Hello again Steve,

You, and everyone else on this or any other forum are more than welcome to share your opinions and interpretations with everyone. I encourage this.

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, didn't play one on TV, and didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Nor am I inclined to engage in intellectual property matter, but will stand my ground in a most extreme manner when challenged in regard to ethic. So far I haven't encountered anyone copying my work, although I did shut down a guy on ebay for using my product names in his ads.

I respect the work of others, and expect the same in return.

Sorry you weren't impressed with my dyno results. If you would like, I can send you a chip to try in your car and you can let me know your personal/professional opinion.

Regards,
Russell

I like to use the factory O2 for that reason, I like for it to maintain stoich when it wants to. The parameters of 'when it wants to' can indeed be reprogrammed. The part throttle maps are correction maps. You could completely flatten them out at a certain level and the car would run, albeit not efficiently. You could then reprogram the feedback calculations to maintain whatever AFR you want when not under load. Any/all voltage based functions take place outside of the chip, like the AFM/MAF sends a voltage signal to the DME via an analog to digital converter in the main board. It translates that voltage to a digital number between 0 and 255. Calculations are done based on these digital representations of analog voltage levels. I can take a throttle position switch with a 0-5V potentiometer in it I can negate the AFM all together on a normally aspirated car and re-write the AFM translation function in the chip to make the load maps line up right. Then of course the regular maps have to be tweaked to optimze this sort of metering. There's many ways of doing things.

Regards,
Russell

"A note on copyrighted material, unless you have changed all code including the 'hidden' code and not used any Porsche/Bosch original code, you have no copyright claims to your products."

That's it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All turners have infringed. Tuners have NO copyrights based on what all have done,
i.e. MODIFIED maps. Too bad Porsche has "better fish to fry". Any attempt for litigation
between tuners will have no legal merit based on code copyrights.

Bottom line: It all amounts to who can "throw" the most hyperbole and the naivete
of the market, as we've seen for many years on this forum.

Loren you already hold the record for this, bar none. :cool:

- Actually, that is not true. He may have tied Tabs, Island or others for being obnoxious, but his technical information is usually spot on. However, I would not hire him as an intellectual property attorney.

With all due respect, Randy, I think there's little dispute that Loren is unable to be objective regarding performance chips, regardless of his expertise in other areas. "Bottom line" :D

As a guy who has attempted to sell his own chips, with modified maps, this would also include YOU, correct? Some might call your comments hypocritical. "Have fun!" :rolleyes:

I'm always excited to see another entry in the tuning market, and look forward to the move to 993 software.

<open popcorn>subscribed

"However, I would not hire him as an intellectual property attorney."

Let's get specific:

Issue: Does one have copyright protection by modifying the original work,
i.e. copyrighted material?

Rule: Copyrighted material is an original expression, e.g. book, painting, computer
program, binary code, & etc. which has been published and noted as such,
or has been granted permission to include others' copyrighted works
in newly created expressions.

Application:

1. One who creates a totally original & unique work, e.g. book, painting, computer
program, binary code, & etc. or incorporates another's copyrighted material
with express permission and DOES NOT rely on the another's copyrighted material
for viability, has therefore created a copyrightable expression/work.

2. One prints a new book, "Joe's 911 Engine Re-Building Book", but copies all parts of the
original book ("The Porsche 911 Engine Re-Building Book") but just adds an index which
the original book lacked and now allows the readers to find topics FASTER. Hardly a new
& original work which DOESN'T rely on the original book and as such is not copyrightable.

3. One disassembles the "WIN XP O/S" and adds a "patch" to allow FASTER O/S booting.
After re-compiliing, publishes the modified O/S as "Super Boot O/S" and claims copyrighted
material. Hardly a new & original work which doesn't have "unique value" or "stands
on its own".

4. One copies published Porsche race track images from a Porsche PNA Cup Car Owner's
CD and includes them on a CD with a few personal POC event track day images, and sells
the CD as "Porsche Race Days", that requires his unique supplied CODEC to view, and
claims copyrights. Although, the new CD is in another form/language (e.g. different EPROM
or re-flash), it still lacks uniqueness and independent originality in expression, notwithstanding
the lack of permission/approval from Porsche.

5. A 911 DIY owner decides to scan & OCR his "Porsche Workshop Manual" onto CDs
after changing the font type & size, e.g. DME map values, and sell the CDs on eBay
claiming copyright protection by the imprint on the CDs. This is not a new and nor an
original expression which would have copyright protection. By just changing the form,
i.e. fonts & CD medium - values, the original copyrighted expression is still maintained.

