Is it possible to reset a married Cobb Accessport? I bought an Accessport used and come to find out the item was never unmarried. The guy no longer has the car since he traded it in. Cobb wants about $400 to reset it. I would rather find a cheat to reset this item . Does anyone know a secret about unmarrieing a married accessport without the original car?????????


:confused: :eek: :huh:

You're F-ed.

It could be possible if you have a buddy with the same year WRX and an accessport.

It could be possible if you have a buddy with the same year WRX and an accessport.
Sure, he might - but I don't see how this will affect anything :confused:

Im pretty sure you can, however, Cobb isnt going to tell you how. Obviously. So either keep it as a paper weight, or try opening it up carefully... or pay the 400. Send it to me, i 'll try it :)

You could do it without ever opening the thing up. Just need some of the ecuExplorer/flashing software, a tactrix cable, and some creativity.

You could do it without ever opening the thing up. Just need some of the ecuExplorer/flashing software, a tactrix cable, and some creativity.


Sounds like you know how to do this. Have you done this before??? If so i have an accessport in need of being reset. Ill even give you 100 bucks to reset it.

I haven't tried this method, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work. I've got some background in firmware flashing, and I really think its possible. However, I don't think I want to get into the business of doing this for other people - a good way to get sued and piss off Cobb (whose products I like).

Like JRSCCivic98, I'm not sure if I want to speak openly about the method I'd use (which given his short description, is probably the same method he'd use) for fear of getting blamed if someone fried their ECU and AccessPort doing it.

I would rather find a cheat to reset this item .Statements like this usually bring out the flamers. Once one person knows how to 'cheat', everyone will. Before you know it, no more Cobb. :( Good luck with your venture, my friend.

Politely tell the guy you want to return it.

Is it possible to reset a married Cobb Accessport? I bought an Accessport used and come to find out the item was never unmarried. The guy no longer has the car since he traded it in. Cobb wants about $400 to reset it. I would rather find a cheat to reset this item . Does anyone know a secret about unmarrieing a married accessport without the original car?????????


:confused: :eek: :huh:
You needs to get your money back from the guy who sold you an un-married AP. :disco: Then you can pay Cobb to re-set it, or give it back to him just as useless.

You could always try to talk to the dealership where he traded it in. If they still have it, maybe you could talk them into letting you un-marry it?????

Sorry, retract this comment to appologize for false accusation

actually it still is on ebay if anyone would like to check it out. I bid on it then had to retract the bid due to the fact it would cost more then a new one. Go to ebay and type in accessport. It will bring up one for a $100 starting bid and a $450 buy it now bid. so owell. im not going to buy it.

$100 isn't bad if it's married.

how do you figure????? yes its married but you cant unmarry it! unless you have Cobb reset it. they will charge 395 for a reset!

$495 ($100 married AP + $395 reset) < $595 (new AP)

Married AP will not work with ANY other car other than the original.

how much did you pay for it? I hope you didn't pay full price, otherwise you're screwed. $395 is what it takes for Cobb to have it cleared.

If you pay a hundo, then you're fine...

how do you figure????? yes its married but you cant unmarry it! unless you have Cobb reset it. they will charge 395 for a reset!
Simple mathematics, my friend.

Married AP will not work with ANY other car other than the original.

:lol: That's just hype.

:lol: That's just hype.



so i will work with another car???? jrs civic what do you mean by hype? IS that not true?

:confused:

(What knowledge you discover by yourself, for personal use on your property is not illegal. Giving that knowledge away freely or at a charge to the public is unfortunatly.)

jrsc are you talking about reflashing the firm ware? this i do have the capability of doing since we have an electronics lab and engineer on location but what to reflash it with is completely unknown. I dont know how to determine that. We would have to write a series of sectors and eproms. Or it may just be a simple plug into the comp and delete a special file. Im not sure. But the way you make it sound is that you can plug it into a same year car and be good to go. But i do want to agree with you about not releasing the info to the public. Cobb is a good company and loyal to subi so i would also feel bad about reseting the unit. On the other hand for people in my situation i think it would be nice because im not trying to cheat cobb. Im not sitting at home flashing cars. I just want a product from cobb to use on my car and in this case the person selling it forgot to unmarry it before he sold his car to the dealer. Kinda sux for him and kinda sux for me. This is just one of those things.

If you have access to an engineer who works with this stuff and a friend who has a married car + AP, tell your engineer you have:

1) Tools to read a stock ROM
2) Tools to read a married ROM
3) Access to a Stock ROM
4) Access to a married ROM
5) Tools to WRITE to a ECU whatever ROM you want.

He should be able to figure it out from there (as should you).

Another pointless post.

:rolleyes: ;)

:disco:

I wonder if cobb has ever thought this might happen...

I thought Cobb said it was unhackable and circumvention proof. :rolleyes:

Just goes to show you that you shouldn't toot that horn too loudly. Anyway, from the sounds of things it looks like people are just trying to get their used APs properly working. The license has already been sold to someone (Cobb got their money), then that someone decides to sell their AP without placing the license back on it (unmarry it). The purchaser of the AP then is stuck with the hardware, but no license and the seller is stuck with the license and no hardware. Two very important things to realize in this situation for both parties.

1) The seller (still having the license) can't benefit at all from it. They can't get ProTuned or anything because a ProTuner shop will not/can not tune without the AP available.
2) The purchaser of the hardware (not having the license) cannot do anything thing with it except use it on someone elses AP'd (proper license) car.

So, with all that said, the license is already sold... having Cobb charge an additional $350 to relicense the AP for someone is kind of steep, especially if someone already paid more then $245 for the used/unmarried AP.

In the end people will do what they want to do with what they have. I for one am happy that there are free tuning tools available (or soon will be) for the community to use. That way no one will get ripped off anymore because there won't be any of this mumbo jumbo license crap.

You should also tell your engineering friend what he is doing is illegal and that he's basically stealing from fellow engineers and car enthusiasts.

