Blundar,
I can see that your relaxed in this issue and your all open to hearing what they have to say, and thats respectable. Your from "what forums that I see your typings on are neutral and not defending either sides" but are willing to smooth out the whole deal. Hondata does need to level with you and keep the money making machine"lawyer" out for a sec so you two entities can have a real dicussion. He's there to just make money and he will try and pre-thought what you will ask and say and he will have a anser for them to read. That why they sometime sound like a robot. If I was you I'd get online and have a video meeting and make sure that $ man is out of the room. And have them say he is out of the room.
Guys "Hondata" I love your products and I like dealing with you over the net but once I talk to you on the phone it's like you outsorced your companies reputation in helping people to the A$$e$ in the Bronx. People dont want to deal with a$$e$ and it seems that with your comments of 14 yr olds and the lack of corroperation and trying to smooth things out just makes people turn away. I'm going to do so once I get my Boost control installed into my S300. Not going through the attitudes that people in Cali have for people out East as seen here.
Hondata Sueing Dave Blundell?
-
trainjunkie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:42 pm
i think what you guys at hondata are trying to do is absolutely ridiculous, and you will reap the public backlash from this for years to come. By going through with this, you are steeping on the feet of many an open source tuner, the amount of people that support david and his cause FAR outnumber the amount of people that support your product and I'm sure you realize this. Nothing good is going to come of this conflict between hondata and Mr. Blundar. You may think that your cause is sound and it only affects Mr. Blundar but you are way wrong in that asumption, in going through with this, you have now just stepped over the line, that line being the difference in being a grassroots supporter and taking the step towards a monopoly. These people WILL NOT support your product, your so called cause, even though you think it is just. You fail to see this through the eyes of the open source tuner. You have just taken a resource and member of the tuning community that is highly respected away from us and in doing so, have just hung yourself out to dry. We all know that you delete posts on this forum, and I'm sure this post will not make it onto your forum for long, do you think that is ok to shut down people that support this hobby? what do you think your doing by deleting posts from people that are voicing their opinions? you delete them because it's easy to do so, you delete them because you have the power to right? do you think you have the power to stop us from talking, no of course you don't, but then why do you delete our posts? is it because you are afraid of letting others see and hear what they have to say? you know that it is not the voice of the one that does anything, but it is the voice of the many, and believe me the many voices of this great community WILL NOT FORGET what is happening here and your support from us is going to drop, you may not think so, but boy oh boy, you will see for yourselves in due time. I think that you need to lookback to your roots, maybe that will help in allowing you to see what is going on here, this attack on our hobby by a company that makes a living from us, if people do not buy your product, you do not benefit, I think you need to remember that once in a while.
First of all I was going to stay out of this, but...
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the only function of this program to pull a copy of the bin file off a Hondata modified ECU?
To me that only gives the person using the software the ability to look at the compiled code, which most people would have no idea of what to do with from there. For the few people that would know how to de-compile the file and know how to understand the code, it wouldn't be very hard for them to set up a port logger and get the data with out the use of this program.
Does that not state that you have already been compinsated for your "loss"?Hondata wrote:We did take action against the author / uploader of the software, and that was settled last year.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the only function of this program to pull a copy of the bin file off a Hondata modified ECU?
To me that only gives the person using the software the ability to look at the compiled code, which most people would have no idea of what to do with from there. For the few people that would know how to de-compile the file and know how to understand the code, it wouldn't be very hard for them to set up a port logger and get the data with out the use of this program.
-
raceaccordingly
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:07 am
Long time Hondata user/lurker here... but this case really boggles my mind.
How does Hondata prove who/how many people have downloaded the software in question and that they had the sole intent of of using this software for financial gain?
Under what law is Blundell breaking by not not obliging to your verbal request?
Was there some sort of legal literature or some sort of "subpoena" that was sent to Blundell to prove that the software was indeed infringing on your IP and a demand for it be taken down under a certain time frame? This isn't like Youtube where the material in question can easily be deemed an infringement.
