies to machine tools. The concept of personal property comes from English Common Law which is the foundation of our (USA's) legal system. It recognizes real property, usually land and improvements thereon, and personal property like cars, machine tools, and most everything else. I think even intellectual property (software) falls under personal property but I'm not sure, after all, Queen Elizabeth didn't have a computer.

An important thing to keep in mind as you follow this tirade is the fact that both real and personal property share a very important attribute and that is assign-ability. You can assign an interest in your house to a bank (mortgage) or your lathe (chattel mortgage). The latter is more commonly known as a security interest governed by the Uniform Commercial Code.

Now to the crux of the issue along with my contentions. It seems logical to me that one's ownership of a chattel or piece of personal property (your car or lathe) includes the entire piece of property. It does not exclude any of the various parts. If you don't make your car payments and the car is repoed by the bank you cannot require the return of the trunk because that part of the car belongs to your wife.

To the best of my knowledge all late model Haas machines are shipped with the extended memory in place. I found this out when the local teck forgot to re-enter the serial number of my TM-1P after it's last mother board replacement. This caused all my options to be turned off after some number of hours because the machine assumes the payments have not been made. These options included rigid tapping ( it cost me 2 taps to find out it was turned off ) and intuitive programming which I never missed. The real kicker was it also turned off my extended memory.

I purchased the whole machine, I did not assign any part of it back to Haas. Had I financed the machine the bank would certainly expect to have a security interest in the machine as a whole, including the extended memory. I don't think Haas has any right or claim that would entitle them to control my extended memory.

Now, back to that intellectual property thing. Is someone breaking the law if they hire most any 13 year old to hack into their Haas operating system to gain access to the extended memory that is physically sitting in there? Can the previous owner of your car deny you use and or access to the trunk?

This should bring out all the curb stone lawyers.

Vern

[Geof]

Oooh! Talk about rabble rousing. Not to imply Haas machine owners are rabble or will necessarily get aroused.

I agree with the lawyer thing, but I wonder how it would play out if all the appropriate legislation was interpreted by a dis-interested third party.

When buying a CNC machine I think there is a parallel, I admit it might be tenuous, with buying a computer, monitor and printer. Normally somewhere in all the stuff you get with the purchase are notices that say by opening the package or turning something on you are accepting the terms of the license related to whatever software, and I suppose firmware, is needed to run the system, but you are not 'buying' the software only licensing its use. You can sell all the hardware, but not necessarily sell the license to the software. I think this is often skimmed over but I recall a thread here mentioning something about someone selling a CAD/CAM suite and the purchaser being annoyed because they could not get support without paying a substantial sum to the original provider; so obviously some companies do go by the letter of the legislation.

I have bought several CNC machines and do not recall ever seeing anything in all the documentation about automatically agreeing to any license so I would argue that I have the right to use any and all software/firmware embodies in the machine at the time of purchase because I have not explicitly agreed to any limitation to my rights.

But there is a serious kicker to this and the hiring of the local 13 year old whiz-kid; here:

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which implements two 1996 WIPO treaties. It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.

This is from Wikipedia, and it does not mention that the DCMA is restricted just to music copyright; here it mentions copyrighted works and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control. You could be on weak ground trying to arguing that your whiz-kid was not (trying) to circumvent an access control. There is controversy about the DCMA because, taken literally, it outlaws you copying a TV program for later viewing, or I think it did and do not know if any amendments have been implemented.

How many people want to volunteer to help numerous lawyers get very rich?

[Vern Smith]

I agree with your contentions and reservations as they are couched in the terminologies of contemporary law that has been developing since Shawn Fanning with his Internet music file sharing system hit the pavement several years ago. Until 1980 access control assumed references to physical gates and doors.

That's why I rooted my contentions in English Common Law and it's offspring. The real issue, as I see it, is one's right to the quiet enjoyment (another one of those old English terms) of one's personal property. I freely admit that the term quiet enjoyment was part of real property law but in most cases the terms and provisions of the one has applied to the other.

So we have a classic case of interpreting two legal concepts that clearly do not sit well together. If you are a strict constructionist you would probably contend that the old established concepts (the pillars all the rest is sitting on) prevail unless there are strong extenuating circumstances.

