5 ms·

But was this sabotage by an insider at the manufacturer, or something deliberate by the manufacturer?

HPsquared 3y ago
If the manufacturer did it, doesn't it still fit the definition? It's something like "deliberately causing something to fail", regardless of who does it.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  The higher-up the decision went, the worse it is.
- 93po 3y ago
  While I believe intentions were malicious, it's very easy to argue that 1. it's not failing, it's disabling 2. it's a safety feature - "SPS can't safely maintain these trains, so we have a safety lock out if they attempt it" 3. there is a ton of stuff that works this way - even Harley Davidson motorcycles require authorized maintenance and the bike's computer won't accept repairs unless a proprietary tool is used
  - yetihehe 3y ago
    Newag was required by contract to provide accurate service manuals so that competitors could safely maintain the trains. This was not a "just take your car to dave, he knows some stuff". For SPS and other competitors this was like "you need to show every certification that exists and certify all your tools to prove that indeed you can service those cars, or you will be foreclosed due to fines". Plus, they were provided ALL service manuals, like 20k pages to follow to the letter.
    - 93po 3y ago
      i wouldnt be surprised if this info was somewhere in those 20k pages, and perhaps if the procedures were actually followed, stuff like GPS based lockouts wouldn't happen
      - rcxdude 3y ago
        Ah yes, on appendix 35 of section C, "do not store the train in your service yard specifically or it will stop working"
      - metadat 3y ago
        The article covers this, and says the information about the lockouts was not in the manufacturer provided manuals.
        93po 3y ago
        According to who?
        metadat 3y ago
        Directly in TFA, matey: > Newag explains that the train were > blocked by a “safety system” – but in > the 20,000 pages of instructions, it > is in vain to find even a mention > of it. No mention whatsoever in the maintenance documents. It then becomes prudent to question the intentions and fitness of the company behind such a product. This episode puts even John Deere to shame. I'm imagine JD are enjoying themselves right now on this Friday afternoon.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    On #2, that's sabotage. Also, on #3, that's sabotage too.
korhojoa 3y ago
There wasn't just one manufactured failure, but multiple different ones. Refusing to help would also point towards intentional malice. Why would you sell a product, then refuse to assist, unless you've intentionally designed the product to fail so only you would know how to make it work again?
- greesil 3y ago
  To what end? So they can sell more trains? That makes no sense.
  - snthd 3y ago
    >The train manufacturer, Newag, also competed in the tender to carry out the maintenance, but the manufacturer’s bid was about 750k USD higher and the tender was eventually won by SPS, which offered to carry out the maintenance of 11 trains for around 5.5 mln USD.
    - Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
      Just thinking outloud. But if you made it so your competitor couldn't fulfill their servicing contract, then the entity taking out the contract might just very well come to you to solve the problem. You might not win the contract on price, but win it by default because you made it impossible for anyone else to complete it. That is until your scheme is uncovered because you left the GPS coordinates of your competitors workshops in your code.
      - bluGill 3y ago
        More sanely (not to be confused with likely!) the courts will decide that since this is something only the OEM can do, it must done at no charge as part of normal warranty work.
        josefx 3y ago
        These trains will be used for decades. Normal warranty wont cover anything of note.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Considering that the "sabotage" was intended to bring the company extra revenue by having non-faulty parts replaced and by requiring maintenance to be carried out by them and never third parties, it aligns with the company's own interests too much so to say "some employee did this without authorization". "Deliberate by manufacturer" 100%. The scarier part is that had this happened in the United States, DMCA would likely have protected them from prosecution, and the government might be liable for damages.

If the manufacturer did it, doesn't it still fit the definition? It's something like "deliberately causing something to fail", regardless of who does it.

mannykannot 3y ago
The higher-up the decision went, the worse it is.
93po 3y ago
While I believe intentions were malicious, it's very easy to argue that 1. it's not failing, it's disabling 2. it's a safety feature - "SPS can't safely maintain these trains, so we have a safety lock out if they attempt it" 3. there is a ton of stuff that works this way - even Harley Davidson motorcycles require authorized maintenance and the bike's computer won't accept repairs unless a proprietary tool is used
- yetihehe 3y ago
  Newag was required by contract to provide accurate service manuals so that competitors could safely maintain the trains. This was not a "just take your car to dave, he knows some stuff". For SPS and other competitors this was like "you need to show every certification that exists and certify all your tools to prove that indeed you can service those cars, or you will be foreclosed due to fines". Plus, they were provided ALL service manuals, like 20k pages to follow to the letter.
  - 93po 3y ago
    i wouldnt be surprised if this info was somewhere in those 20k pages, and perhaps if the procedures were actually followed, stuff like GPS based lockouts wouldn't happen
    - rcxdude 3y ago
      Ah yes, on appendix 35 of section C, "do not store the train in your service yard specifically or it will stop working"
    - metadat 3y ago
      The article covers this, and says the information about the lockouts was not in the manufacturer provided manuals.
      - 93po 3y ago
        According to who?
        metadat 3y ago
        Directly in TFA, matey: > Newag explains that the train were > blocked by a “safety system” – but in > the 20,000 pages of instructions, it > is in vain to find even a mention > of it. No mention whatsoever in the maintenance documents. It then becomes prudent to question the intentions and fitness of the company behind such a product. This episode puts even John Deere to shame. I'm imagine JD are enjoying themselves right now on this Friday afternoon.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  On #2, that's sabotage. Also, on #3, that's sabotage too.

korhojoa 3y ago

There wasn't just one manufactured failure, but multiple different ones. Refusing to help would also point towards intentional malice. Why would you sell a product, then refuse to assist, unless you've intentionally designed the product to fail so only you would know how to make it work again?

greesil 3y ago
To what end? So they can sell more trains? That makes no sense.
- snthd 3y ago
  >The train manufacturer, Newag, also competed in the tender to carry out the maintenance, but the manufacturer’s bid was about 750k USD higher and the tender was eventually won by SPS, which offered to carry out the maintenance of 11 trains for around 5.5 mln USD.
  - Crosseye_Jack 3y ago
    Just thinking outloud. But if you made it so your competitor couldn't fulfill their servicing contract, then the entity taking out the contract might just very well come to you to solve the problem. You might not win the contract on price, but win it by default because you made it impossible for anyone else to complete it. That is until your scheme is uncovered because you left the GPS coordinates of your competitors workshops in your code.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      More sanely (not to be confused with likely!) the courts will decide that since this is something only the OEM can do, it must done at no charge as part of normal warranty work.
      - josefx 3y ago
        These trains will be used for decades. Normal warranty wont cover anything of note.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Considering that the "sabotage" was intended to bring the company extra revenue by having non-faulty parts replaced and by requiring maintenance to be carried out by them and never third parties, it aligns with the company's own interests too much so to say "some employee did this without authorization". "Deliberate by manufacturer" 100%. The scarier part is that had this happened in the United States, DMCA would likely have protected them from prosecution, and the government might be liable for damages.