Under what precedence does Hondata use to claim that a time period of "well over 1 day" as acceptable or unacceptable?
Court order says Blundell intentionally acted to harm Hondata? What evidence proves that Blundell had any malicious intent? Did he or anybody for that matter gain anything financially from this software being posted?
Why is this a Civil lawsuit if its basis is protection of intellectual property?
How does Hondata prove who/how many people have downloaded the software in question and that they had the sole intent of of using this software for financial gain?
Under what law is Blundell breaking by not not obliging to your verbal request?
Was there some sort of legal literature or some sort of "subpoena" that was sent to Blundell to prove that the software was indeed infringing on your IP and a demand for it be taken down under a certain time frame? This isn't like Youtube where the material in question can easily be deemed an infringement.
Under what precedence does Hondata use to claim that a time period of "well over 1 day" as acceptable or unacceptable?
Court order says Blundell intentionally acted to harm Hondata? What evidence proves that Blundell had any malicious intent? Did he or anybody for that matter gain anything financially from this software being posted?
Why is this a Civil lawsuit if its basis is protection of intellectual property?
It is difficult to answer many of the questions because they are points of law and we seem to be the only party which has been briefed in this area.
However, lets look at the facts quickly without getting into the legal parts:
- Software was posted that had no legitimate purpose other than to download our IP. This was clear and Blundell acknowledged this.
- Blundell was contacted about the software, but did not do anything about it. He had ample opportunity - there were other posts by him on the same forum in the 48 hour timer period. Again, Blundell has acknowledged this time period and his lack of response.
It's pretty clear that Blundell's reponse to our request was not reasonsble. Even worse, Blundell suggested this would happen again and he would not do anything in the future either. Also Blundell has maintained an anti-Hondata approach for some time. These facts have more weight in whole than taken singularly.
We wanted to try and prevent the same thing happening again. We negotated for over 6 months in good faith, with requests that were reasonable and easy to implement. Blundell abandoned the negotiation process, and now here we are. No fun for any of us.
However, lets look at the facts quickly without getting into the legal parts:
- Software was posted that had no legitimate purpose other than to download our IP. This was clear and Blundell acknowledged this.
- Blundell was contacted about the software, but did not do anything about it. He had ample opportunity - there were other posts by him on the same forum in the 48 hour timer period. Again, Blundell has acknowledged this time period and his lack of response.
It's pretty clear that Blundell's reponse to our request was not reasonsble. Even worse, Blundell suggested this would happen again and he would not do anything in the future either. Also Blundell has maintained an anti-Hondata approach for some time. These facts have more weight in whole than taken singularly.
We wanted to try and prevent the same thing happening again. We negotated for over 6 months in good faith, with requests that were reasonable and easy to implement. Blundell abandoned the negotiation process, and now here we are. No fun for any of us.
Hondata
-
raceaccordingly
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:07 am
Sh*tty situation for both parties, but its going to be difficult to prove this "infringement" of IP has lead to a financial loss for any kind of judgment especially when the author of the software and/or uploader is not involved due to jurisdictions.
Theres a difference between anti-Hondata and an advocate of DIY tuning, but this may be hard to distinguish from a Hondata point of view.
Theres a difference between anti-Hondata and an advocate of DIY tuning, but this may be hard to distinguish from a Hondata point of view.
-
JaredKaragen
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:53 pm
In response,
I must add my .02c
Does the fact that ~10 copies were downloaded? And, how many K-series mods has anyone hear a tick about in the last year? Let alone any OBD2 mod that is actually usable without being the same price as any competitor's OBD2 product?
Remember, copying _data_ that you already own is not legal at all, it is decompiling or doing something else with it _and/or distributing/selling it_ that makes it illegal. Also, modifying data that you own is legal, with credit to the author, distribution of it has it's own set of rules....