Someone of the more liberal school could say "well Smith, if you're so determined to have access to your precious memory open the back of the damn machine and remove it; after all, Serviceman told you it's no longer soldered fast"

I haven't even mentioned how I paid $900.00 plus for memory that can be purchased on the Internet for about $50.00. Why, because I think Haas could make a very strong argument that putting physical memory you purchased from a third party in their machine then hacking their software to gain use of it is a breach of intellectual property rights.

This is all mute because larger memory has always led to larger programs to take advantage of it which has led to computer makers installing even more memory and the cycle never ends. By the time you try my suggestion and hire the 13 year old hacker, then spend many thousand bucks defending the practice from Haas's somewhat suspect legal team the extended memory will be standard. I can foresee real simulation software instead of the silly warp speed stuff we currently have and a vastly expanded VQC and Intuitive programming package that will be sold for many many extra dollars. This will be Haas's way to get a chunk of the lower end CAM market. These will not be possible without the big memory.

Keep in mind that you have a responsibility as a forum leader to encourage knowledge acquisition and participation. We will all kick in a few bucks for your defense.

Vern

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Vern Smith ..... We will all kick in a few bucks for your defense. Vern

No money will ever need to be kicked in for my defense; the fancy lawyers woould be defending someone else, if anyone.

I agree it is largely a moot point, on occasion it is an irritating one, but I take the pragmatic approach; I make far more money using CNC machines in my business than not using them; I can accept the irritation.

[Vern Smith]

I'm not irritated, just having some Sunday afternoon fun.

CNC machining is a subject that has fascinated me for 20 plus years but I was too busy making a living in a completely unrelated field (which I'm sure you have all figured out by my questions) to pursue. Now back to figuring out Matt's millathe and how to program it. Can't decide if I should bite the bullet and try to learn to write code by hand or find some convoluted way to get my CAM program to do it for me.

Vern

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Vern Smith ....Can't decide if I should bite the bullet and try to learn to write code by hand.....Vern

Learn to write code; that separates THE MEN from the wannabees.

[Vern Smith]

OK, I'm envisioning an intimidating looking guy, bulging biceps, tattooed, Harley Davidson muscle shirt hunched over a legal pad writing G code. Didn't realize you were so handsome.

Rather than use CAM I'll try it the hard way. Keep your eye on the Millathe thread, I'm sure I will be putting more stupid wimpy questions there.

My problem is I'm surely doomed to wannabee status considering my current age and what the actuarial tables tell me the likely end of the line is.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Vern Smith .....My problem is I'm surely doomed to wannabee status considering my current age and what the actuarial tables tell me the likely end of the line is.

Took me six weeks to write my first lathe program starting back in 1999, and another three years to become fairly proficient on lathe and mill; I did have the advantage of being a Machinist with a bit of knowledge of simple programming; HTML, Basic and way back Fortran. So give you five times the six weeks, still less than a year for a basic program. Are you really that close to the end of the actuarial tables? I am probably about as close.

[HuFlungDung]

One may purchase and use machinery and software that is patented or contains patented items within it. The purchase of the machine does not transfer rights of the patent holder(s) to you, to permit you to copy and resell their ideas without royalties becoming due. Most of us could probably understand the legitimacy of this argument.

But mere ideas, words and music seem more tenuous. Once released, they are out and available. Copyright is meant to protect those concepts. Because we are civilized, we agree to the principle of copyright just as much as we respect the physical property (possessions) of others. We all want 'done unto us as we do unto others', this is the underlying principle of copyright.

The modern notion of this computer age, that 'they're way overcharging for this stuff anyway so I'm going to take it because I'm not a sucker and its so easy to do, I have a perfect alibi' is akin to lawlessness. There is no need to argue whether it is inherently alright to do or not, by convention we agree that it is not alright to take what we want. That is right, all that stops us, is our word, our agreement to act harmoniously within civilized society.

Theft of ideas does not enhance the economy. If someone is overcharging for their product or service, then someone else will come along who will do it for a bit less, until the costs are really pared down to the bone. This has happened with groceries, iron, cars, computers, cnc machines and software.