I can understand how some of you have issue with paying for a license fee when you purchase a used AccessPORT and the previous owner did not unmarry it. Every company has to set policies, and be consistent with them. Charging for a new license fee has been our policy up until now, and its definitely something we can review. The policy was put in place to deter stealing, not encourage it. IF our policies and actions were in place purely to generate profit then we wouldn't have even allowed the AP to be uninstalled in the first place.

As far as the AccessPORT being "hack proof", consider the fact that the current ability to "hack" the AccessPORT was developed by means of Trade Secret theft. I now know exactly where the information came from, the evidence has been provided to me and presented to my legal team is pretty clear-cut.

That's not to say we own the rights to reflashing the Subaru ECU. We obviously don't. Reverse engineering the AccessPORT itself could also not necessarily be considered illegal in some instances. However the evidence I have collected, and been provided, demonstrate an obvious case of trade secret theft and distribution...which is HIGHLY illegal and, particularly in today's current legal climate, not looked on mildly by the courts. Then there's also the issue of IP theft and distribution some of you others have also been committing.

At the end of the day, you just have to determine how much is it worth to you. The same for us with regards to taking legal action against particular individuals. If saving $350-$650 is worth thousands in legal fees, then by all means go right ahead. If running a web forum to distribute and profit off stolen trade secrets is worth risking nearly all your possessions, including your ~$1.2 million home in Seattle, then so be it. You have your decisions to make and I have mine.

Regards,
Trey

No one is stealing anything from Cobb. To the contrary... I don't see anyone here stating any pertinent information as to anyone's questions. The flashing technology used by you and other industry tuners is no different then what Subaru uses at the factory. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that if you're refering to anyone reverse engineering your device to build tools or software to flash their own ecu you're way off base. The people that work on some of these projects (presumably, because I don't know, but I'm pretty sure) used the same intelect that your programmers did when you were first designing your AccessECU flashing tools. The tools are made by really good engineers and programmers... they are the same type of tools as those available in the Honda camp... like Chrome and Uberdata. Hondata uses similar techniches in their devices and they didn't go on a legal rampage against anyone who used their own intelect to design something new from scratch. For that matter, no one (like Subaru or Denso) took legal action against your engineers when they started developing your flashing technology... just like EcuTek didn't either.

Bottom line here is that no one is out there sharing any trade secrets with regards to your company (at least that much is true for myself). Those select few that you see posting that they want a quick way to reset their AP are just trying to find a way to recoupe some of their money they just spent to buy their used AP from the theif that sold it to them to begin with. I'm sure those people would love to call you up and provide all the paperwork nessacery to show proof that they either got ripped off or that their car (along with ECU) were totaled and they could not retrieve their license for the AP due to certain restrictions. I think it would be fair to those individuals for Cobb to freely reset those APs in hopes of building their client base even further. You can certainly track which AP was sold to who based on their serial numbers. If the current owner can show you some sort of tracking proof that they bought the AP used or otherwise (like emails or sales receipts or whatever) I'm sure you can find it in your hearts to do them a favor. At that point you can even go after the original owner for license theft if you wish... because if they truly married their AP and then sold it just so that they would have a flashed car at no expense to them then it's obvious who the real theif is here... the original purchaser.

btw, what's this IP theft you're talking about anyway? You lost me with that sentance.

ibtl.

ibtl.

Heh, I had to look that one up. Never heard it before. :) I'm sure with all the opinions in here it'll probably get locked if not deleted. We've certainly gone way past the original point of this thread... a point for which there was no answer for or will ever be for that matter.

Ah hell, who believes anything on the Internet anyway... :lol: It's nice to see people still love and abide by the Constitutional right to "Free Speech". :rolleyes:

"Free Speech"

Free speech in this country gets you sued. :p

I didn't find that auction on ebay. I hope nobody actually bought it...

Free speech in this country gets you sued. :p

I didn't find that auction on ebay. I hope nobody actually bought it...

Link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cobb-Tuning-AccessPort-Subaru-WRX-MY-2002-2003_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33596QQitemZ802646 5649QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW) to completed auction (seach w/the advanced function, let's you search completed auctions).

There's a sucker born every minute.

M.

Free speech in this country gets you sued. :p

Actually a better statement would be. The Constitutional rights of every man or woman in America no longer hold valid because Congress is constantly making laws to circumvent it. The sad part is, everyone is too stupid to notice it... so it'll never stop.

IP theft = Intellectual property ie Access Port Software License.

Here's how I see it. The ecu belongs to the owner of the car. The original software on the ecu belongs to Subaru, until someone like AccessECU (Cobb) or ECUTek overwrites that software with one that they have developed. That software belongs to them and not the user. The user is "licensed" for that product for use on his car. If the car is sold with the licensed software on the ecu the license goes with the car unless the licensed is removed or the ECU sold.

No one is saying that Cobb or ECUTek have the rights to the software used to flash the ecu. Any 8 year old can write to a EEPROM. They do however have rights to the software that they've spent time and money developing for use on that ECU. Copy the software from a licensed ECU and redistribute it or strip the license from an unmarried AccessPort and re-write it to a married AccessPort and you're stealing, period.

Copy the software from a licensed ECU and redistribute it or strip the license from an unmarried AccessPort and re-write it to a married AccessPort and you're stealing, period.

That's just it... no one here has done this. Speculating on it's possibility and actually doing it are two completely different things.

At the end of the day, you just have to determine how much is it worth to you. The same for us with regards to taking legal action against particular individuals. If saving $350-$650 is worth thousands in legal fees, then by all means go right ahead. If running a web forum to distribute and profit off stolen trade secrets is worth risking nearly all your possessions, including your ~$1.2 million home in Seattle, then so be it. You have your decisions to make and I have mine.