I listen to mp3's on my PC; I have a huge collection of scratched and broken CD's, but I have downloaded the MP3's to replace them. The mp3's arent illegal because I own it already. Legal backups are acceptable in the data world. Blundar, I hope your lawyer knows this; There are no rules on _how_ it must be done.
It is _my perogtive_ to be able to modify the IP for MY OWN USE _as I see fit_ Just as you have done with the honda code [I don't see any differences in either scenario; hacking your way in to get the ECU code, then modify and upload for my use]. you took someone else's IP, and added your own, thus creating a set of both, and Honda is nice enough to let you sell their IP along with yours; and I bet they get no royalties! If I were to use that program(just as ECU's were hacked before to get the ROM), and modify the data, it becomes MY IP combined with the previous right? (same scenario); I just have to obide by the origional owner(s) distribution terms(if any);
But then again, does your software allow you to save a tune as a file and load it into another vehicle? I am not fermiliar, thus I ask because it may pertain.
Granted, it could be used to steal your IP; but anyone can do that with simple tools used the right way; and more than a basic knowledge.
How was the outcome against the poster?
Does the fact that ~10 copies were downloaded? And, how many K-series mods has anyone hear a tick about in the last year? Let alone any OBD2 mod that is actually usable without being the same price as any competitor's OBD2 product?
Remember, copying _data_ that you already own is not legal at all, it is decompiling or doing something else with it _and/or distributing/selling it_ that makes it illegal. Also, modifying data that you own is legal, with credit to the author, distribution of it has it's own set of rules....
I listen to mp3's on my PC; I have a huge collection of scratched and broken CD's, but I have downloaded the MP3's to replace them. The mp3's arent illegal because I own it already. Legal backups are acceptable in the data world. Blundar, I hope your lawyer knows this; There are no rules on _how_ it must be done.
It is _my perogtive_ to be able to modify the IP for MY OWN USE _as I see fit_ Just as you have done with the honda code [I don't see any differences in either scenario; hacking your way in to get the ECU code, then modify and upload for my use]. you took someone else's IP, and added your own, thus creating a set of both, and Honda is nice enough to let you sell their IP along with yours; and I bet they get no royalties! If I were to use that program(just as ECU's were hacked before to get the ROM), and modify the data, it becomes MY IP combined with the previous right? (same scenario); I just have to obide by the origional owner(s) distribution terms(if any);
But then again, does your software allow you to save a tune as a file and load it into another vehicle? I am not fermiliar, thus I ask because it may pertain.
Granted, it could be used to steal your IP; but anyone can do that with simple tools used the right way; and more than a basic knowledge.
How was the outcome against the poster?
rsmith2786 wrote: Furthermore, i am confused by the fact that your software contains intellectual property of Honda or their supplier but yet are selling and profiting from something that that was not entirely developed by Hondata Inc.
Hondata wrote: rsmith2786: We have rights to our code in the ECU. Even if a derrived work then it still has protection under the law. This is not about gaining money from the lawsuit, this is about protecting our property...
Hondata wrote: - Software was posted that had no legitimate purpose other than to download our IP.
Hondata wrote: ...what we have done to the ECU was done in a legal fashion.
As I understand it, the piece of software that started this mess just opens the door for derivative works to your software in the same relationship as your product does to Honda's OEM ECU. I say this because just as Hondata relies on Honda's ECUs, the allegedly infringing program relied on a K-pro to work. If you were deprived of income as a result of the software posted, I could understand your perspective much easier. Just like Honda, you still get a sale unless I misunderstand the capabilities of the software - it can't work without your product.JaredKaragen wrote: It is _my perogtive_ to be able to modify the IP for MY OWN USE _as I see fit_ Just as you have done with the honda code [I don't see any differences in either scenario; hacking your way in to get the ECU code, then modify and upload for my use]. you took someone else's IP, and added your own, thus creating a set of both, and Honda is nice enough to let you sell their IP along with yours; and I bet they get no royalties! If I were to use that program(just as ECU's were hacked before to get the ROM), and modify the data, it becomes MY IP combined with the previous right? (same scenario); I just have to obide by the origional owner(s) distribution terms(if any);
If the piece of software posted was illegal because it downloads your IP, what was the piece of software/hardware you used to download Honda's IP? Your previous statements suggest you did not license it, so you reverse engineered it. Or is K Pro an original software work that simply uses Honda's hardware? This isn't what you advertise in your training classes. I'm confused.
