4 ms·

Does anyone see the blatant hypocrisy in this case? "We reverse engineered your product and made something to help maintain it. You better not so much as look

Does anyone see the blatant hypocrisy in this case? "We reverse engineered your product and made something to help maintain it. You better not so much as look at our product. We have a right to repair, but you don't."

brokentone 5y ago
I agree that it does feel a bit paradoxical, but reversing a product for repair purposes verses reversing it for duplication are treated fundamentally differently by reasonable people. One is "right to repair" the other is "counterfeiting" or violating patents. To your statement, "We have a right to repair, but you don't" -- this clearly is not what is intended by Taylor, to repair these Kytch diagnostic tools. If that were the case, I think that would carry.
- s_dev 5y ago
  >reversing a product for repair purposes verses reversing it for duplication What about reverse engineering for curiosity or even posterity repair? Also how is intent of reverse engineering determined?
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    It's determined by what you do next - start making a competing product, or start making a complementary product.
    - fragmede 5y ago
      Or in this case, sue the company producing the device and (further) threaten your franchisees with (both litigious and economic) harm if they use the product.
- phkahler 5y ago
  IANAL but I believe reverse engineering for duplication is legal. You can't violate a patent, but trade secrets are called "secrets" because once they are out they are out. You protect secrets with NDAs so they don't get out. You're supposed to protect things that the public will see with patents if you want to protect them.
jeromegv 5y ago
The claim is that the company makes more money from service than from the sale of the device. By having a device that makes servicing cheaper, they lose money, so they want to look at this device, update the machines to prevent this device from working, and prevent their right of repair.
Haga 5y ago
They are just looking for a way to do a api rodeo in hardware

brokentone 5y ago

I agree that it does feel a bit paradoxical, but reversing a product for repair purposes verses reversing it for duplication are treated fundamentally differently by reasonable people. One is "right to repair" the other is "counterfeiting" or violating patents. To your statement, "We have a right to repair, but you don't" -- this clearly is not what is intended by Taylor, to repair these Kytch diagnostic tools. If that were the case, I think that would carry.

s_dev 5y ago
>reversing a product for repair purposes verses reversing it for duplication What about reverse engineering for curiosity or even posterity repair? Also how is intent of reverse engineering determined?
- whatshisface 5y ago
  It's determined by what you do next - start making a competing product, or start making a complementary product.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    Or in this case, sue the company producing the device and (further) threaten your franchisees with (both litigious and economic) harm if they use the product.
phkahler 5y ago
IANAL but I believe reverse engineering for duplication is legal. You can't violate a patent, but trade secrets are called "secrets" because once they are out they are out. You protect secrets with NDAs so they don't get out. You're supposed to protect things that the public will see with patents if you want to protect them.

jeromegv 5y ago

The claim is that the company makes more money from service than from the sale of the device. By having a device that makes servicing cheaper, they lose money, so they want to look at this device, update the machines to prevent this device from working, and prevent their right of repair.

Haga 5y ago

They are just looking for a way to do a api rodeo in hardware