4 ms·
"Well... we're waiting!" What's the very good reason? Because it's certainly not apparent to me.
by TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
"Well... we're waiting!" What's the very good reason? Because it's certainly not apparent to me.
- marcus0x62 4y agoThe very good reason is that, as the parent commenter wrote, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act makes it illegal for manufacturers to deny warranty service because of third-party modifications or repairs, unless they can demonstrate the third-party modification/repair caused a defect in the original product.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y agoSo why should something so explicitly... tampering... as, say, REFLASHING an ECM for a diesel engine, NOT exempt the manufacturer from third-party stupidity? This is what I can't wrap my head around. Where's the limit of legal liability? IS there no limit? Are the people milling about my company, excusing every added layer of bureaucracy due to being liable if a customer chips their Dodge Ram, melting the exhaust system onto their garage floor, and burning down their house actually CORRECT?! THIS is the law that is causing us to augment our entire development chain with the ability to sign and encrypt our binaries to prevent this malfeasance?
- marcus0x62 4y agoIf the customer rechips their ECU and melts their exhaust into the floor, you can absolutely deny the exhaust repair under warranty. You just have to be able to prove the modification caused the problem in the first place. edit - and I tend to view encrypted ROMs, etc., as being more about pulling the kind of anti-consumer/anti-repair shenanigans discussed in the original article than any genuine concern about limiting liability. But maybe that’s just my bias peeking through.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y agoWhich was my original point, perhaps lost in translation.