I think you need to be a lot more precise about "this" if you're going to make this claim. I think you are twisting my words to suit your own ends. See discussion of 1c below.Hondata wrote: Even worse, Blundell suggested this would happen again and he would not do anything in the future either.
I really think you are mistaken here. I have not carried on an "anti-Hondata approach." I have not said or posted anything slanderous - unedited communication can't really lie. Self-preservation is a defensive move, not an attack. Furthermore, if I was genuinely out to get you guys, there would already be cracks for S200, S300 available now. I must have been either exceptionally lazy or preoccupied for my "anti-Hondata approach" to prove so fruitless - you know as well as I do that "hacking" your OBD1 systems is a trivial task for anyone with a 66K disassembler and assembler. I personally think that the fact such softwares aren't broadly available says miles more about my stance towards Hondata's work and the direction I pushed PGMFI. Again, please do not take this as a threat - it is only meant to try to provide an alternate perspective to the one you appear to hold. The evidence I see does not point to me having a disposition towards hurting Hondata - actually the opposite. Besides, Jared is 100% spot on right -Hondata wrote: Also Blundell has maintained an anti-Hondata approach for some time.
JaredKaragen wrote: Granted, it could be used to steal your IP; but anyone can do that with simple tools used the right way; and more than a basic knowledge.
We can quibble over who abandoned the negotiation process, but it's not going to help anything. If anything, I think your attorney has failed you by burdening an agreement we made with impossible terms. His disposition as reflected in his communication has/does not help either...Hondata wrote: We negotated for over 6 months in good faith, with requests that were reasonable and easy to implement. Blundell abandoned the negotiation process, and now here we are. No fun for any of us.
The "settlement agreement" I received last year did not resemble the agreement discussed at SEMA. Several things were added in excess of what we agreed on, and unfortunately some of these differences were the dealbreakers for me.
Refer back to the settlement agreement you signed off on last year, as I will be referencing this document. Many of the recitals were distasteful, but I probably would have swallowed and moved on if it wasn't for some of the more important issues. Likewise, confidentiality and some of the moderator access stuff and whatnot you requested was pretty abhorent. But again, these weren't the dealbreakers.
Notably:
1c: Not discussed at SEMA, "immediate" increases required duty of care beyond that legally required. Silly of me to agree to because it only sets me up for a future action if I cannot respond immediately. PGMFI was not, is not and will not be my central life activity. I cannot and will not ever promise immediate action. Although you may not have "meant" that, signing said agreement would have made me legally obliged to a greater duty of care than I was able or prepared to provide. This alone was a dealbreaker. This is also the same point I believe I was trying to make to you on that phone call where you are twisting my words.
1i: Not discussed at SEMA, same argument as above - vague and unclear. I'm not voluntarily sticking my head into a noose of obligations I'm not in a position to provide.
1j: Agreeing that Hondata will have the final say about any changes that are part of this agreement is the ultimate trump card. My lawyer explained it to me as "If we want to change any demand we have made in this agreement to meet our satisfaction we can." This defeats the whole point of an agreement - knowing what is required. Considering the implications of this clause, I again could not allow myself this kind of exposure.