Regards,
TreyNo offense, because I use and very much enjoy the AP/ST combo, but ECU flashing protocols and tool specifications are _BY LAW_ open to the public due to recent EPA legislation meant to prevent monopolies on vehicle service and maintenance by the dealerships. If the AccessECU system uses a non-open protocol (which it doesn't), then it is not legal for use on US roads. If somebody is able to use these open specifications and tools/protocols, then there is no lawbreaking and certainly no trade secret theft. :rolleyes:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=415280

Actually, as far as I can tell, the tools are not required to be open to the public. The specifications are all that is required.
That said, I don't think anyone is arguing that anyone doesn't have the right to flash the ECU. The contention is in what you are flashing. The AP ROMS belong to AccessECU, and is only licensed to the user. What is being suggested is how to copy those and use them unlawfully.
I am totally sympathetic to the buyers of used AP's when the previous owner has failed to unmarry the device, but the method suggested here is not honerable, and apparently even the tools are based on ill-gotten information.

I am totally sympathetic to the buyers of used AP's when the previous owner has failed to unmarry the device, but the method suggested here is not honerable

Sure it is. Guy A sells me an AccessPort. Forgets or otherwise is unable to unmarry the AP, but sends me a paperweight anyways. We have exchanged consideration for a product - he sold me not only the device, but the license to the device's code (the IP). At this point, once the consideration (my money) has been turned over, so has the license to me. At that point, I am the legal owner of that license, but unable to use it because of failure of the seller to perform the unmarry step. As a result, I must turn to other methods ot use this IP to which I have rightfully purchased a license. I am completely honorable in this. The dishonorable one is Guy A, in this case, not me. Now, granted, these methods COULD be used to screw over Cobb by a dishonorable person, but the use of the methods themselves is not per se wrong, nor illegal.

To extend your argument, programs like CDex (used for ripping CD's to MP3) should be per se illegal, because they could be used for stealing CDs, as should VCRs, because they can be used to duplicate movies. In fact, these ideas have been brought before the US Supreme Court (see Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc. et al.), and in 1984 the court ruled that such devices cannot be per se illegal, only the actions of the people committing the crime (or siginficantly aiding in the crime, which is called contributory infringement and very difficult to make a prima fascia case for).

Sorry for the long winded discussion, but I take offense to the suggestion that discussion of what would be required to backup my AP or EcuTek based ROM in protection of unforseen circumstances is dishonorable.

Yep... I agree. Trey (Cobb, I'll assume) seems to be complaining about the information spreading regardless of its purpose. He ignores the reality that his product's design makes it possible for unsuspecting people to buy an unmarried AccessPort and effectively end up with nothing. He's apparently willing to take the tradeoff if it means his "trade secrets" (and profits) are safe.

Right, wrong, whatever... if a piece of technology finds its way into enough hands, someone will reverse-engineer it. Companies can either work with users or be adversarial and try to fight them. It's hard for me to completely believe the "I'm just a tuner like you" line when he's complaining and charging $400 to unmarry a previously sold AccessPort.

Information wants to be free, and all that...

Do you guys understand what you are trying to do?
A married accessport means that the map is running on another car (it has not been removed)
Not only is this illegal, but each accessport has a lisence (for use on one vehicle at a time)
What you are trying to do is no different than driving to cobb tuning and stealing an accessport.
You got screwed, so get your money back instead of trying to steal.

You got screwed, so get your money back instead of trying to steal.

Its NOT STEALING. At the point that I PAID for the used AccessPort, I AM THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THAT LICENSE, regardless of where else it may be installed. It is my RIGHT to use it on MY CAR. The ****head who didn't properly unmarry it is the one who is stealing.

Right. According to Cobb (and most other "intellectual property" vendors) you're actually buying a license for the technology when you buy whatever it is. This is why Cobb allows anyone to download StreetTUNER from the website, but it requires a HASP USB key to run. You're basically paying $400 for the license and the key.

If you buy a supposedly unmarried AccessPort that wasn't really unmarried, the seller has effectively sold you a fake. The seller took your money and promised to give you that license in exchange, but he didn't do it. All you got was a cheap bit of electronics and a cable.

So... the guy who didn't unmarry the thing is the problem. Cobb sold a license, it's still floating around, but you (as the buyer) don't have it. This is where I have less of a problem with experimenting with that bit of hardware the seller sent you. I recognize it's difficult to sort out these cases from the liars, but I believe Cobb should be more accommodating. It's the AccessPort's design that allows this situation to occur.

How about this analogy...I buy some licensed software for my computer. I *MAY* be allowed to install it on more than one computer provided that I only use one at a time, say my home OR office. XYZ software company okays this. What they don't okay is for me to put copies on multiple machines to be used at the same time. Cobb allows you to put the AP on as many cars as you want - but just one at any given time. It is NOT their responsibility you want it install it on on car B but you (or the seller) neglect to un-install it from car A. Whether you like it or not, car A still has all the benefits of stage.

How is this analogy.. buying a computer game with the stipulation that you only can use it on one machine at a time (but can be loaded on multiple machines...computers) Alot of computer games these days are setup so that 1..if more than one computer is playing the same licensed came online at the same time it will void that license key.
Can we both assume in this case that the car that was previously sold (still using the acessport map) is most likely being driven by the new owner? In that case the lisence "sinorgy" is trying to reset is already in use. Honestly does this whole discussion come down to right or wrong? or cheap and greedy?

Right, there are licenses like that out there. Did you sign or see such a license when you bought your AccessPort? I didn't. Neither did you, I suspect. As such, its an invalid analogy, and since no explicit conditions of sale are posted, we in the US (except Louisiana) follow English Common Law, in which the doctrine of First Sale rules. Under this doctrine, once I pay you for something (even if its used), its mine. Granted, theres some sticky things about IP, and thats why we are seeing more and more issues with DRM on music, movies, and even software (witness the HASP key for ST, which is a GREAT idea).

So, granted, in the modern age there are risks to the IP developer of having his IP stolen. However, his right to not have his stuff stolen does NOT override my lawful and moral ability to purchase items and IP from private parties under First Sale. In the case in which I *unknowingly* purchase a paperweight AccessPort, I am the legally and morally correct owner of the license, regardless of where else that license may be in use. Anywhere else that it is in use is an illegal and morally wrong installation. Given that I am not able to use the provided device to access my legally purchased IP, I choose to use other methods to access it. This is 100% legal, and morally correct.

