None of what has come to pass ?
Really ? So Blackberry’s QNX OS running with Apple is imaginary, and the GENIVI Alliance, the Linux bit with members ‘including BMW Group, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, PSA Peugeot Citroen, Renault, SAIC Motor’ don’t exist except in Mr. Dilger’s Apple-fermented imagination, or something ?
It seems a fairly sober article to arouse such ire.
I wouldn’t go that far. Yes there are some shady shops but there are also some damn good ones. The shop that worked on my mom’s car did excellent work. The shop within eyesight would rob you blind.
I was actually talking about the under body panel, where a made up part was substituted. Your comment about junkyard parts is correct-I have used them myself-but once the cars are stripped and crushed, it will be hard to find them. Most mechanics will not use junkyard parts, because they cannot warrantee them. i know that the junkyard will offer a replacement part, but the labor isn’t covered at all.
Actually, Alldata is not included - it costs us an additional $220 per month. And the tracking/billing is done by software called MotorTraxx, at $99 per month. And did I mention the software that replaces the thousands of individual manuals that would have to be purchased separately if their only source was printed data? Forget how much this costs, but it ain’t cheap.
I think the average consumer has no idea of the amount of data, information, procedures, etc., that is needed to efficiently work on all (or at least most) of all those different models of vehicles that are out there. And we’re talking about everything from a 2015 Chevrolet (all models) to a 1975 Volvo (all models).
We’re talking cars not computers.
We replied to your statement:
Oddly enough, the legal status of code — which is always under some form of copyright, permissive or restricted — is not affected by it’s application.
Not true. See the printer case I linked to earlier.
The issue at question was the protected status of a small piece of code which was used to lock out third-party manufacturers of toner cartridges. A third party had copied a so-called “toner loading program” to allow the printer to recognize their cartridges, and the printer manufacturer had hoped to use copyright law to prevent the third party from doing this.
The court ultimately found that the loading program was not copyrightable. Although the program could in principle be written in several ways (and therefore being creative enough to qualify for copyright), as a practical matter, no third party would have the means of implementing the code in any other way. To make a compatible cartridge, a third party would have no choice but to copy the program wholesale. Therefore, it cannot be considered to have copyright protection even though it would have had the application been different.
Over the years that line has gotten very blurry.