I also think knowledge is power, so if you personally have the know-how to activate certain circuits in the hardware that you own, then go right ahead. If you are capable of logic testing in circuits, then you can actually trace 'why' your extended memory is not working, and you could actually bypass the 'non-functional transistor'. Would it be alright to disseminate this information? Not likely, on principle, if the manufacturer is still supporting the product. However, you have a right to your livelihood, and if it were to become impossible to run the machine without hacking it, then it is entirely within your prerogative to fix it in whatever way you are able.


I think the bigger question is how much do we value civilized behaviour? How much are we blinded by our own lusts, so that whatever we see is what we think we must have? When society degrades to the point where we've got to pack guns to protect what little we've got, then I'm thinking the long term results of widespread theft is too heavy of a burden to bear for the short term relief of 'getting what we've lusted for' on the cheap.

So let's not be pushing the boundaries of 'acceptable theft', for it takes little imagination to see where that leads.

I hereby relinquish the soap box/pulpit

[Vern Smith]

For openers, let's make sure everyone understands this is an academic discussion, I paid for my extended memory and have not asked for my money back. I think it's great that the subject is interesting enough to get you two fellows attention. Obviously, (I hope) I'm having fun playing devils advocate.

Murry;

Your eloquent arguments are largely based in ethics and what is generally agreed upon as acceptable behavior in civilized societies. It's near impossible to refute positions like this without looking like an anarchist, so I won't try. I presented the issue in a strictly legal prospective because that's the way differences of opinion and entitlement to property are resolved today. While imperfect and somewhat deft to the very valid points you bring up it's better than mob rule or dominance by the strongest. One of the reasons we have laws and delegate great powers to government is because some people don't like to live by the golden rule

I did not consider the fact that our hacker might take his new found knowledge and try to enrich himself by offering the service to other Haas owners. While I feel, and you seem to agree somewhat, that I would be within my rights to gain access to my extended memory even if I had not purchased it, I do not think I could give or sell the technique to others without being subject to theft of intellectual property laws.

Defining "civilized behavior" and "acceptable theft" is very situation dependent. In New Orleans after Katrina most folks felt it was fine for people to liberate essential food stuffs for those who could not simply walk out. Not many said the same about sofa's and TV sets. I have my doubts that the imperatives of one's livelihood would be legal justification to break the law in most jurisdictions.

Thanks for your comments, I'm enjoying the discussion and didn't see any soap boxes.

Vern

[Vern Smith]

Goef,

I'm 66 with a very misspent youth.

I'll take the year you have so graciously given to me and see what I can learn. Think I'll hold onto my CAM program just in case. I figure if I can wade through the millathe project the rest shouldn't be too bad.

[maxine]

As far as software rules go ... I bought a CAD/CAM package new less than 6 months ago. I wanted to learn CAD/CAM before my new machine came. I bought the expert version even though it was very expensive because I figured I'd use it for a long time to come and grow into it as I learned. My new Haas TM-1 came two weeks before Christmas. The software license said you could load the program on two computers and I did just that ... one copy on my desktop and one on my portable PC. The desktop is used for office work, the portable goes in and out of the shop so I can fine tune tool paths etc at the machine as I learn CNC. My shop is 6 miles from the office so it is really handy to have the laptop copy. Critical for me really once I start producing parts for real. So I get my machine and two weesk later, on Christmas, my laptop takes a dump. So ok, it was old and tired and I needed a new one anyway. I bought a new one from Dell. I got all my different software transferred over no problem at all ... except the CAM software. After loading the CAD and CAM software you have to email the company and get the license code to unlock it. I got the code for the CAD just fine, but they apparently outsource the CAM so that license has to come from another company. So I follow the CAM license unlock request procedure also. The company replied back that I do not own the software, I only own a license to use it and that license only allows me to load the software on two computers in my entire lifetime. Once one of the computers dies that license right is gone according to them. Even if that computer still worked they say I could not transfer the license from it to my new Dell. So the result is that I have only owned the software a few months and only had the CAM working for about two weeks after the machine arrived and now they tell me I will have to buy it all over again at full price if I want to be able to use the CAM on my new computer. Now tell me that makes sense or that it is ethical ... It's like a bought a new car but they only let me fill it up with gas twice, then I have to replace it at full cost.

All this stuff about licensing and personal property taxes etc is bull if you ask me. Sorry to rant but I am definitely not happy at the thought of having to buy another CAM program so soon, but if I do not I can't design and make parts.

OK, I'm done.

Maxi