8.8 Governing venue for "any and all future..." - no thanks.
Many other things in your agreement were exceedingly unpalatable, but it probably could have flown except for the things specifically noted. I hope you read over this and realize that we really were not that far from talking to a workable solution. If we could have managed to get your lawyer, my lawyer, myself and yourselves on the phone long enough to ... Instead I got sick of being pushed around and threatened over a matter blown far out of proportion. Almost a year later, we are here.
Think on that one for a minute. Then think about what you're going to do about it now. The past is already gone and the future is yet to be made.
I'm still trying to talk because I think that's best for everyone.
Sincerely,
Dave "anti-Hondata" Blundell
p.s. Sorry for using your forum as a venue to communicate, but I'd still rather talk to you than your lawyer. He might be good in court, but he's "too busy" to be very effective communicating over email.
the trouble is that this statement implies that someone actually downloaded your IP AND used it for their financial gain AND redistributed it- something which not only hasn't been proven, but no evidence to even ATTEMPT to prove it has been shown.Hondata wrote: We wanted to try and prevent the same thing happening again. We negotated for over 6 months in good faith, with requests that were reasonable and easy to implement. Blundell abandoned the negotiation process, and now here we are. No fun for any of us.
requesting to be a ghost moderator on pgmfi with the ability and authority to remove ANYTHING you deem unpalatable regarding hondata is anything BUT reasonable.
i can understand you wanting to protect your IP, but the fact of the matter is that your SPECIFIC IP was not ever posted anywhere. someone posted a way to get your IP, but it was removed shortly thereafter and as has been pointed out earlier, NONE of it has surfaced since. there are no k-series developments to speak of.
an example comes to mind:
recently, one of our local news organizations aired a special about "lock bumping." this is the practice of making a sawtooth key and inserting it in a lock and pounding it to release the lock. theives use this method for burglary without damaging the lock.
by your example, i should sue the owner of the local TV affiliate that aired the special because they allowed the airing of information that made the means to steal my property public knowledge.
now, i have no proof that anyone actually used this method to steal anything of mine. nothing of mine is specifically missing. but now, in order for me to dismiss the charges, i believe that i am entitled to simply phone the TV station and make them cease ANY broadcast that i disagree with or that i find threatening. i want direct and unquestioned control of the content of future broadcasts, just in case they poitn out a way to break into my car- even if no one ever does. if i don't get what i want, i will sue.
does that seem reasonable?
After reading all of this and several other threads related to this on various forums, I feel Hondata is right. All of these "counterclaims" about Hondata's "stealing the software from Honda are irrelevant at best. (It's like I have a friends car at the track but your telling me not give you shit about sitting on the hood.) The only info I see worth considering are the facts:
Someone illegally posted software
Hondata asked for it to be removed
Hondata's request was dully noted
Downloading continued
Moderator at the time continued with his inaction
Downloading continued
Software was removed 48+ hours later
Hondata: WTF
Blunder: My bad. I know I made other posts in the same 48+ hour period I should have been using 1 minute of to delete the post with software I told you I would.
Everyone else: Besides, aren't you stealing Honda software anyway?
Someone please tell me if I'm missing something here?
Someone illegally posted software
Hondata asked for it to be removed
Hondata's request was dully noted
Downloading continued
Moderator at the time continued with his inaction
Downloading continued
Software was removed 48+ hours later
Hondata: WTF
Blunder: My bad. I know I made other posts in the same 48+ hour period I should have been using 1 minute of to delete the post with software I told you I would.
Everyone else: Besides, aren't you stealing Honda software anyway?
Someone please tell me if I'm missing something here?
-
cardinal811
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:18 am
the issue that i'm trying to discern isn't that software was posted. it's whether the software posted ACTUALLY was hondata's IP. from what i gather by the court documents, what was posted WAS NOT hondata's IP, it merely made their IP downloadable.knwldge54 wrote: Someone illegally posted software
if the specific file posted was not, in fact, hondata's specific IP, then hondata's case doesn't have a leg to stand on, period. their lawyer is taking advantage of them.
-
cardinal811
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:18 am