GM claims ownership of your cars software

[TekHousE]

You're right. at this point in time, In the United States, if the warrantee is still in effect it transfers with the vehicle (unless otherwise started in the original purchase agreement from the manufacturers representative, I.E. the dealer). As for ownership of the software; one is buying a copy of the software, just like they are buying a copy of the car and ownership of that copy is "in total". And that's what the big manufacturers are arguing against.

To keep pulling this string; Does that mean that Mobil owns the 6 quarts of "Mobil One" in the engine and therefore the car? They developed it... Does Dupont own the Color Coat and Clear Coat on the exterior and therefore the car? Their chemists developed and formulated it... Better yet, does BASF own the exterior protection and therefore the car? Their chemists developed the base additives... This could go on and on. The issue at hand is; you Manufacturer employed workers developing the software for these cars and they are getting a little sideways when it comes to the whole "Ownership" concept.

It will all get lawyered to death....

It's a good topic..

The oil thing..Yep they probably own the rights to the formula. but not the actual oil in your car. I don't know if it was popular in the US but an old oil company Duckhams, had an oil that was for classic and older cars, the company went broke but the formula was purchased by another company, BP first and then they were sold again. It seems the formula has appeared again with yet another company. So the intellectual property rights are most definitely worth something.

As for car finishes, no using BASF on the car does not make the car or part thereof owned by BASF. BASF sell the material to the manufacturer at a price that includes covering their R&D. Now, making an exact molecular copy of BASF coatings would be infringement and you would be in trouble.

When I was working for GM towards the end of my time there, I was a quality control manager and test driver. I attended a National meeting of ALL the current car manufacturers at the time, GM, Ford, Mitsubishi (they bought out Chrysler Australia) and Toyota.

We were told by the Australian government that the industry had to streamline and parts need to be sourced in cooperation with each other. SO that meant under the skin many components were shared or at least commonly sourced. Bosch electrics, headlight bins, hoses etc, etc. The parts for each manufacturer were stamped or printed with our logos, but they all came from the same places. Same with batteries, glass, and most of the rubber parts. Each of those parts have inherent IP values. But rarely woudl that mean any of those myriad of suppliers could claim ownership over the ENTIRE car. That is the loophole here. Reproducing parts, materials or software etc. is prohibited. Reproducing the car in total is supposed to be too. But check out the Range Rover rip off China just released..Basically it is an Evoque with a different badge. Even Ford have just done it with their new Lincoln. It is a copy of a Bentley Flying Spur. http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/31/bentley-designer-lincoln-continental-copy-poll/

But as you say, it would mean getting lawyers involved to try and test any of this. If 2 major manufacturers are disputing designs etc. we have no hope as plain old little owners. I suppose it would need a major class action for end users to test this.

 

[cr8crshr]

sorry guys I posted this so all can read it ,all the auto makers feel this way ,if you want delete it

Hey Snake...Got what you meant with your PM. I didn't and don't have a problem with the fact you posted this up. Definitely spirited debate will follow I can positively see. But a good topic for a change...cr8crshr/Tuck

 

[Michael789]

Or we can just opt out of buying all these new cars, and tell them to go f*** themselves ! Then they can keep their cars and their software and have a circle jerk and try to figure out why they are going bankrupt! Lol

 

[patrick66]

There are many reasons I have a 30-year-old car (AND a truck) as my daily drivers. Air bags are one. Vehicles too complex to do anything with and require a $1,000-visit to the stealership each time is another.

 

[Bruzilla]

I think the elephant in the room that's being missed in all this isn't the warranty costs, but the overall impact to the business as a whole.

It's great from a legal perspective to say that any tampering or changing of the vehicle's software, by an owner or a third party aftermarket parts/software vendor (the true villain in the eyes of the automakers), makes the warranty null and void and absolves the automakers from any and all liability for repairs, but life is not a courtroom.

What's happening is millions of vehicle owners are letting aftermarket vendors get into their cars and dick around with the software and hardware, supposedly doing alterations or repairs that are 100% compatible with the car's systems, and they end up screwing the car up. And when this happens, all the legalese in the world doesn't stop these millions of vehicle owners from A: going back to the manufacturer with a sad tale of how their car is now screwed up and it's not their fault and the dealerships have to expend millions of labor hours troubleshooting what some dumbass in a third party shop or home garage did to mess up the car, only to get an irate customer when they are told their warranty is voided. And B: having said irate customers telling friends, the media, lawyers, and anyone else they feel will save them from themselves about how the automaker is nothing but a cheap, no good, lying, cheapskate who won't stand behind their product.

While there's no technical legal liability on the part of the automakers for these warranty-violating modifications, it's still costing them millions upon millions to eat the cost of troubleshooting and repairing these issues just to keep the customers happy, and none of this cost is reimbursable from either the aftermarket manufacturers or their compatriots on the installation side, and that's the sad reality that's driving GM and other automakers to push for these protections. I have to say I don't blame them one bit.

 

[patrick66]

If one gets in an accident in a new car, blame it on the manufacturer's software and sue their nuts off. Look at the Toyota fiasco - they blamed it on FLOOR MATS! If that were a single model, it might be believable. But in nearly every model??? Really??? It was a software problem, and it took them a LONG time to admit that the floor mats were not an issue.

 

[Speedbird]

Opps. Posted in error. I clicked the wrong tab.
I meant to post in the other thread.
Maybe it was hackers.
http://www.forbbodiesonly.com/moparforum/showthread.php?95881-Dam-Hackers&p=910291119#post910291119

 

[monaco66coupe]

The cost of Developing the software is no different then the cost of developing the Building the car was built in, the Differential, Engine, or anything else on that car. The Manufacturer cost to develop it is the cost of doing business. If it is proprietary, then the Manufacturer should provide a Warranty for as long as the car is in existence, and share liability for any actions with the owner that the vehicle is Involved in, as contributory negligence of the software for example, for contributing to an accident. Try to get GM to accept that. You can't have it both ways. Shared ownership is shared liability in the U.S., regardless of the product. Do the The manufacturers or suppliers for that matter of the parts,or whole of the F-15 claim some ownership after the plane is sold to the Gov't? Good luck with that. The biggest reason manufacturers offer a limited warranty, is to limit liability for the product.

So it's all hogwash that any Auto Manufacturer can claim ownership of Software. it cost money to develop, yes. So did the rear end,and every other moving part on that car. You pay to write a program, you pay to develop a certain paint for the car. No difference. Otherwise, just keep the car, and rent it to the Buyer. "Oh no, we don't want the car or be responsible for it, we just want to get all our money back we spent to develop the car!" I say, if they think the software is theirs, then take the cost of that software back out of the cost of the car, and then keep the rights to it. And the rights to the technology used to paint the car. keep that, and reduce the car price even more. Slippery slope it is!
Apparently it all goes back to " what is mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too".

 

[kellycom]

what will become interesting if they want to push this argument is when they are forced to allow consumers a choice of other vendors. it will be no different than "owning" a copy of Windows but being able to run Linux on the hardware instead. they'll be forced to open up their hardware platforms to other "operating systems". If a dealer can prove you altered factory settings in the ecu they'll void your warranty or not perform the repair under warranty. unless you can set it back to factory settings. I know this as a former auto tech.

 

[TekHousE]

If they don't own it then they don't have to update it..Good luck with the hacks.

You want the manufacturers to own the software, trust me, the alternative is you getting updates for your car online at some dubious forum.. ;) Just like any OS, Windows etc. you license it, not own it.