Here's a better analogy: You buy Microsoft Office 2004. Install it, etc. Use it for a while, record the serial # in a safe place in your DayPlanner. Then, your house gets robbed. They take your computer, and all your CDs. I have 2 options at this point:

1) Go buy a duplicate copy of office, paying $400 for a license for something I'm already licensed for.

2) Borrow my buddie's CD and install from it, using my personal key that i kept safe somewhere.

Morally, theres ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with option 2. I've not stolen anything. The guy that broke into my house HAS. He has my Powerbook, and is NOT licensed for the copy of Office on there. Does that suck for Microsoft that theres now another copy of Office running around? Yeah. Should that limit what I do to protect my licenses? Absolutely not. This idea has also been to the Courts, and the Home Recording Act explicitly allows license holders to take action to protect their use of these licenses (hence the legality to duplicate your own CD's for backup purposes).

What it comes down to is that if "sinorgy" found the (sold) car and unmarried the ECU he would be fine. The guy who sold it to him didnt sell him an accessport but only the device that loads it.
Analogys can be thrown left and right. What doesnt make sense is that every analogy you bring up is illegal. I dont blame cobb for inforcing things the way they do.

How can you prove that copied cd's are for backup use only?

What are the odds of an accessport being used on 2 cars and only one car being driven?

What it comes down to is that if "sinorgy" found the (sold) car and unmarried the ECU he would be fine. The guy who sold it to him didnt sell him an accessport but only the device that loads it.

False. He bought a license (sinorgy was never told before the sale that it wasn't properly unmarried) AND the device. The law here works on the 'reasonable person' standard. A reasonable person would expect that when he is sold a device with the intent to use it on a car and no mention is made that it is in an unuseable state that, in fact, the device is auseable and he is buying the whole thing, license and all. The guy sold him an AccessPort + IP license whether he liked it or not.


Analogys can be thrown left and right. What doesnt make sense is that every analogy you bring up is illegal.

Erm, no they aren't. Do you have any case law to backup your point, because I've provided some references, and you've provided assumptions.

I dont blame cobb for inforcing things the way they do.

Neither do I. They are welcome to do it that way. But I also don't blame users with valid licenses for trying use those licenses without paying Cobb. Cobb was laready payed for that license, and doesn't deserve any extra money.

How can you prove that copied cd's are for backup use only?

Don't have to. The law gives the user the benefit of the doubt. The prosecution or complainent has the burden of proof to show that they WERE USED to defraud or for other, illegal, reasons.

What are the odds of an accessport being used on 2 cars and only one car being driven?

Granted, highly unlikely. But thats not the point. The point is: Who is the legitimate owner of the license? In the case of sinorgy's issue, he IS the rightful owner of the license, and entitled to use it. The previous owner is the one who committed theft and fraud, and should be punished.

You just proved my point exactly. His argument is with the guy who sold the access ecu (hardware) to him in the first place. It is 100% not cobbs place to basically give this guy a new accessport.
Just like Subaru wont give you a new trans because the guy who sold you the modified car told you that everything was fine and he never raced or speedshifted.

You're right, its not Cobb's responsibility. But if you go back, I was responding the issue of whether its wrong to try reset it yourself, not whetehr Cobb shoudl give him a new one.

Actually if I were to buy a used car I probably test it out before I paid over the cash. That is an idea in itself.

If you bought a used copy of say Windows XP on ebay and it didn't come with a key you're SOL. Microsoft ain't helping you. Same issue.

/thread

If you bought a used copy of say Windows XP on ebay and it didn't come with a key you're SOL. Microsoft ain't helping you. Same issue.

/thread

Not the same issue, because Microsoft has an explicit clause talking about that. No such clause exists for the AccessPort.

I love how people feel comfortable saying /thread with no idea about the conversation or contract law.

Well then Cobb should just add that clause to their website and /thread

:p

Well then Cobb should just add that clause to their website and /thread

:p


They could, but that wouldn't affect the people who have already bought AccessPorts. If a company changes license terms after selling something, the customers who bought the product under the original terms aren't automatically bound by the new ones.

It's a good thing the world isn't really like some posts in this thread. Customers would basically have no rights... not that we aren't heading that way (quickly) anyway. :rolleyes:

what appears to have been overlooked in this fascinating discussion of contract law is:
sinorgy never actually purchased an AP, unmarried or otherwise. (see post #14)

to me it is fairly obvious that it is in Cobb's best interest to protect their property.
if some of the examples given were taken to a ridiculous extreme, then there might be only one AP sold. it would then be dishonestly sold to an honest buyer, who could then have a sympathetic Cobb fix it for free, whereupon they could flash, and dishonestly resell it to another honest buyer, who could then contact a sympathetic Cobb, ad nauseum.

obviously, it is in Cobb's best interest to support their product, etc, etc
but their primary interest must be SELLING it first!
they are not making anything extra when one AP changes hands multiple times.
it should be fairly obvious that Cobb has put the 'reset' service at a price point
that narrows the difference between "New" and "used and married".
since this is no secret (obviously, since sinorgy was aware of this when he asked his question), intelligent/informed buyers must either make sure that they are dealing with an honest seller, or KNOWINGLY assume a good deal of financial risk.

now, should an individual purchase a married AP (hereafter referred to as 'paperweight'), he or she can do w/ it as they please (being the rightful owner).
but their beef is with the dishonest seller.
if paying Cobb the stated amount to reset it is unpalatable, i have no idea what their options are (legally) regarding their lawfully owned paperweight.
it seems to me there is a lot of room for interpretation.
and basically, very few people are 'honest' when it comes to IP.

what appears to have been overlooked in this fascinating discussion of contract law is:
sinorgy never actually purchased an AP, unmarried or otherwise. (see post #14)


Granted - I was going by post #1. Nonetheless, the discussion is still worth having



to me it is fairly obvious that it is in Cobb's best interest to protect their property....