Conclusion:

All (2-5) are deriative works & lack originality, uniqueness, sufficient difference,
and proponderence of independence of expression to claim copyrights,
AND all lack permission of the original copyright holder. Thus, there's no
basis for copyrights. Modifiying engine management map tables while relying
on the original binary coded algorithms to implement them, is not copyrightable.
Furthermore, claiming copyright protection (map modification) while violating another's
copyright (Porsche original coding) has no legal standing.

Russell
Can you make it work with a MAP instead of a AFM/MAF?
Working with a MAP one will be able to remove the AFM/MAF completely and remove that restriction.
Form there, one can probably change the complete intake to ITB, making a small vacuum manifold to smooth out the signal to the MAP like the one posted in other tread.
Did there is enough mapping possibility in the Motronic to do something like that? That can made the switch to ITB cheaper...

Hi Patrice,

All I can really say here is that I am currently working on MAP solutions for a lot of different cars. Unfortunately, I learned early on that I can't disclose the details of the development work like I used to because other vendors take advantage of my ideas and work. So, yes, this can be done, and yes, something like this will be done. On my support forum there is a member only general discussion area where I speak more openly about product development, I encourage you to join. http://forums.maxhpkit.com

I will also gladly answer a PM on the matter.

Regards,
Russell

Loren, you probably shouldn’t rely on Google or Wikipedia searches to educate yourself. I can think of dozens of obvious and glaring exceptions to your “rule and application”. Anyone else want to give this a shot first?

"I can think of dozens of obvious and glaring exceptions to your “rule and application”."

So, let's hear it!

Or do we get the same brain-dead personal attacks as always from the same ones who
contribute nothing other than B.S. and who always cry (can't take it) to the moderators
when they get their stupidity pointed out in response to those attacks?

We're waiting, or do we have to wait for you to take a law class or mostly likely complete
your H.S. first? Or neither, and just continue as a sign painter whose most complicated
issue is what size brush to use.

Graphic designers created the Campbell's logo and the label design for their soup cans. These designs are copyrighted. Andy Warhol, WITHOUT permission from Campbell's, used the image verbatim in a work of fine art. However Warhol's painting IS protected by copyright, and his copyrighted work may be reproduced for profit (ie on calenders, T-shirts, postcards, etc.) by the foundation bearing his name.

James Rosenquist "lifts" images of unknown origin from commercial art (newspaper and magazine ads, billboard art, etc.), without permission from whoever created them or paid for them to be created. Some of the images are copyrighted. He incorporates them into his paintings without permission of the copyright holder(s). Yet the paintings ARE copyrightable, may be reproduced by him for profit, etc.

A recording artist "samples" bits of sound from a copyrighted recording by another artist, without permission. The second recording is still protected by copyright law, may be reproduced for profit, etc.

Need more?

BTW, my challenge to you is still on the table - provide proof of your ridiculous claims regarding performance chips and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. This challenge has remained unanswered for nearly three years. Time to put up or shut up, Loren.

My one communication with the moderators about you was in response to an email I received from you that I perceived to be threatening. You seem to be determined to get yourself banned again.

"I just can't hold my tongue on this one."

Then try and hold it or contribute something of value!

So what's your contribution? The other post's examples were totally inapplicable!
A real joke and exemplifies a lack of understanding of the issue.

Campbell's logo - trademark
images of unknown origin - non-copyrighted
"samples" bits of sound - sound in itself is not copyrightable

Most of the last several posts are inapplicable to this thread -- also if you want to debate intellectual property law, this is not the place to do it.

So please move yourselves to OT and let this thread get back to it's captioned subject.

I'm still curious how my 944 race car gained so much time per lap after a chip change.

According to Loren, it wasn't possible.

well that's simple, your wallet was lighter...

:)

Practically every post on the chip subject posted on this board ends up the same way.
For those that think there is nothing out there that compares to the stock chip why bother even posting here. If you are not interested in the product the man has brought here (other than to poo-poo it) then just take it some place else.

I for one am interested in the subject regardless of whether I buy one or not. What is not interesting is seeing the same old tired arguments from the same tired folks.
Give it a rest. If people want to buy custom chips they will buy them. Getting on here crying gloom and doom will not stop that but it is sure to get some people angry.
Of course sometimes that seems to be the agenda.
Just my .02

Label design: copyrightable.
Rosenquist images: read it again, some are copyrighted.
Samples: sound in a specific arrangement is copyrightable.


So it's OK for you to comment on the copyright issue, but not others? The guy who started the thread has addressed the issue, as has Steve W. and now Loren, so it seems it's part of the discussion. But I do agree, probably time to drop it given that Loren can't seem to engage in a civil discussion with anyone.