Obviously, Cobb is well within their rights to not make it easy for customers. No disagreement there - they have no obligation to assist a 3rd party sale.


now, should an individual purchase a married AP (hereafter referred to as 'paperweight'), he or she can do w/ it as they please (being the rightful owner).
but their beef is with the dishonest seller.
if paying Cobb the stated amount to reset it is unpalatable, i have no idea what their options are (legally) regarding their lawfully owned paperweight.
it seems to me there is a lot of room for interpretation.
and basically, very few people are 'honest' when it comes to IP.

It doesn't matter WHAT percentage of people are honest. If we are looking at this morally, I (the paperweight owner) am honest, and therefore have a right to use the purchased IP. If we are looking legally, the Courts ruled in '84 in the Betamax case that as long as 'substantial noninfringing uses' existed (not how COMMON they were), that the technology was per se legal.

Sure it is. Guy A sells me an AccessPort. Forgets or otherwise is unable to unmarry the AP, but sends me a paperweight anyways. We have exchanged consideration for a product - he sold me not only the device, but the license to the device's code (the IP). At this point, once the consideration (my money) has been turned over, so has the license to me. At that point, I am the legal owner of that license, but unable to use it because of failure of the seller to perform the unmarry step. As a result, I must turn to other methods ot use this IP to which I have rightfully purchased a license. I am completely honorable in this. The dishonorable one is Guy A, in this case, not me. Now, granted, these methods COULD be used to screw over Cobb by a dishonorable person, but the use of the methods themselves is not per se wrong, nor illegal.

To extend your argument, programs like CDex (used for ripping CD's to MP3) should be per se illegal, because they could be used for stealing CDs, as should VCRs, because they can be used to duplicate movies. In fact, these ideas have been brought before the US Supreme Court (see Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc. et al.), and in 1984 the court ruled that such devices cannot be per se illegal, only the actions of the people committing the crime (or siginficantly aiding in the crime, which is called contributory infringement and very difficult to make a prima fascia case for).

Sorry for the long winded discussion, but I take offense to the suggestion that discussion of what would be required to backup my AP or EcuTek based ROM in protection of unforseen circumstances is dishonorable.

Think of it this way, Guy A sells you what you believe to be a Rolex for $10. It stops working the minute you get home, do y ou blame Rolex and expect them to give you a new watch? Guy A is the criminal and you were the victim. Rolex was not involved. At most, they can go after the guy, but it's not their responsibility to get your money back for you.
I do not argue that backing up your AP or EcuTek ROM is dishonerable. That is not what is being discussed. Let's take the CD or DVD example. Guy A buys a DVD. Copies it to his computer and then resells the DVD to Guy B. The buyer(Guy B) is not at fault for piracy, Guy A clearly is. The advantage in that case is there is no penalty for Guy B and he would never even know. The problem in our discussion is that Guy B is now out because his AP is worthless. This is something he needs to take up w/ Guy A. You could even try to get Cobb involved to mediate the circumstances. I'm sure an agreement can be met.

I do not argue that backing up your AP or EcuTek rom is dishonerable. This is not a backup. This is Guy A still having the license, even tho he falsly represented what he was selling. He, in fact, did not sell the license, because the license and the software and all of the IP and privilages of that are directly linked to the vehicle to which the AP is married. Therefore Guy A is guilty of fraud. Guy B is a victim and I sympathize.

As to why the tools are illegal, they are unlike CDex or VCRs in which use licenses were bought or previously existing items were reverse engineered. Beyond that, I can't really say, except if I shoplifted a Sony VCR and sold it as a MrBell VCR, would you consider that legal?

It doesn't matter WHAT percentage of people are honest. If we are looking at this morally, I (the paperweight owner) am honest, and therefore have a right to use the purchased IP.

The problem here lies within the fact that you did NOT purchase the IP. You were the victim of fraud. Just because you believed your purchased something does not make it so.

The problem here lies within the fact that you did NOT purchase the IP. You were the victim of fraud. Just because you believed your purchased something does not make it so.


Actually, often it does. Your understanding of contract law is clearly limited.

Guy A had the license, and the right to sell it. He sells it with no caveats. A 'reasonable person' would expect he is selling not only the map transport device, but the license for its use as well, given that he did not state otherwise. Thus, I believed in good faith that i was buying the full thing (IP and all), and a reasonable person would have believed so as well, absent any additional information. As such, the case law does, in fact, hold that his license was sold to me.

i am not the spelling/grammar police, but please, there is one 'e' in honorable.
it's at the end.
:-)

meanwhile,
mcowger "It doesn't matter WHAT percentage of people are honest. If we are looking at this morally, I (the paperweight owner) am honest, and therefore have a right to use the purchased IP. If we are looking legally, the Courts ruled in '84 in the Betamax case that as long as 'substantial noninfringing uses' existed (not how COMMON they were), that the technology was per se legal."

i made my point poorly. you have a "right" to use your honestly acquired paperweight.
possibly even as an AP. :-)
what i was trying to say is that "right" may not extend as far as you 'borrowing' my temporarily unmarried AP, and somehow 'copying' its unmarried goodness over to your paperweight. the technology that allows this copying is, indeed, legal. the copying, in this case may not be legal.
(i will not say 'is not legal', because i do not practice law, and do not want to get drawn into a 'legal argument' w/ someone else who probably does not either)
i meant here in the age of kaza (?), bit-torrent (?), napster, rent-rip-return, etc
generally, IP rights are not very respected.

now, if inside the AP case was a small button that you merely needed to press to 'reset' your AP to unmarried status, i certainly agree that you would be well within your 'rights' to press it.

Actually, often it does. Your understanding of contract law is clearly limited.

Guy A had the license, and the right to sell it. He sells it with no caveats. A 'reasonable person' would expect he is selling not only the map transport device, but the license for its use as well, given that he did not state otherwise. Thus, I believed in good faith that i was buying the full thing (IP and all), and a reasonable person would have believed so as well, absent any additional information. As such, the case law does, in fact, hold that his license was sold to me.

So, are all victims of fraud legally entitled to what they believed they purchased?

So, are all victims of fraud legally entitled to what they believed they purchased?

Not all. In the case of something like a fake Rolex, they are clearly not entitled to a real Rolex, because a 'reasonable person' would not have expected to pay $10 for a Rolex. But given that I don't practice law (though I have had some training in it), lets stick with the moral argument.

However, in this case, yes, he is either entitled to use the license, or of a full refund from Guy A. Assuming Guy A cannot or will not give that refund, I am morally entitled to use my license. I'm not buying a AP, nor a reset button, but a right to use the 'Cobb AP AccessECU Technology and Maps'. Who cares where I get them (morally - there are other legal issues there)?

mcowger -
can we look at the OP's position for a minute?
i mean if someone KNOWINGLY buys a married AP, because it's cheap, based on the hope that either Cobb will let them off the hook or someone w/ some savvy will save them abt $400 to make it work, what would that person's rights be, in your opinion?

In the case of the rolex, say they paid $500 for it.... now are they legally entitled to a rolex? A reasonable person might expect to pay $500, but it's still fraud.
Yes, the person is entitled to a refund from Guy A. That is my point. That is the proper action in this case.

If they KNOWINGLY buy the AP in an unuseable state, **** em. They have no rights.

Where is the line drawn? I could "say" I bought my friends accessport and send it in to get reset.

What you dont know is that you cant "reset" them, Cobb has to reprogram the whole unit. This cant be done anywhere but cobb.. cobb has the hardware and software to do this. there is no hidden reset button.
Mcowger do you sit on NASIOC all day/night long?.. and just for kicks can you recite the legal matter mumbo jumbo you were stating earlier, because it sounded intelligent.
You just dont understand and I guess no one can talk sense into you. Do you remember back in the day going to visit grandma, and she would lay it on you how stubborn of a person you were? Those were the good days.

I don't see how you could even hack around this particular circumstance if you don't have the ECU that the AP was married to. I've never used an AP, but I can make some guesses on how they protect it, and my assumptions would lead me to believe this is a "too late" situation. I suppose anything is possible, everything is hackable, etc. I could think of a few things, but I'm uninterested in hacking Cobb's "copy protection."
As far as the AccessPORT being "hack proof", consider the fact that the current ability to "hack" the AccessPORT was developed by means of Trade Secret theft. I now know exactly where the information came from, the evidence has been provided to me and presented to my legal team is pretty clear-cut. Who is hacking the AP? Did I miss a meeting or what?

Trade secrets, eh? That can only mean you have recourse to a former employee or business partner with which you have an NDA, not the community at large. So why are you shaking your fist here, in front of your customers?

Trade secrets are vunerable, legally, to reverse engineering. If you don't want it reverse engineered, you have to patent it. You can't patent Subaru's IP. Pound sand, please.

mcowger - excellent. we are in agreement on that point.
:-)

02Toyo - if you were talking to me, i KNOW there is not a button.
(or more accurately, i don't think there is one, nor was i saying there was)

the discussion we were having revolved around the point that the AP unit 'could'
be reprogrammed by someone other than Cobb at a place other than Cobb's shop.
whether or not this was strictly legal or 'honorable' :-) would depend on the hypothetical methods used.

your statement "This cant be done anywhere but cobb.. cobb has the hardware and software to do this." seems a bit silly.

Trade secrets are vunerable, legally, to reverse engineering. If you don't want it reverse engineered, you have to patent it. You can't patent Subaru's IP. Pound sand, please.

Amen to that. The US intellectual property system is designed from the ground up to provide partial protection for the inventor and guaranteed availability to the public.

If you have a novel idea, you can keep it as a trade secret or patent it.

Patents force disclosure of the idea, but protect you legally against others duplicating your effort for a limited length of time. This gives you an opportunity to develop the idea without competition during the early phase of the market, providing incentive to the inventor. The incentive to the public, of course, is that an invention, once patented, is completely described and open to public scrutiny.

If your idea is not novel enough, or you don't want to go through the patent process, you can keep your idea as a trade secret... but it is no longer legally protected against reverse engineering.

There's even some legislation in the works that specifically permits using even patented tools to do scientific research in cases where the researcher is not going to patent the product of his or her research.

You can be secret or you can be protected, but not both.

/Andrew

EKW thank you for giving the community some hope, but honestly you are wrong... cannot be programed by anyone other than cobb.. unless you would like denso to flash back to stock, or go with another company like ecutek.

Honestly you havent figured it out and you havent started your own company like access ecu. But thanks for the hope.

02Toyowrx,
i am not trying to imply that i have done anything w/ an AP.
but the fact that Cobb can do it strongly implies that someone else 'could' do it.
not me. would not know how & would not bother. i have plenty of my own projects.

we are not talking about spinning straw into gold here. or flying by flapping your arms.
i am simply looking at it like a logic problem.
Cobb can do it --> it is possible to done.

if you are aware of some other fact that assures that no one else could possibly do it,
then please say so. most encryption/copy protection devices eventually fail in the face of a determined assault and improved computing power.

i am assuming you don't mean that the intelligence or the hardware exist nowhere else on the planet except Cobb's shop.

once again, i am not trying to be argumentive, but i cannot figure out the basis of your statement.
i own an AP. i have no intention or desire to alter, modify, tamper, or diddle.
i have no quarrel w/ Cobb.
my 'point', if any, is that i cannot comprehend how it would be impossible.
it's like saying "no one but the US could ever have a nuclear weapon"
or "no private enterprise could put a man in space"

i am forced to ask "why not?"

The AP isn't going to want to unmarry if you don't have the ECU. Sure there is probably a way to hack it, but it's not going to be easy, and you're not going to get an engineer to figure it out for you for less than $400 unless he's working for free. I think it's pretty obvious how the AP knows if you plug it into the correct married ECU or not, and the obvious copy protection scheme to implement in this circumstance would make it a sufficient pain in the rear to unmarry it.

^^^

http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/captain%20obvious.jpg

EKW I agree with your logic. Anything can be done for the right $$$price.

The overall argument here is ... He bought a empty box of second hand shoes, and the owner or whoever else is still wearing them.

Trade secrets, eh? That can only mean you have recourse to a former employee or business partner with which you have an NDA, not the community at large. So why are you shaking your fist here, in front of your customers?

Definitely not trying to shake any fists at our customers over the fact that some of our Trade Secrets have been stolen. My apologies if any of you have felt this way. The trade secrets I mentioned are OUR methods used to reflash the ECU, the actual AP firmware code, our unique map file format, the actual boot kernel we use, etc. Big picture stuff, not things like fuel map locations, etc. That's obviously not our property!

You are correct in that those issues are for us to deal directly with those parties in question. The only thing I'm asking the community to do is to not distribute copies of our ROM images or attempt, or make it possible, in any way to illegally use multiple copies of the same ROM image to be used on multiple ECUs at the same time. Feel free to learn from them, that's all part of reverse engineering. I can't say I get filled with glee seeing someone discover with a 10 second binary compare of my map data what may have taken me countless late nights to discover but hey, information just wants to be free, right? ;) Maybe in return I'll learn a thing or two...

The AP, just like the Subaru ECU, can be reverse engineered. Anything on this planet can be with enough determination. Likewise, the actual source code can also be stolen. One is legal, one is illegal. Had we stolen the actual source code to the Subaru ECU, or had it provided illegally by a (former) employee, you can bet DENSO would be dragging us to court. Particularly if we were using that information in a way that potentially hurt DENSO's sales directly.

I had wished the "open sourcing" of Subaru ECU reflashing had gone the legit route, and it may in the future. What you have currently however is a pseudo-open source distribution of what was originally illegally acquired source code (Trade Secrets).

Keep in mind the method to reflash the Subaru ECU is a bit more involved that simply sending it a few SSM commands. Also note that the SAE J2534 standard DOES NOT open the manufacturer's methods on how to reflash the ECU to the public. That standard is an API to interface with a standardized hardware device. The OEMs still keep their actual program code and methods behind closed doors as much as possible. In fact, Subaru themselves have yet to comply with the SAE J2534 requirements so currently that's a moot point.

My original hopes were that someone clever had "legally" reverse engineered the AccessPORT. Unfortunately information has since been presented to me that demonstrates that not to be the fact. Very unfortunately in my opinion...the ability to reflash the Subaru ECU was going to get out into the public as a matter of time. For any market that has offered a viable reflash solution, this has been the case and I had no reason to doubt it would be the same with the Subaru market. I just wish, for the sake of the enthusiasts and honest "hackers" out there interested in that level of toolset, a black cloud wasn't hanging over the entire project because of a lack of character amongst a few of its originators.

Consider it from another perspective as a business owner. If an open source community develops, its a great means for us to monitor and see who may show promise to work on these type of projects professionally (if they so desired). A win-win for all parties, we get someone we know has the knowledge-base and enthusiasm necessary to do this work and the other (if interested) gets paid a salary to do what they enjoy.

Thus far though, the "open source" of openecu has been a farce at least in the actions of its originators... there's not even a published boot kernel, which you HAVE to create yourselves in order to reprogram the ECU (its not a SSM function nor is it something you can just go and download from Subaru). There's also no documentation about the discovery process, how exactly things work with regards to reflashing, etc. Understandably most of you are only interested in the chicken (the ROM), but no one has yet explained where the egg came from. Additionally, if you want to use the "open source" tools, you have to purchase a cable made by the guy that wrote the software yet still hasn't found time to publish his "open source" work. Sounds quite commercial to me... deviously clever in fact.

So yes, you are correct in that my attentions are best paid to those that may have already stolen from us. I am by no means shaking my fists at our customers. I just feel as though you may want to know the source of my frustrations, and that they don't lie with the fact that openecu exists but rather the potentially illegal means in which it was created.

I'll commend many of you on the work you've done thus far with the tools. I won't discount your work simply because your source may have been dishonest. Dishonest with us and YOU. Of course that's simply my opinion based on the evidence I have. I'm not a lawyer, its up to the courts to decide who's right/wrong.

And finally, to the topic of this thread, we'd be open to any ideas the community can agree to with regards to how we handle used unmarried AP's. I'm interested in what ideas you all come up with. I'm positive an agreement came be made we all think is fair and reasonable (if our current policies are not).

Regards,
Trey

Definitely not trying to shake any fists at our customers over the fact that some of our Trade Secrets have been stolen. My apologies if any of you have felt this way. The trade secrets I mentioned are OUR methods used to reflash the ECU, the actual AP firmware code, our unique map file format, the actual boot kernel we use, etc. Big picture stuff, not things like fuel map locations, etc. That's obviously not our property!

You are correct in that those issues are for us to deal directly with those parties in question. The only thing I'm asking the community to do is to not distribute copies of our ROM images or attempt, or make it possible, in any way to illegally use multiple copies of the same ROM image to be used on multiple ECUs at the same time. Feel free to learn from them, that's all part of reverse engineering. I can't say I get filled with glee seeing someone discover with a 10 second binary compare of my map data what may have taken me countless late nights to discover but hey, information just wants to be free, right? ;) Maybe in return I'll learn a thing or two...

The AP, just like the Subaru ECU, can be reverse engineered. Anything on this planet can be with enough determination. Likewise, the actual source code can also be stolen. One is legal, one is illegal. Had we stolen the actual source code to the Subaru ECU, or had it provided illegally by a (former) employee, you can bet DENSO would be dragging us to court. Particularly if we were using that information in a way that potentially hurt DENSO's sales directly.

I had wished the "open sourcing" of Subaru ECU reflashing had gone the legit route, and it may in the future. What you have currently however is a pseudo-open source distribution of what was originally illegally acquired source code (Trade Secrets).

Keep in mind the method to reflash the Subaru ECU is a bit more involved that simply sending it a few SSM commands. Also note that the SAE J2534 standard DOES NOT open the manufacturer's methods on how to reflash the ECU to the public. That standard is an API to interface with a standardized hardware device. The OEMs still keep their actual program code and methods behind closed doors as much as possible. In fact, Subaru themselves have yet to comply with the SAE J2534 requirements so currently that's a moot point.

My original hopes were that someone clever had "legally" reverse engineered the AccessPORT. Unfortunately information has since been presented to me that demonstrates that not to be the fact. Very unfortunately in my opinion...the ability to reflash the Subaru ECU was going to get out into the public as a matter of time. For any market that has offered a viable reflash solution, this has been the case and I had no reason to doubt it would be the same with the Subaru market. I just wish, for the sake of the enthusiasts and honest "hackers" out there interested in that level of toolset, a black cloud wasn't hanging over the entire project because of a lack of character amongst a few of its originators.

Consider it from another perspective as a business owner. If an open source community develops, its a great means for us to monitor and see who may show promise to work on these type of projects professionally (if they so desired). A win-win for all parties, we get someone we know has the knowledge-base and enthusiasm necessary to do this work and the other (if interested) gets paid a salary to do what they enjoy.

Thus far though, the "open source" of openecu has been a farce at least in the actions of its originators... there's not even a published boot kernel, which you HAVE to create yourselves in order to reprogram the ECU (its not a SSM function nor is it something you can just go and download from Subaru). There's also no documentation about the discovery process, how exactly things work with regards to reflashing, etc. Understandably most of you are only interested in the chicken (the ROM), but no one has yet explained where the egg came from. Additionally, if you want to use the "open source" tools, you have to purchase a cable made by the guy that wrote the software yet still hasn't found time to publish his "open source" work. Sounds quite commercial to me... deviously clever in fact.

So yes, you are correct in that my attentions are best paid to those that may have already stolen from us. I am by no means shaking my fists at our customers. I just feel as though you may want to know the source of my frustrations, and that they don't lie with the fact that openecu exists but rather the potentially illegal means in which it was created.

I'll commend many of you on the work you've done thus far with the tools. I won't discount your work simply because your source may have been dishonest. Dishonest with us and YOU. Of course that's simply my opinion based on the evidence I have. I'm not a lawyer, its up to the courts to decide who's right/wrong.

And finally, to the topic of this thread, we'd be open to any ideas the community can agree to with regards to how we handle used unmarried AP's. I'm interested in what ideas you all come up with. I'm positive an agreement came be made we all think is fair and reasonable (if our current policies are not).

Regards,
Trey


You wouldn't be talking about me would you? The accusations you made to various people have gotten back to me and they weren't quite so vague. You do know that trade secret is illegal right? I think you'll solve your problems much quicker by taking your "evidence" to the police instead of just spreading lies to various enthusiasts/tuners. Or maybe you could just develop new ECU products yourself? (or is that too difficult now?)

Thanks for taking the time to write the reply and clarify your position, Trey. I'm certainly not interested in spreading full Cobb ROM images, nor testing or telling people how to work around AP marrying scheme. I don't think I've seen anyone post to that effect either, here or on openecu.

oman, Trey alluded to whom he was speaking of in his other post, and it wasn't you.

You qualify all of your statements as opinion in the end, but really you are seeding numerous rumors and accusations here without a factual basis. I can understand that you may be disappointed that there is an open-source solution out there which competes with your commercial product. To assume however, that the work I have done for openecu.org is somehow derivative of the work that your company has done is somewhat egomaniacal. Do others accuse you of stealing reflashing or logging technology from EcuTek or Techtom? Will you be publishing your notes and source code soon so that others and I can verify that this is not the case?

I publish all of my source code on the openecu.org site. So far my kernel source code has not been on the site because I use a commercial assembler to assemble it, and therefore it can not be made using free build tools. There is not a version of the GNU assembler for the HC16, unfortunately. The kernels I am currently writing for the Subaru DBW ECUs and the Mitsubishi EVO use a GNU cross-compiler for the SH processor family, so that situation will improve. I will publish the source for the WRX today regardless, just to make you happy. You are in fact the first person to ask for it - hopefully you will find it and subsequent kernels to be useful learning tools. Don't worry - I won't accuse you of stealing if you look at it too long... :)

I'd also like to point out that the openecu.org project has been very respectful of any potential copyrighted materials from Cobb or others. Unlike the topic of this thread on NASIOC, you won't see any descriptions of how to circumvent the AccessPort marriage process, or images of Cobb maps on openecu.org. Why steal from others when you can make something better for yourself instead?

Colby

Thus far though, the "open source" of openecu has been a farce at least in the actions of its originators... there's not even a published boot kernel, which you HAVE to create yourselves in order to reprogram the ECU (its not a SSM function nor is it something you can just go and download from Subaru). There's also no documentation about the discovery process, how exactly things work with regards to reflashing, etc. Understandably most of you are only interested in the chicken (the ROM), but no one has yet explained where the egg came from. Additionally, if you want to use the "open source" tools, you have to purchase a cable made by the guy that wrote the software yet still hasn't found time to publish his "open source" work. Sounds quite commercial to me... deviously clever in fact.

So yes, you are correct in that my attentions are best paid to those that may have already stolen from us. I am by no means shaking my fists at our customers. I just feel as though you may want to know the source of my frustrations, and that they don't lie with the fact that openecu exists but rather the potentially illegal means in which it was created.

As promised, the source code is available here:

http://openecu.org/viewtopic.php?t=245

Don't worry - I won't accuse you of stealing if you look at it too long... :)


LOL :D

Well, hopefully that puts this issue to bed.

I guess it doesn't hurt to fling an accusatory dart in the hopes of hitting something solid, right?

bump for a well put together thread.

You can sum this thread up in on sentence. "You get what you pay for." If you pay less money you take the chance it'll be a POS, just gotta cut your losses.

edit: jeeze, didnt realize this thread was so old. Whoops!